HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/19/2023
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2023
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19
September 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to
Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Stern, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J.
Moscatelli
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review
Planner; J. Carswell, K. Pidgeon, D. & M. Clifton
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Ms. Keene noted the City is looking for interested parties to fill the vacancy on the DRB.
5. Site Plan Application #SP23-036 of Engineers Construction, Inc., for after-the-fact
approval for a contractor’s yard and alteration of grade. The project consists of
authorizing the continued use of a contractor’s yard to place fill materials, 24
Berard Drive:
Mr. Carswell said the property was originally a fill site permitted in 1998. It is now used a s
contractors’ yard to stockpile materials and also for some fill.
Mr. Kochman asked whether there is anything in the existing permit that prevents storing of
toxic chemicals. Mr. Carswell said there is a State permit that regulates what can go into the
site. Ms. Keene also noted what the LDRs will and will not allow. Mr. Kochman asked if the
State permit is still in effect. Mr. Carswell said it is. Ms. Keene noted that the City permit has
expired, and they need a new permit.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
19 SEPTEMBER 2023
PAGE 2
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Lot coverage needs to be updated for the present and future plans. Mr. Carswell
said what he used to determine the impervious on the site was to take a 20-foot corridor to
where it meets the road. The water ponds and seeps through the loose gravel area. Ms. Keene
said lot coverage does not necessarily relate to impervious; it is what appears to be covered.
The gravel counts as coverage. She believed the site to be below the maximum allowable
coverage. This can be a condition of approval.
#2. Staff recommends modifying the southern driveway so it can be used only by
passenger vehicles (not trucks). Mr. Carswell said it can be an entrance only for larger trucks
which could exit onto Berard Drive. Other vehicles could still exit at the southern access where
sight lines are a question. Ms. Keene said that would create an enforcement issue. A photo of
the area was shown. Ms. Keene said that when she visited the site, she was uneasy exiting at
the southern access. Mr. Pidgeon, owner of the property, said he doesn’t have an issue with
making that an entrance only and having everyone exit to Berard Drive. Members agreed to
have the southern access be an “entrance only.”
#3. Staff suggested removing the storage area and relocating it to the north. Mr.
Carswell questioned why this should happen as it still works for them. Members agreed it was
not relevant to the decision.
#4. Staff questioned whether a cross-lot connection was necessary. Mr. Carswell said
they will agree to placing boulders.
An un-numbered comment questioned whether there is a dumpster on the site. Mr. Carswell
said there is not.
#5. Mr. Carswell was fine with the modified language.
#6. Staff questioned whether there should be a time limit for the permit. Mr. Kochman
said he saw no reason for a time limit. Members agreed.
#7. Staff noted they have not seen a rehabilitation plan for when the site is no longer
used for its current uses. Ms. Keene questioned whether this should be a condition of
approval. Members agreed to return to this item after the other staff notes.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
19 SEPTEMBER 2023
PAGE 3
#8. Staff questioned what purpose the final site could be used for. If it can be used as a
building site, a pre-construction grade must be calculated. Mr. Carswell said it is most likely
going to be a construction staging area, and they would have to come back to the DRB for
approval. Mr. Behr suggested a condition that requires this. There should also be a
rehabilitation plan if the staging area doesn’t happen. Ms. Keene said as they get close to being
at grade, they should begin to think about a closure plan. Ms. Wyman noted there are already
conditions from the state regarding this.
#9. Staff noted that the slopes proximate to Berard Drive exceed 25%. Unless they can
be determined to be man-made and previously permitted by the city, they are exempt from
regulations regarding slopes. If they are natural, the slopes cannot be impacted. Ms. Keene
showed the slope area on the plan. Mr. Pidgeon said they were probably created by the
pushing of materials around the site. He added that if they can fill the area, it will create a
gorge in the middle of the area. A 1962 orthophoto was shown indicating the slopes. Mr.
Pidgeon said they were also part of the Interstate construction area. Mr. Kochman suggested
saying that it is probable the slopes are man-made. Members were OK with that.
#10. Staff questioned whether there should be a buffer between this site and the
warehouse. Ms. Keene noted an area where there is no screening. Ms. Carswell wasn’t sure of
the use of the warehouse, possibly kitchen appliances. Mr. Kochman said if they don’t cater to
customers, he saw no reason for screening. Mr. Behr suggested waiting to see if there was any
public comment regarding screening.
#11. Staff noted that if the applicant wants to continue to use the site as a contractor’s
yard after it is filled, stormwater treatment will be required. Mr. Moscatelli noted that if the
technically never “finish,” they never have to deal with stormwater. Ms. Keene said the State
will have a role in this, as to which permit the property is under. Mr. Moscatelli questioned
whether this is a reason to have a time limit. Mr. Pidgeon said the time depends on how much
material they get. Mr. Kochman suggested the permit runs until they real level grade or 10
years, whichever comes first. He felt 10 years was reasonable. Ms. Keene noted the applicant
has been using the site for 25 years. Mr. Kochman felt a review in 10 years wasn’t burdensome.
Members agreed with that language.
#12. This item was already addressed.
#13. Staff questioned what the applicant means by “or equivalent” with regard to the
boulders. The applicant agreed to strike “or equivalent.”
Members returned to item #7 and agreed it had been covered in subsequent comments.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
19 SEPTEMBER 2023
PAGE 4
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Clifton, owner of a retail business across the road from the applicant, said his customers are
terrified pulling out of their driveway because of the limited sight lines. He suggested the
applicant move the access down the road between the 2 buildings where there will be more
than adequate sight lines. Ms. Clifton also noted that large trucks cannot enter that driveway
without pulling into the left lane for a considerable length of road. He felt it was a bad place to
have an entrance. In addition, because there are so many potholes, cars are also starting to use
the other side of the road.
Mr. Pidgeon did not dispute that trucks have to use the other lane to turn. He thought
widening the curb cut might help. He wasn’t sure about moving the access road.
Mr. Behr noted that with Mr. Clifton’s driveway directly across the road, trucks have to pull into
part of that driveway to turn.
Ms. Keene said there is a perfectly viable access to the north, and maybe that is the solution.
Mr. Kochman suggested the applicant get together with the Cliftons and come up with a plan
that can accommodate both uses. They agreed to do this. Ms. Keene said whatever they
decide, there will have to be a professionally designed access.
Mr. Moscatelli then moved to continue SP-23-036 until 17 October. Mr. Kochman seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
6. Minutes of 6 September 2023:
Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 6 September 2023 as written. Ms. Philibert
seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:50 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on November 7, 2023.