Loading...
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.