HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-23-036 - Supplemental - 0024 Berard Drive (14)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-23-036_24 Berard_ECI_2023-09-19
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 13, 2023
Plans received: August 11, 2023
24 Berard Drive
Site Plan Application #SP-23-036
Meeting date: September 19, 2023
Owner
K&S Properties, LLC
P.O. Box 2187
South Burlington, VT 05407
Applicant
Ken Pidgeon
Engineers, Construction, Inc.
PO Box 2187
South Burlington, VT 05407
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0200-00024
Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers
164 Main Street, Suite 201
Colchester, VT 05446
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Site plan application #SP-23-036 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.
CONTEXT
#SP-23-036
2
The applicant has submitted this application in order to continue using the site to place construction fill.
The current application proposes a final condition instead of a duration, effectively meaning the
applicant could use the site to place material until it reached the proposed grade. This is consistent with
how other earth moving project sites have been reviewed and permitted in the City. The property is
located in the mixed industrial-commercial zoning district. It is immediately adjacent to a warehouse
building and an electrical substation, with a variety of smaller uses including auto repair, dog grooming,
and gymnastics across the street. Visibility onto the site from the public right of way is largely screened
by at least 50-ft of existing vegetation. The site contains a number of natural resources, including river
corridor, 100-year floodplain, class II wetland and wetland buffer, habitat block, and steep slopes.
PERMIT HISTORY
The property received approval on March 23, 1998 to place construction fill on this parcel for a period of
10 years (see attachment). That permit has since expired but the applicant has continued to place
construction fill. That approval included very limited information and did not speak to site access or
layout.
In 2004, the applicant obtained a subdivision to add a small amount of frontage on Berard Drive at the
southern end of the property.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Planning Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 8/11/23 and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for
the Board’s attention are indicated in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
There are no existing or proposed structures on the property, therefore building coverage and setback
requirements are not applicable.
Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Ö Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 7.68 ac No change
Ö Max. Overall Coverage 70 % 27.4%1 Unknown1
Ö Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown No change
√ Zoning Compliance
1. The applicant reported a lot coverage of 4.74%. However, based on measurement of areas
the applicant indicated as gravel (which is considered impervious surface under the Land
Development Regulations), Staff estimates existing coverage to be 27.4%. The applicant has
not made a statement as to what the final surface treatment of the proposed fill area will be
therefore it is not possible to determine what the proposed lot coverage will be. However, if
the entire 3.5 acre fill area is finished as gravel, the proposed lot coverage would be 45.6%,
which is below the maximum allowable lot coverage, leaving additional allowable coverage
#SP-23-036
3
for an entrance driveway. Nonetheless, for recordkeeping purposes, Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update calculation of both existing and proposed lot coverage
based on the outcome of the remainder of the DRB’s review of the project.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate
parking areas.
The applicant’s narrative states describes the use as “the storage, recycling, and disposal of materials for
ECI’s constructions projects, as well as storage of construction equipment.” The applicant describes
estimated traffic as 44 vehicle trips per hour, with six (6) PM peak hour trips. The trips consist
predominantly of dump trucks with two employee vehicles. Necessarily, since construction equipment is
proposed to be stored, trips will also include large articulated trucks with flat beds.
Staff considers that the Board should impose conditions that require the existing vegetated buffer to
remain, discussed below. Staff considers that due to the nature of the site as a location for placement of
excess material to be wasted, the location of parking areas will change over time.
(2) Parking
There are no parking spaces proposed.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and
architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers,
screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different
architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
Staff considers these criteria to be not applicable.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
Standards of Article 12 are discussed below. Applicable standards include 12.03 Steep Slopes, 12.04
Habitat Block Overlay, 12.06 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures, 12.07 River Corridor
Overlay District, and 12.08 Floodplain Overlay District.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement
of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting,
and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
#SP-23-036
4
The purpose of this application is to provide disposal of construction materials as well as storage of
construction equipment. The standards mentioned in this criterion are included in Article 13 and are
discussed below.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation
standards of Section 15.A.14.
The site has two access points on Berard Drive, one at the north off the cul-de-sac and a second at the
southern end of the public street frontage. The southern access point has an extremely limited sight
distance of approximately 40-ft. Like most local public roads, the speed limit on Berard Drive is 25 mph
and on-street parking is permitted on either side. The southern access point was developed for the
adjoining property but merged with the subject property in 2004 when a subdivision took place to
convey land from the southern property to the subject property. The plans and decision associated with
that approval do not address what is approved to happen with the transferred access point, though a
plan associated with the sketch plan of that 2004 subdivision implies that it was proposed to no longer
used by the adjoining lot (see screenshot below).
2. Due to the limited sight distance and turning radius, Staff has significant concerns about truck
movements here and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plans such that the
southern driveway cannot be used by any but passenger vehicles.
3. Further, the applicant is proposing an equipment storage area near the southern end of the frontage
on Berard Drive in the location of the former parking lot for the adjacent property. Staff considers the
use of this location for equipment storage to necessitate use of the southern access point by articulated
hauling vehicles, which is unsafe. Since this storage area could not alternatively be accessed by the
#SP-23-036
5
northern access point, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to remove the storage area
and locate it elsewhere on the site accessible from the northern access point.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design
Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the
standards contained therein.
Building form standards do not apply to this zoning district.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing
structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the
City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade
adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards
contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements
of these Regulations.
No modifications to a structure are proposed.
G. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
4. It appears by placing boulders along the adjoining property lines the applicant will be removing access
to the adjoining lot. The primary access to the adjoining lot is from a more southerly segment of Berard
Drive, as can be seen on sheet C-1.0 Overall Plan. Given the type of vehicles that use the subject
property, and the above recommendation to reduce use of the southern access point, Staff considers
no cross-lot connections to be necessary. Staff recommends the Board confirm their agreement with
this assessment.
H. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and
Services, shall also be met.
There is an existing overhead power line crossing but not serving the site that is not proposed to be
affected by this application. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
I. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
Staff recommends the Board confirm there is no dumpster on site for landfill waste. If there is, the plan
should be modified to provide enclosure. A small toter-type waste receptacle does not require
enclosure.
#SP-23-036
6
14.11 Site Plan and Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards
F. Alteration of Existing Grade
(1) Approval Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam,
topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards,
except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot,
shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board
may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the
removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section
14.11(G), Earth Products.)
(2 ) Standards and Conditions for Approval.
(a) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with
the standards contained in this Section 14.11(F) and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these
regulations. An application under this section shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and
the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material.
In lieu of providing a proposed grade, the applicant has provided the following note on the plan:
Proposed +/- 3.5 acre area for continued fill placement on site, the proposed limits extending
to the northern and wester property line setbacks. Proposed finished grade to match the
elevation of the “upper” southern portion of the site and elevation of Berard Drive, creating
an open flat area with 2:1 side slopes along its eastern limits.
Staff considers the proposed language to be a little unclear and proposes the following instead
of the second sentence:
Proposed finished grade to be lower than or match the existing elevation at the property line
setback, creating an open flat area with 2:1 side slopes along its eastern limits.
5. Existing grade at the limits of the fill area is approximately 279’, with some minor variability.
The existing embankment is 2:1. Staff recommends the Board and applicant carefully review
the proposed modified language and confirm it produces a clear, measurable, and desirable
final condition.
(b) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems
necessary, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will impose a limit on the permit timeline.
Staff considers the Board may alternatively find that the permit will expire when the grading
reaches the conditions described above.
(ii) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of
the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other
appropriate measures.
7. It does not appear the applicant has provided a rehabilitation plan. Staff recommends the
Board circle back to whether they will require such a plan prior to closing the hearing or as a
#SP-23-036
7
condition of approval after discussing the comments of the Stormwater section below.
(iii) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 17.15 adequate
to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations.
Staff does not consider a bond necessary for site restoration unless the Board finds it shall
require the applicant to establish a small bond for final stabilization.
(iv) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07,
Height of Structures.
8. The proposed final condition will create an essentially level site. Staff recommends the Board
ask the applicant to describe for what purposes the final condition could be used. If the final
condition could be used as a building site, Staff recommends the Board establish the proposed
condition as pre-construction grade.
C) ARTICLE 12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
The site contains a number of natural resources, including river corridor, 100-year floodplain, class II
wetland and wetland buffer, habitat block, and steep slopes.
This section is organized to review each applicable natural resource, and then return to standards
applicable to all natural resource impacts.
12.03 Steep Slopes
Steep slopes are defined as those between 15 and 25%. Very steep slopes are those over 25%. Human-
made slopes that are previously permitted by the City are exempt from the definition of steep slopes.
The site has large areas of slopes over 25% that are clearly human-made. While any slopes constructed
since 2008 (the expiration of the previous approval) are technically not previously permitted by the City,
Staff considers the Board may wish to exempt all human-made steep slopes since it is somewhat
infeasible to differentiate those constructed prior to 2008 and those constructed since that time.
In addition to the human-made steep slopes, there appears to be at least one and potentially two areas
of natural steep slopes. The first is at the toe of the human-made slope proximate to the Winooski
River. The second is at the west side of the site proximate to Berard Drive.
E. Standards.
(1) Very Steep Slope Standards. Development other than Restricted Infrastructure
Encroachment is prohibited on very steep slopes.
9. Slopes proximate to Berard Drive exceed 25%. Unless the applicant can demonstrate that the
slopes in this area are human-made as part of the expired approval, or an older approval, Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the limits of the proposed fill area to
exclude what remains of these natural very steep slopes.
(2) Steep Slope Standards.
The toe of the human-made slopes near the Winooski River is generally between 15 and 25%.
The applicant is not proposing any new work in this area.
#SP-23-036
8
(a) All development must be designed to avoid undue adverse effects on steep slopes
which may include, but are not limited to, undue clearing of vegetation, excavation,
and/or filling.
(b) All recommendations of the slope stability analysis submitted with the application shall
be required by the DRB or Administrative Officer.
Staff considers these criteria met.
12.04 Habitat Block Overlay District
The project contains a small area of habitat block on the western side of the site, approximately 800 sf
of which is impacted by an existing stone spillway and the existing sediment pond.
D. Modification of Habitat Block.
An applicant may request approval from the Development Review Board to modify a Habitat
Block in any of the following manners. An applicant may select any one of the three modification options below. A development application may not include more than one option for any
application.
(1) Minor Habitat Block Boundary Adjustment. An applicant may apply to modify the boundary
of a Habitat Block by up to fifty (50) feet in any direction to account for site-specific
conditions, upon written request by the applicant as part of the requisite application. Any
proposed reduction in Habitat Block area must be offset with an equal addition elsewhere
within the same subject parcel or Planned Unit Development. The land to be protected
through the modification of the Habitat Block boundary must be contiguous to the Habitat
Block. In no case shall the Development Review Board approve a net reduction of the area
of a Habitat Block.
The applicant is proposing to modify the boundary of the habitat block to allow the existing
stone spillway and sediment pond to persist. The maximum width of the adjustment is 13 ft.
They are proposing to designate a new 800 sf area just south of the area to be removed. Staff
considers this criterion met.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition specifically stating that the sediment pond
and stone spillway may only be enlarged to the west, to prevent future encroachment into
the habitat block.
(2) Small On-Site Habitat Block Exchange.
The applicant is not proposing this type of exchange.
(3) Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange.
The applicant is not proposing this type of exchange.
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
The property contains a riparian Class II wetland along the Winooski River. In this industrial zoning
district, it is subject to a 50-ft buffer. Existing impacts include the location of concrete barriers at the toe
of slope, and the presence of the existing stone spillway downstream of the existing settling pond.
#SP-23-036
9
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection.
(4) Pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures and impervious surfaces.
(a) Gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures, and impervious surfaces located within
a wetlands buffer that were legally in existence as of the effective date of these regulations
shall be considered non-conforming development. Non-conforming development within a
wetlands buffer may not be expanded.
The applicant verbally indicated to Staff their belief that removing the concrete barriers would
require a greater impact to the wetland, in order to access them with the equipment necessary
for removal, than allowing them to remain. Staff recommends the Board permit the concrete
barriers to remain even though they are no longer serving a purpose, and include a condition
that the sediment pond and stone spillway may not be expanded.
12.07 River Corridor Overlay District
There is a small area of existing impacted river corridor. There is no proposed expansion to the river
corridor impacts. Staff therefore considers these criteria not applicable. No additional vegetation
clearing is permitted.
12.08 Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
The site contains 100-year floodplain for the Winooski River. A portion of the mapped floodplain is in
the area proposed to be filled, highlighted in yellow in the below screen shot.
The project also proposes impacts to the 500-year floodplain, not shown on the map submitted by the
applicant. This area surrounds the impacted 100-year floodplain, and is shown in light purple on the
below GIS map excerpt.
#SP-23-036
10
D. Administration.
(1) Floodplain Review. All development in the City of South Burlington located within the
Floodplain Overlay District shall be subject to Floodplain Review. The Floodplain Overlay
District overlays other existing zoning districts. All other requirements of the underlying
district shall apply in addition to the provisions herein, unless otherwise indicated. The
Floodplain Overlay District is composed of two areas:
(a) Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30. The boundaries of these Zones
include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current
flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program and
mapped as Zones A, AE, or A1-30.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 5007C0256D shows this site contains an area of Zone
A.
(b) Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2. The boundaries of these Zones
include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current
flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, and as
depicted on the Natural Resources Map as Zone 0.2% B1 and Zone 0.2% B2. Floodplain
Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1 is composed of areas of the 500-year floodplain that are
already substantially developed and where additional opportunities for infill
development is appropriate. Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B2 is composed of
areas of the 500-year floodplain that are not developed and where future
development is not appropriate.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 5007C0256D shows this site contains an area of Zone
0.2%.
(2) Interpretation. The information presented on any maps, or contained in any studies,
adopted by reference, is presumed accurate. However, if uncertainty exists regarding the
Floodplain Overlay District boundary, the following procedure shall be followed:
#SP-23-036
11
(a) If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District
Zones A, AE, and A1-30 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the
Administrative Officer. If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the
Administrative Officer, a Letter of Map Amendment from FEMA shall constitute proof
that the property is not located within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
Staff, in their capacity as Administrative Officer, has reviewed the flood insurance study
and FIRM associate with this location and determined the base flood elevation in this
location is between 204 and 205. Extrapolating the survey contours, it appears the
impacted area was once within the base flood elevation. However, since the area has
since been filled, the Administrative Officer finds the impacted area of flood plain to be
incorrectly mapped and the base flood elevation is now at the toe of slope. Therefore
no impacts to Zone A are proposed.
(b) If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District
Zones 0.2% B1 and B2 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the
Administrative Officer. If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the
Administrative Officer, the applicant may appeal the determination in accordance
with Article 17.
Staff, in their capacity as Administrative Officer, has reviewed the flood insurance study
and FIRM associated with this location and determined the 0.2% chance annual flood in
this location is between 207.7 and 209. Similarly to the base flood elevation, since the
area has been filled, the Administrative Officer finds the impacted area of floodplain to
be incorrectly mapped and the 0.2% flood elevation to be approximately 3 – 4 feet up
the rock-stabilized slope from the toe. Therefore no impacts to Zone 0.2% are
proposed.
D) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage
Bicycle parking for non-residential usage is based on square footage of buildings. Since there are no
buildings on the property, Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees.
C. Screening or Buffering.
The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening
along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are
dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance
should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is
otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a
residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible
from a public street.
10. The applicant is proposing to retain a 30-ft vegetated buffer between the site and the public street.
#SP-23-036
12
There is no existing or proposed buffer between the site and the warehouse site to the south. Staff
recommends the Board determine whether to require screening in this location. If so, the following
standards apply.
(1) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height (minimum of
three (3) feet) and opacity to effectively screen the parking or loading area year-round
from adjacent public streets.
(2) Screening of a parking or loading shall be provided where headlights from vehicles on
site may be visible and project parallel to a public street.
(3) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height and opacity
to effectively screen outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and compost collection
(excluding on-site composting) areas.
(4) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on
the site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment
of the Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from
the view of persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for
such planting shall be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the
Development Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by,
respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements.
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses.
In the case of non-residential and multi-family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage
along designated arterial and collector streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance. Landscape elements that reduce
stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration are encouraged. The Development
Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of sections 13.04(F) and (G).
Staff considers this criterion met.
13.05 Stormwater Management
Staff reviewed the project with the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent on 9/12/2023. South
Burlington stormwater management standards are applicable to developed properties involving more
than ½ acre of impervious surfaces. This type of use, consisting of ongoing construction rather than a
developed property, is not contemplated in the LDR. The use instead is similar to the State’s Multisector
General Permit (“MSGP”) program regulating industrial activities. The MSGP requires stormwater
management akin to erosion prevention and sediment control. Accordingly, the City Stormwater
Section provided the following comments on the project’s erosion prevention and sediment control.
The existing catch basin in the center of the site shall be equipped with inlet protection until such
time as it is capped to allow ongoing fill of the property.
The existing sediment pond shall be cleaned and enlarged on an as-needed basis to capture and
treat flows prior to discharge.
#SP-23-036
13
11. In conjunction with the conditions imposed above pertaining to alteration of grade, Staff recommends
the Board find that the site shall be topsoiled and seeded once final grade is met, and once final grade
is met shall no longer be permitted to be used as a contractor yard. If the applicant desires to continue
use as a contractors’ yard, a portion of the site will be considered impervious and will require
stormwater treatment pursuant to the LDR, and site plan amendment will be required.
13.06 Airport Approach Cones
All applications for development within the Airport Approach Cones, as shown on the Overlay Districts
Map, involving new or expanded buildings or structures shall provide documentation that either a
Notice to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is not required, or an application for a Determination of
No Hazard has been submitted to the FAA. Where an application for Determination of No Hazard has
been submitted, no zoning permit for construction shall be issued without demonstration of receipt of an issued Determination.
The project is located in an Airport Approach Cone but no buildings or structures are proposed. The
applicant has received a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA.
13.07 Exterior Lighting
No exterior lighting is proposed.
13.08 Outside Storage and Display
A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and
equipment shall be subject to the following provisions:
(1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed
only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan,
conditional use and/or PUD application.
12. Staff considers the primary use of the property to be a place to waste excess materials and the
secondary use to be contractors’ yard, though the LDR does not have a defined use for “waste excess
materials” or similar. Staff recommends the Board confirm they agree with Staff’s interpretation that
the outdoor storage associated with the contractors’ yard is appurtenant as required by this criterion.
(2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with
commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise
an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft,
or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels.
13. In addition to the screening from the public road discussed under 13.04, the applicant is proposing to
install boulders “or equivalent” along the north and south property lines, presumably to prevent
encroachment into adjoining properties. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant what “or
equivalent” might mean. Fences must be shown on the site plan and details provided if proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
#SP-23-036
14
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner