Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_Minutes PAGE 1 DRAFT Minutes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 December 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; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; K. & N. Wright, N. McGovern, K. McGovern, G. Rabideau, G. Bourne, J. Desautels, G. Winslett, T. Easton, K. Easton, L. Kupferman, D. Walrath, Shane, M. Turner, S. Dooley, N. Gingrow, R. Bourne, J. Bellavance 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: There were no announcements. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 2 5. Continued Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-12 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105-acre lot developed with 2 single- family homes and 6 unoccupied or accessory structures. The Master Plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately 1 acre to abutters, and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single- family to 12 units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 3 January 2024. Ms. Mann moved to continue SD-23-12 to 3 January 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Ms. Wyman abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-15 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0-acre lot developed with 3 homes into a general PUD consisting of 11 single-family home lots ranging from 0.38 acres to 1.14 acres and one 1.0 acre open space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan and the process. Mr. Wright explained that this 10 acres is what is left of a family farm. One house was left to each of his grandfather’s children. He said he would now like to add houses so that his children can come back and raise the fifth generation of Wrights on the property and allow his sisters to have lots as well. He said he does not want to sell any of the lots. His sisters do not want to build at this time, but his children are “ready to go.” The applicant explained that the property is in the I-O District. Prior to Act 47, they were looking at a 3-lot subdivision with one acre civic space. With Act 47, they went back because they can now create lots for their children because the Act allows development at 5 units per acre with municipal water and sewer. He showed the original plan and a new alternative layout. There are 11 lots proposed. All can be served by municipal water and sewer. There is stormwater mitigation on site. They are considering a narrow private road. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 3 #1. Staff asked whether the Board agrees this project meets the requirement for municipal water and sewer. Mr. Kochman questioned whether staff is being consistent regarding water/sewer on this property and not on a subsequent issue regarding conserved property. Ms. Keene said the Board should make decisions on a case-by-case basis until the Planning Commission changes the LDRs. Mr. Kochman said Act 47 in directed on these large lot residences to allow for more density. He added that he had no problem allowing this, but he cautioned that staff won’t have the ability to have “Mr. Tophats” come in and keep their large lots. Mr. Moscatelli noted that Act 47 would like 57 units on this property. In this case, he said, it makes sense to say the parcel is served by municipal water/sewer. Ms. Mann agreed as did other members. #2. It was noted that Act 47 supersedes the LDRs regarding setbacks. The applicant noted that they were trying to bridge the current regulations and Act 47. A PUD requires setbacks they cannot meet. Ms. Keene said she didn’t know why they were proposing a PUD when it is not required and not needed and is more complicated to do. Mr. Kochman asked if the setbacks are waivable. Ms. Keene said they are. Mr. Kochman asked whether everything on Hinesburg Road is existing and remaining. The applicant said it is. #3. Regarding delineating the wetland, the applicant said if they can get onto the neighbor’s property, they will do that. There are no wetlands on this property, but the setback from the wetland does fall on this property. #4. Regarding phasing and timing they applicant said they are contemplating a one to two year buildout for the first houses. With regard to the road buildout, they are suggesting a possible “loop road” to start with. Ms. Keene asked if they would be building the northern lots first. Mr. Wright said they would. The others are not ready to construct. If they never got built, that’s OK. Ms. Keene said given that those lots may not be built now, she asked if the Board wanted to see phasing for the loop. Members said they did. #5. Staff recommended discussion on how the applicant proposes to meet the requirement for contiguous open space with several lots. The applicant said they feel the open space desire relates to the property on both sides, which are large commercial lots. They feel they meet the 10% open space requirement on this lot with their planned open space. Mr. Kochman agreed and said this is consistent with Act 47. He felt the 11 houses creates a lot of nice open space with a nice area in the middle. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 4 #6. Without a dedication of a future right-of-way to the adjacent property, the proposed development wouldn’t meet the requirements. Private roads are limited to 200 feet in length, and this restriction does not include a provision for looped dead end streets. Mr. Kochman asked what the adjacent properties consist of. Ms. Keene said Dynapower is to the north and east, Lane Press is to the rear. She indicated the property to the south which could be proposed for 30 units. She noted the right-of-way would extend into an existing driveway. The applicant said they are willing to include a future right-of-way to the property to the south. Mr. Wright asked if it would be better as a “U” turn instead of a dead- end street. It will be a private road, and the driveway actually will access a couple of houses. Ms. Keene said what the applicant proposes is “interesting.” Mr. Kochman asked if it satisfies the requirement. Ms. Keene said “with a little twisting.” Mr. Kochman said he is sold and that the requirement is awkward at best. Ms. Keene said if the Board can live with that road not being built, if the next property develops, they could have to connect. Mr. Johnston said that would make it the burden of the person on the next property. Ms. Keene said the city would accept the private road at this time. They have done something similar in the past, even though precedent is not binding. Mr. Kochman said it should be. Mr. Johnson was concerned with having the next property’s developer build the road. Mr. Kochman said if that developer feels he was mistreated, he can appeal. There is no purpose to building the road in this case; there would be for the next property developer. There was also a public benefit in the other case the Board heard; in this case there is not. #7. This has been addressed. #8. Already resolved. #9. Addressed by the layout change. #10. Staff asked what street types are anticipated. The applicant said a “narrow neighborhood street.” Ms. Keene noted this is a 2-lane road with no parking on either side and a sidewalk on one side of the road. #11. Staff asked if the applicant intends a rec path or setting aside space for one. The applicant said they have no problem with an easement on Hinesburg Road where there is 15 feet between the house and the road. Ms. Keene questioned whether that is enough room. She will talk with Public Works about that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 5 Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Winslet asked if he could not buy a house there in the future. Mr. Kochman said it is a potentially vulnerable restriction and is challengeable. Mr. Wright said his play is for his family, but he didn’t know what his kids would want to do in the future. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-16 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing 3 existing lots into 3 new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot 1), 0.14 acres (Lot 2) and 1.06 acres (Lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sf financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sf 2-story mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2 containing 2 market rate and one inclusionary rate units, and a 3-story, 27-unit multi-family building on Lot 3, of which 9 units are proposed to be inclusionary, 760 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert asked whether this is a totally different plan from the one that was denied. Ms. Desautels said it is the same corner (Shelburne Rd. and Swift Street) redevelopment. The lot previously had a gas station, auto repair, and Pizza Hut development. The proposed project is similar to the one the Board previously saw (she showed the plan) with the major difference being the elimination of the ATM. She indicated the reconfiguration of that area. Ms. Philibert asked why the current “eyesore” hasn’t been demolished. Mr. Bourne said at one time they were prohibited from demolishing it by Act 250. They do have a city demolition permit; if they get an approved plan, they will demolish. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff was asked to consider whether the elevations give the appearance of 2 stories, which is a requirement. Mr. Kochman noted one “solid wall” in back. Mr. Rabideau said not all bank spaces get windows; that wall may have bathrooms. He added that the bank has its own architect, and they have to go back to Chase with every proposed change. He felt what is proposed makes a strong gesture toward a second floor. Mr. Kochman said he likes the Palace 9 project, and hesitant when he discusses architecture. But he does not like the blank wall and thinks it is very unattractive for Shelburne Road. Ms. Philibert said there is no connection between the wall and the rest of the development. Mr. Rabideau said he would take that to Chase. Mr. Rabideau noted the rest of the bank has a lot of windows. He also noted that this is a look that is a trend. Mr. Moscatelli agreed. He said if the wall wasn’t going to be seen, he would be OK DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 6 with it, but it is right on Shelburne Road. He agreed the rest of the building does give a second floor appearance. Ms. Keene said it should have windows or in some way better complement the rest of the buildings. #2. Staff noted the front setback coverage is limited to 30%. The driveway width is too wide to meet that requirement and suggested reducing it to 20% and then determining whether the coverage meets the standard. Ms. Desautels said this is the result of a conversation with the Fire Chief to accommodate the fire truck. We were asked to widen the driveway to that width. It has to do with the “swing” of the truck. Ms. Keene said she would talk with the Chief. #3. The applicant was asked to address the overage on coverage. Ms. Desautels said the coverage on Shelburne Rd. is 36.1%, slightly over what is allowed. The justification is that this layout provide visual interest. #4. The applicant was asked to widen the walkway to the 8-foot standard. Ms. Desautels said this was discussed before. They hoped they could keep the width because of the stormwater feature there. It doubles as a nice landscaped area. There are also some eagle sculptures. Mr. Kochman said he is with the applicant on this. The sidewalk goes to Swift Street, which is a low use area. Ms. Keene said there is a rec path on Swift Street, and there will be 27 homes connecting to Farrell Park. Mr. Kochman said he walks there frequently and is usually the only one there. He felt 4 feet was more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Keene noted the Board has limited authority to modify the standard (15CO7A). Mr. Johnston noted there are 2 walks that go to Swift Street. One is 5 feet wide. Ms. Keene said only the one going to the building entrances needs to be 8 feet. #5. The applicant was asked to describe the glazing transparency; it appears some glazing is not proposed to be transparent. Ms. Keene indicated the area in question. Mr. Rabideau said there will be a chart to explain the percentages. They will meet the requirement. #6. Staff asked how the inclusionary units will meet the standard. Mr. Rabideau said market units will have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms; inclusionary units will have 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom which will make them 100 sf smaller. They will be above the minimum required size. Ms. Keene said it is fine. #7. The applicant was asked if they intend to waive master plan review. Ms. Desautels said they are not. It will be a future application. Mr. Rabideau said there will be 2 phases of development. All paving and driveways will be done in DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 7 the first phase. Ms. Keene cited the difference between a construction phase and an approval phase. If everything is approved, there may be no need for a master plan. The Board was OK with no master plan. #8. Regarding the mix of bedrooms, staff said the proposed mix is not acceptable. Mr. Rabideau said that is confusing as to how it applies to a single building. They could take two 2-bedroom units and turn them into a one and a three-bedroom unit. Ms. Keene said there is a question as to how much differentiation is required. Ms. Quinn said 2-bedrooms seems to be the market preference. She was OK with a majority of those. Mr. Kochman was OK with a one and a three bedroom. Mr. Rabideau said 3-bedroom units raise the issue of “unrelated adults” getting into a building. Ms. Philibert noted that Habitat for Humanity is getting a lot of requests for one-bedroom homes. Public comment was then solicited: Mr. Winslet stressed the seriousness of the housing shortage. He said he and his wife would like to live in South Burlington but can’t afford anything to buy. He teaches in Middlebury, and his wife is in orthopedics at the Medical Center which is already short-staffed. If they have to leave the area, it will get worse. He cited South Burlington as the commercial epicenter of Chittenden County and suggested there may be too much emphasis on open space and aesthetics. He said what is there now is a blighted Pizza Hut. This project would create a lot of places for people to live, and he felt Mr. Bourne should get a “thank you” and “a medal.” Ms. Philibert said Mr. Winslet is not the first person they have heard this from. But some people want more open space. She explained the DRB’s job is quasi- judicial, and they have to adjudicate an application as to whether it meets the existing regulations. 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene said she will let members know if there is to be a second December meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 8 These minutes were approved by the Board on __________________________. PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday,17 January 2024, 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, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; E. Braco, G. Dixson, R. & O. Birgisson, K. & N. Wright, K. & T. Bailey, David, J. Draper, B. Truchon, Skip’s iPad, Keith, Shane, A. & Z. Smith, D. Sherman, T. Reilly, J. Dubuque, N. Ely, K. Rozendaal, R. Pierce, A. Truchon, J. Larkin 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: There were no announcements. 5. Continued master plan application #MP-23-01 of John Larkin, Inc., to establish a master plan for an approximately 40 acre existing PUD consisting of 270 residential units in 8 multi-family buildings, a 20,000 sf movie theater, a 22,500 sf restaurant/medical office building, and a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 2 3,500 sf restaurant with drive through. The master plan includes 4 phases and consists of adding approximately 92,105 sf of commercial space including a 110-room hotel, approximately 281 homes in multi- family and mixed use buildings, 6 homes I 2-family buildings, approximately 5 acres of programmed and passive open spaces, and extending a city street, 1185 Shelburne Road: Ms. Wyman was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. No comments were made. #2. Staff recommends the Board confirm whether any projects impact natural resources. The applicant said they do not impact natural resources with any part of their project. The stormwater people don’t have a design yet, and there will be continued collaboration with them. #3. A subdivision plan will be needed prior to closing of the hearing. The applicant indicated they have no proposed subdivisions. Staff noted that under current LDRs, each principle structure must be on its own lot. Most of the proposed lots are, except for the duplexes. The applicant indicated they will take care of that. #4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to waive Preliminary Plat Review for one or all phases of the proposed development. Board members were inclined not to waive Preliminary Plat. The applicant was OK with this. #5. Staff recommends the Board waive preliminary and final plat for projects not involving subdivision of land, and instead allow site plan review. The applicant was OK with not waiving the preliminary and final plats. Mr. Kochman said there usually is not enough detail in the Master Plan to go to Site Plan. Mr. Behr felt there typically is a lot of detail in the Master Plan. He noted it’s the applicant’s risk to go to Site Plan, and the Board isn’t removing any details they have control over. Ms. Keene said that going right to Site Plan is the “carrot” for doing a Master Plan. Ms. Mann said the applicant could still come in with a sketch plan or preliminary plat if they had questions about something. #6 The applicant indicated they are not requesting a “process waiver” to skip the zoning permit stage. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 3 #7. The applicant was asked to identify any further aspects of the Master Plan that should be vested (a list of what is currently vested was shown). Mr. Kochman said that according to his understanding, everything is vested. Mr. Gillies said there is latitude to waive/amend certain regulations in a PUD. Mr. Behr said this allows the developer the assurance that what is approved is what they can build. Mr. Kochman said that the LDRs that were in effect on 5/15/23 are what they can build to. #8. and #9. Staff advised that reduced front and side yard setbacks are appropriate in this case and recommended the Board and applicant identify a distance to which each of those minimum setbacks should be reduced. Ms. Braco said they are asking to waive the internal side setbacks, also a 10-foot minimum setback from Shelburne Road and Fayette Road in order to align with existing buildings. They can abide by external setbacks. Members were OK with that. Ms. Keene said staff considers the increased front setback coverage is likely in this case and recommends the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this maximum coverage should be increased. Mr. Behr said he can see why they are asking for 90%. Mr. Gillies added this is something like a City Center type “vibe.” #10. Staff considers the increased overall building overall building coverage is likely appropriate in this case and recommends the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this maximum coverage should be increased for individual lots within the PUD. Mr. Behr said he was fine with what he is seeing. The applicant said they can still provide a calculation. Members agreed to approve what they were seeing. #11. Sheet C-3 should be updated to include planned and existing transit routes. The applicant will do this. #12. Staff feels the vehicle drop-off area is not in keeping with the LDRs. Mr. Hodgson said they understand the concern. Mr. Behr said he would like some of the details hashed out so the Board doesn’t see something very different at site plan. Mr. Hodgson note they do not yet have an architect chosen. #13. The applicant was asked to identify protection for steep slopes. The applicant said the biggest protection is avoidance. This can be addressed at Site Plan. The analysis has been done, and most steep slopes are in the river corridor area. Mr. Gillies suggested a separate sheet indicating that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 4 #14. The applicant agreed to get street name approval prior to Site Plan. #15. The applicant was asked to discuss the viability of an informal east- west bike and pedestrian connection between the subject PUD and the proposed development to the west. Mr. Hodgson said they are OK with the bike path connection. Mr. Gillies noted that Public Works does not want another railroad crossing. #16. Staff questioned whether above-ground infrastructure will be needed for utilities. The applicant did not anticipate this. #17. Staff questioned whether blocks are proposed. Mr. Hodgson said there is an existing block, and they do not propose any others. Mr. Gillies showed what could be considered new blocks and said it looks like they are fine. #18. The applicant agreed to change a designation. #19. Staff noted the need for trip generation data. The applicant said the existing data has been submitted, and they can do that again. #20. The applicant was asked to clarify wastewater amounts. They indicated that the amounts will be identical. #21. Staff noted that stormwater will be reviewed on a case by case basis. The applicant was OK with this. #22. The applicant was asked to discuss whether the level of analysis to determine the area reserved for stormwater treatment is sufficient. The applicant said they meet the State standards. #23. Staff questioned whether parking is adequate. The applicant asked to discuss this at site plan review. #24. The applicant was asked to address the dimensions of blocks. They indicated they meet the required dimensions. #25. Regarding the minimum lot size waiver request, the applicant was asked to what size the lots should be reduced. Mr. Gillies suggested getting back to this DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 5 #26. The applicant was asked to discuss reasonable limitations to building heights. The applicant provided information that town houses will be 22’ to 44’ in height and all other buildings will range from 44’ to 76’. Mr. Kochman asked if more of a setback should be required for a building of 76’ in height. The applicant asked to come back to that at the next hearing. Mr. Kochman said he would also like the height limited to 76’. Mr. Behr asked how 76’ would fit and where it is proposed. He didn’t want it to change the feel of the development. The applicant said they don’t have an architect yet and will bring in the heights of existing buildings at the next hearing. Mr. Larkin said they don’t intend to build three 76’ buildings. #27. The applicant was asked to address parking spaces and the lack of a turnaround. The applicant said they marked off a turnaround, but there is not enough room for a truck or fire engine. If someone drives there by mistake, they can turn around. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue MP-23-01 until 6 February 2024. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. Variance application #VR-24-01 of Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity for approval to modify the dimensional standards applicable to an existing residential building lot. The modification consists of the minimum that will afford relief from the unique conditions that preclude4 development in strict conformity with the Land Development Regulations, 58 Wright Court: Ms. Philibert was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Mann chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Pierce indicated that Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity provides affordable housing by selling homes at their costs. They want to bring good people into the community. With Act 47, they can now have a duplex on this lot. The scale of the building will be the same as most other properties in the neighborhood. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 6 #1. Staff asked the Board to determine that there is a unique physical circumstance to this property that creates an unnecessary hardship. After viewing pictures of the property, the Board agreed that there is such a circumstance. #2. The Board was asked to determine whether the property could be developed in strict conformance with the LDRs. Ms. Mann noted that the building envelope would have to be 5’x770’ to be in strict compliance. Staff also believes the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the Regulations. Mr. Kochman asked whether the lot size meets the city’s minimum. Mr. Gillies said the city’s minimum lot size is not compliant with Act 47. This is also an existing lot, so it is developable. Members agreed that the property cannot be developed in strict compliance with the LDRs. #3. Staff asked the Board to determine whether the hardship was created by the applicant. Members agreed that the hardship was not created by the applicant. #4. The Board was asked to discuss whether the variance will alter the character of the neighborhood, be detrimental to public welfare, impair development of adjacent property or reduce access to renewable energy source. Mr. Gillies noted that the variance has to be the minimum needed to address the hardship. He showed the concept of what the variance would look like. Members were OK with what is proposed. Mr. Pierce said they will place the house in the best position they can. In reviewing the criteria for a variance, members felt that those criteria were being met. #5. The Board was asked to confirm that the variance request is the least that can afford relief. The Board agreed that what is being requested is the least needed to afford relief. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Smith: While he supports Habitat, he did not feel the lot was large enough to support a duplex. He noted that when the lot was sold in 1956, it was not sold as a building lot. He also felt the proposed house is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood because others have 15’ and 17’ side setbacks, and this house will have 5’. He also noted that his home is 50 feet from Wright Court Extensions. His neighbor is 40’. With the proposed 30’ setback, this house would be 40’ in front of existing houses. He also felt the project was detrimental to DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 7 public welfare as the “pass-through” has been used for emergency vehicles, UPS, etc. It appears there is a right-of-way that was in the deed to the Dumont Brothers. If that is true, the setback would have to be 30’ back from that, which would reduce the lot size. Mr. Gillies noted there is a difference between a “right-of-way” and an “easement.” Mr. Kochman noted that neither one of those reduces a lot size. Ms. Truchon: She echoed Mr. Smith’s comments. She said the deed shows that lot is not a strict rectangle. She was also concerned with the impact to the right-of-way and the alteration of the character of the neighborhood. She said if the road is interrupted or discontinued, emergency vehicles could not have access. She added that Wright Court does not have a sidewalk or access to rec paths. Residents use Wright Court Extension because it is safer. It is not a “pedestrian neighborhood.” Ms. Truchon also noted that the land closest to that lot has recently been cleared. Mr. Kochman asked if the variance were conditioned to eliminate the impact to the right-of-way, would that eliminate the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Behr asked the applicant the envisioned depth of the house. Mr. Pierce said 35 feet. Mr. Behr asked whether the house can be positioned so it is not pushing up against the pass-through. Mr. Pierce had no problem with that. Mr. Behr felt that would minimize the concern. Mr. Kochman said the pass-through would have to be maintained. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Pierce said it is not their intent to stop people from using the pass-through. Mr. Moscatelli asked who maintains Wright Court Extension. Ms. Truchon said the city plows to a certain spot, then the resident of 300 Hinesburg Rd. plows from there. Mr. Ely was concerned that whoever buys the property could impede the right-of- way. Mr. Behr said that would be a condition of an approval. Mr. Ely said he agreed with moving the house back to be in line with other houses. Ms. Dubuque: Noted that it is hard for large trucks to turn around on Wright Court, and they have to use the extension. She said it would look odd if the house sat 40’ in front of Mr. Smith’s house. She added a concern with traffic and parking. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 8 Following public testimony, Mr. Behr moved to close VR-24-01. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Philibert rejoined the Board and assumed the role of Chair. 7. Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-02 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0 acre lot developed with three homes into seven single family home lots ranging from 0.67 acres to 3.0 acres and one 1.0 acre open space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: The applicant noted the request is for 6 single family lots and one open space lot. The existing house would be on its own lot. The 2 lots down below would have an access road. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to confirm that this area is served by municipal water and sewer. Mr. Wright said it is. #2. The applicant was asked what type of open space is anticipated. Ms. Wright said they are planning a community garden. #3. The applicant was asked how the proposed civic space will be accessed and how that access will be visible from the street. Mr. Wright said a private drive will give a right-of-way to the community garden. He showed the location of the garden on a plan and indicated access from all units. Ms. Keene said there will be need to be clarification as to whether the garden will have community access or serve only residents of the development. #4. The applicant was asked to address the issue of having all homes fronting on a street. Ms. Keene said houses have to face a street or a civic space. She indicated the houses on the plan that do not meet this requirement. Mr. Wright said there is a slope, and houses are at different levels. The view to the east is beautiful, and it would be nice if houses could face that way. Mr. Kochman asked if the driveway were made to be 20’, which is the width of a street, could that qualify as a street. Ms. Keene said the Board would have to find it is not feasible to go to the property line and be less than 200 feet. Staff is suggesting continuing the private street to the third home with a future right-of-way reserved to the adjacent lot. That would allow all lots to front on that street. Ms. Wright DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 9 said if they adjust the property line on Lot 1 to allow Lot 2 to be a larger house, then only 2 homes are served by the private road. Ms. Keene felt that extending the road is easiest, but there may be another path forward. Mr. Wright said that would take a lot of money, and his sisters, who own the other lots, have no plans to do anything with them. He had no problem making the driveway 20 feet wide. #5. This was already addressed. #6. Addressed with #4. Ms. Keene noted this item includes a PUD option which the applicant has no interest in. #7. Already addressed. #8. Staff assumed this will be a 2-phase project. Mr. Wright said the second phase would be into the future, and there are no plans for that. #9. This item was resolved. Mr. Behr said he loved the idea of having some development but still keeping the character of the property. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Minutes of 3 January 2024: Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 3 January 2024 with the correction of the spelling of Mr. Johnston’s name. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:42 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____________.