Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_Draft 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, D. Goulette 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 Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-12 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105-acre lot developed with 2 single- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 2 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: #1. Staff asked whether the Board agrees this project is in “an area served by municipal water and sewer” thereby being subject to the applicable provisions of Act 47. Mr. Kochman indicated a preference to not answer this question on a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 3 case by case basis. Ms. Keene recommended the Board make decisions on a case-by-case basis until the Planning Commission changes the LDRs. Mr. Kochman said the intent of Act 47 is to allow for more density. He added that he had no problem allowing this, so long as the Board is comfortable with the idea that they are not going to have the privilege of allowing “Mr. Tophats” come in and keep their large lots. Mr. Moscatelli noted that Act 47 would permit 50 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 that this is the type of area Act 47 was looking at. Other members agreed. #2. It was noted that Act 47 may supersede the LDRs regarding setbacks insofar as reduced setbacks are necessary to achieve the permitted density. The applicant noted that they were trying to bridge the current regulations and Act 47. Mr. Goulette said they were proposing to apply as a PUD. 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 Act 47 detracts from the purpose of the I/O zoning. 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 the proposed ROW satisfies the requirement. Ms. Keene said “with a little twisting.” Mr. Kochman said 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 would 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 that time. They have done something similar in the past, even though precedent is not binding. 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. The applicant has modified the design to have th civic space in the center. The Board likes it better. #8. & #9 These comments have been addressed by the change to having civic space in the center #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. The other potentially applicable type would be neighborhood, which would have on-street parking. The Board was OK with neighborhood narrow. #11. The applicant is showing a sidewalk along Hinesburg Road and the road in the development. Staff asked if the applicant intends to provide a rec path or to set 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 5 road. Ms. Keene questioned whether that is enough room. She will talk with Public Works about that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Winslet asked if the DRB would require a deed restriction to make lands required to be restricted to family. Mr. Kochman said it is a potentially vulnerable restriction and is challengeable. Mr. Wright said his plan 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. Ms. Mann thought some parts looked like a second floor, but the entrance doesn’t. 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 does not like the blank wall and thinks it is very unattractive façade for Shelburne Road. Ms. Philibert said there is no connection between the blank wall and the rest of the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 6 building. 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 with Ms. Philibert. He said if the wall wasn’t going to be seen, he would be OK with it, but it is right on Shelburne Road. He agreed the rest of the building does give a second floor appearance. Ms. Desautels asked for specific feedback on what needs to be changed for the Board to be happy with it. Ms. Keene said it should have windows or in some way better complement the rest of the buildings. The Board was in agreement that with the exception of the blank wall, it has that appearance. #2. Staff noted the front setback coverage is limited to 30%. The driveway width on Swift Street is 24-ft. Staff asked whether it could be reduced to 20-ft and then determining whether the coverage meets the standard. Ms. Desautels said the driveway width is the result of a conversation with the Fire Chief to accommodate the fire truck. 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 on Shelburne Road. Ms. Desautels said the coverage on Shelburne Rd. is 36.1%,. Ms. Keene said this still sounds high when looking at the plans. Ms. Desautels said she would revisit the calculation. #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 bird 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 no 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 7 #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 this seems like it will be 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 the first phase. Ms. Keene explained the difference between a construction phase and an approval phase. If everything is approved, there may be no need for a master plan. Ms. Philibert asked if all demolition would happen before anything starts. Mr. Bourne said it would depend on the contractor. The Board was OK with no master plan provided all phases are approved as one final plat. #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. Mann said there should be some mix, even if majority are 2 bedroom. The bedroom mix for inclusionary units should be similar. Mr. Kochman agreed there is no proportion prescribed; he'd be happy with 2 1- bedroom and 3-bedroom, one of each market and inclusionary. Ms. Philibert said her experience is there is a lot of demand for one bedroom units. 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 8 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. 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 Zoom 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. Dixon, 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. Mr. Gillies indicated they need to coordinate with flow restoration projects in the area. Mr. Dixon said the stormwater people don’t have a design yet, but they have met to make sure there weren’t conflicts, 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 provide a conceptual subdivision plan. #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. Mr. Hodgson said it’s helpful to have the option to come in for sketch or to go directly to site plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 3 #6 The applicant indicated they are not requesting a “process waiver” to skip to the zoning permit stage. #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 that is shown is vested. Mr. Gillies said there is latitude to waive/amend certain regulations in a PUD. Ms. Keene explained that characteristics of the project can be approved, such as street layout, can be approved at this level of review. 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. Mr. Behr said the master plan is a conceptual design that is driven by the LDR, the Board is approving the conceptual design. Ms. Mann said that what they’ve proposed are under the umbrella of the regulations, and the list of things are more specific of what is presented as part of the master plan application. #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. Along Reel Road they’re asking for a 1-ft setback. They can abide by external side yard setbacks. Members were OK with that. Ms. Keene said there is a maximum setback waiver. Mr. Gillies said he will look into it. Ms. Mann said she didn’t have any concerns with the request. #9. Staff considers the increased front setback coverage is likely needed and recommends the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this maximum coverage should be increased. Mr. Dixon said they’d like 90% coverage. Mr. Behr said he can see why they are asking for 90%, but wants to know why it’s so different from what is in the LDR (30%). Mr. Hodgson said it’s because the front setback is so small so they’ll have less green space. Mr. Dixon said they’ve allowed for 90% coverage in the State stormwater permit. Mr. Gillies added this is something like a City Center type “vibe,” which has no front setback coverage maximum. #10. Staff considers the increased 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 4 within the PUD. Mr. Dixon said there will be some areas that they’re asking for 90% coverage. Mr. Behr said he was fine with what he is seeing, but they’re not showing 90%. The applicant said they can provide a calculation of what is being shown instead of 90%. Members agreed to approve what they were seeing. Mr. Johnston suggested it be reviewed on a site by site basis. Members agreed. #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. Ms. Braco said what is shown is a concept & 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 noted they do not yet have an architect chosen. Ms. Mann said this will need more attention when they come in for that particular parcel. #13. The applicant was asked to identify protection for steep slopes. Mr. Dixon said that steep slopes are around the natural resources. Mr. Dixon said the biggest protection is avoidance. They will address erosion control at Site Plan. Mr. Gillies said that the requirements are that steep slopes be shown. Mr. Dixon said the analysis has been done, and most steep slopes are in the river corridor area. Mr. Gillies suggested a separate sheet indicating that. Ms. Mann said this was important in order to vest natural resource impacts. #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. Ms. Braco said they are happy to have the Inn Road used as an informal bike path. Mr. Gillies noted that they can’t develop additional impervious in the natural resource, and Public Works does not want another railroad crossing. #16. Staff questioned whether above-ground infrastructure will be needed for utilities. Mr. Dixon did not anticipate a substation; there will be pad-mounted transformers & communication vaults. #17. Staff questioned whether blocks are proposed. Mr. Dixon said there is an existing block, and they do not propose any others. Mr. Gillies showed what DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 5 could be considered new blocks and the subdivision standards would apply. It looks like the measurements are fine. Mr. Hodgson agreed. #18. The applicant agreed to change a designation. #19. Staff noted the need for trip generation data. Mr. Dixon said they can provide updated existing data. #20. The applicant was asked to clarify wastewater vs. water amounts. Mr. Dixon 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. Mr. Dixon said the buildings 1, 2, 3, 7 and portions of 6 are already on an existing pond. The stormwater system they’ve provided meets the additional coverage. The applicant said they meet the current State standards with the existing treatment. #23. Staff questioned what elements of the conceptually proposed park should be required to be included in the design of the park. Ms. Braco said they’d prefer to discuss this at site plan review. The park is split between phases 1 and 2. #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 with the conceptual subdivision. #26. The applicant was asked to discuss reasonable limitations to building heights. Ms. Braco stated 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. Mr. Behr asked how 76’ would fit and where it is proposed. He didn’t want it to change the feel of the development. Mr. Hodgson 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. Mr. Hogson said the buildings would be 44’ in height minimum. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 6 #27. The applicant was asked to address parking spaces and the lack of a turnaround. The applicant said they marked off a turnaround at the end of Slip Road, but there is not enough room for a truck or fire engine. If someone drives there looking for a parking space, they can turn around. There will also be a turnaround at Reel Road. 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: #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’x170’ to be in strict compliance. Staff also believes the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the Regulations. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 7 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 resources. Mr. Gillies noted that comments #1 – 3 establish whether the property is eligible for a variance, and now that they Board has determined that it is, the Board has to decide what variance to grant. The variance has to be the minimum needed to allow use of the property without altering the character of the neighborhood. The applicant proposed to rotate the front lot line to be the west lot line. He showed the concept of what the variance would look like. Mr. Gillies noted the building has to face the front lot line. Mr. Pierce said they want to the building to face the west similar to contiguous properties. He said they will put it as far back at they can from the front lot line and still build the house. There is a 20% building coverage maximum. The side setbacks would be 5-ft. Members discussed whether a lot coverage waiver was necessary. In reviewing the criteria for a variance, members felt that the criteria were being met. Mr. Gillies explained that the west of the lot is being used as a through-way but is not part of the actual right of way. Mr. Pierce said there is no intention to create an easement but they want to be good neighbors. Mr. Behr asked if this project would be cutting off a historic easement. Mr. Pierce said the access is signed “Emergency Vehicles Only.” They will accommodate as much as possible. #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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 8 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 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 9 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. 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. They have also changed the plan to have a 5-ft setback for accessory structures. They are no longer planning on doing development on the southern two lots within the master plan approval period. 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 Board was asked to confirm that their position that this area is served by municipal water and sewer is unchanged. Staff noted the Planning Commission has not changed intention since the last meeting on this lot. Members agreed their position is unchanged. #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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 10 #4. The applicant was asked to address the issue of having all homes fronting on a street. Ms. Keene said houses have to front on a street or a civic space. 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. Mr. Wright said they’d be doing 14’ width, and could go to 20’ if they needed to. Ms. Keene said streets have to go to the property line. If the Board finds it infeasible for the street to go to the property line, the street would have to be less than 200 feet. Ms. Keene indicated the house on the plan that does not front on a street or civic space. Staff is suggesting continuing the private street to the third home with a future right-of- way reserved to the adjacent lot to the south. If the lot to the south were to be developed and the two southern lots wanted to subdivide, they would use the future right of way. That would allow all lots to front on that street. Ms. Wright said if they adjust the property line on Lot 1 to allow Lot 2 to be a larger lot, then only 2 homes are served by the private road. Ms. Keene noted that the middle lot then wouldn’t front on a street, unless they made the middle lot have a triangular shape at the front. Ms. Keene felt that extending the road is easiest, but there may be another path forward which would be more difficult. Mr. Johnston suggested it would be easier to provide a ROW now to accommodate development much further down the road. Mr. Wright said that they wouldn’t do future development within the length of the master plan. Mr. Wright said that would take a lot of money to do additional development, and his sisters, who own the other lots, have no plans to do anything with them. Mr. Moscatelli said they could extend the private road to the end of Lot 2, and then just reserve a future ROW across the remaining lots. Mr. Wright 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 11 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 ____________.