HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_Draft Minutes
PAGE 1
DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2024
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 20 February 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 301, 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. Johnson
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; C.
Meli
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-
family homes and 6 unoccupied or accessory structures. The master
plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 February 2024 PAGE 2
conservation, conveying approximately 1 acre to abutters, and
constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single-
family to twelve units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Keene explained that the applicant has come up with several new iterations
and is asking for a continuance to 2 April in order to discuss these with neighbors.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-23-12 to 2 April 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Conditional use application #CU-24-01 of Heartworks, LLC, for after-the-
fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a mixed-use
building consisting of a 76-student childcare facility, 3,780 sf of general
office use, and 2,790 sf of personal instruction use. The amendment
consists of adding a 6’ tall fence on top of a 5’6” tall retaining wall, for
an overall height of 11’6”, 1820 Shelburne Road:
The applicant explained that their intent is to shelter children from what is going
on on the other side of the fence, things that they don’t feel children should be
exposed to (e.g., incidents at the bus stop, arrests). He showed a plan of the site
and identified the location of the fence. He also showed a photo of the solid fence
above the retaining wall. He said they feel this fencing provides the best
sheltering for the children.
Mr. Gillies explained that the applicant had applied for a permit, but staff was not
aware it would be above the retaining wall and approved it administratively.
When they saw where it was, and that it exceeded the allowable height, they have
brought it to the DRB which has the discretion to approve it.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Does the fence height result in an undue adverse effect on the urban
design overlay that applies to this property? Mr. Kochman said it is adverse but
not “undue.” Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Johnston asked how long the fence has been
there. The applicant said since August. Ms. Mann said that if the landscaping
weren’t there, it would be jarring, but the landscaping softens it.
#2. The Board was asked to determine whether the opacity of the fence
should be reduced. Ms. Philibert said it seems to her that it should be opaque.
Mr. Kochman agreed. Ms. Philibert added that she was compelled by the letter
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 February 2024 PAGE 3
from parents of one child and said she wouldn’t want a child of hers to be
observing some things. Mr. Behr agreed that had to be taken into consideration.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr then moved to close CU-24-01. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
7. Minutes of 5 December 2023, 3 January 2024, and 6 February 2024:
Members agreed to postpone approval of the minutes.
8. 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 7:30 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on _______________________________.
PAGE 1
DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 MARCH 2024
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 5 March 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market
Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Q. Mann, Acting Chair; S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C.
Johnston
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; J.
Larkin, K & M McGibney, B. Taylor, J. Mahoney, L. Rahlins, G. Dixson, A. Nagy, K.
McClintock, J. Nunn, A. Robinson, J. Hodgson, E. Braco, T. Reilly, J. Spinelli & J
Quong
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Mann provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Members agreed to move item #7 to precede item #6 due to a recusal for item #6.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Site Plan application #SP-24-04 and conditional Use application #CU-24-
02 of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington to amend a previously
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MARCH 2024 PAGE 2
approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility (Rice Memorial
High School). The amendment consists of reconfiguring and installing
turf on the existing athletic fields, removing the existing track and
bleachers, constructing new pervious walkways, and other minor site
improvements, 99 Proctor Avenue:
Ms. Mann noted the existing development is in an R-4 zoning district where
educational facilities are a conditional use. There are existing athletic fields on the
site. The regulations prohibit “commercial recreational facilities.”
Mr. Dixson provided an overview of the project. He said Rice intends to rebuild
the athletic fields. The track will not be rebuilt. The project will result in less
impervious.
Mr. Nagy added they want to be able to depend more on the fields and make it
nicer for the athletes.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The applicant was asked to discuss the use of the fields as they relate to
the educational facility. Mr. Nagy said the fields will be used for exactly what they
are used for today including football, baseball, lacrosse, etc., for the students.
#2. Staff asked about any historic use of the fields that might be outside the
allowable use. Ms. Nagy said there are no tournaments outside of what Rice
hosts as part of a school event.
#3. Staff noted there will be a stipulation prohibiting renting out of the fields
for uses that do not involve the student body. Ms. Nagy confirmed the fields are
strictly for Rice use. The use will not be expanded.
#4. Staff asked what the final grading will look like. Mr. Dixson said there is
a slight slope up to the fields. They might extend the slope to the fields; the
difference might be 3-4 feet. It will blend in and not look like a “mound.” Mr.
Gillies asked if the City’s Stormwater Department had any issues. Mr. Dixson said
they did tell them what they are planning but got no response. He added that the
hydrology of the field won’t be changing.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MARCH 2024 PAGE 3
#5. Staff asked about protection for the tree on the west side of the existing
track. Mr. Dixson said there won’t be grading near that tree. It is a 12-foot tree,
and they will put erosion protection around the tree.
#6. Staff noted they are still waiting for comments from City Stormwater
staff. Mr. Dixson said they were told that impervious will be reduced and that
they will use pervious pavers. Mr. Gillies said he talked with Marisa who was
pleased and didn’t appear to anticipate any issues. Ms. Keene said she felt the
Board can continue. Mr. Dixson noted the project will have to go through Act 250,
so it will be scrutinized by the State stormwater staff.
#7. Staff asked about bike storage. Mr. Dixson said they are proposing 9
new storage racks in addition to the 25 existing racks. Mr. Gillies noted that he
had received the information he requested from Mr. Dixson. A total of 14 new
racks will be going in. Mr. Dixson said some will be near the entrance, others by
the baseball and football fields.
The question of lighting was raised. Mr. Dixson said there will be no new exterior
lighting.
Mr. Gillies noted that any amendment to a conditional use would require a
conditional use hearing, which always involves public notice and participation.
Mr. Dixson said because of the time crunch, they would like to waive the appeal
period. Mr. Gillies said it can be waived with consent of all present and
participating.
Public comment was then solicited and received as follows:
Ms. Rahlins: Asked where runoff from storms and melting snow will go. Mr.
Dixson said the entire property is under a State Stormwater Permit. Water is
directed around the building and will end up in a new stormwater pond/gravel
wetland. He showed the location on the plan. This will not change the hydrology.
Ms. McClintock: She is a Rice field hockey coach and spoke in support of the
application. She said they presently can’t host home games because of the
condition of the fields.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MARCH 2024 PAGE 4
Ms. Mahoney: As how people will watch games with the bleachers coming
down. Mr. Nagy said there will still be some bleachers, and people can stand in
various places to watch games.
Mr. Quong: Spoke in support of the application. He noted the baseball
season is short, and this will help get athletes onto the fields sooner.
Mr. Larkin: Was on the team that put the application together. Asked the DRB to
consider allowing other uses so the fields don’t sit empty.
Mr. Taylor: Noted that if the fields are rented out, there can be more traffic and
noise.
Mr. Johnston then moved to close SP-24-04. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
6. Minutes of 5 December 2023 and 17 January 2024:
Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 5 December 2023 and 17 January
2024 as written. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
7. 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
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 in 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 the application.
Ms. Keene noted that with Ms. Wyman not being able to hear the application,
there is no quorum, so it cannot be heard. There also cannot be a vote to
continue. The application will be heard on the 19 March agenda.
8. Other Business:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MARCH 2024 PAGE 5
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned by common consent at 7:46 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ________________________
PAGE 1
DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
19 MARCH 2024
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 19 March 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. Johnson
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; M.
Dussault, T. Barnard, G. Dixson, J. Larkin, E. Braco, T. Reilly, J. Lanfgord
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. Site Plan Application #SP-24-06 of SRTB Holdings, LLC, to modify a
previously approved plan for a 10,210 sf automotive sales, service and
repair building on an existing 2.07-acre lot. The amendment consists of
a 3,980 sf expansion, including an addition to the existing sales/show-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2024 PAGE 2
room and the construction of a drop-off area for the vehicle service
department, 1650 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Barnard said the site plan was approved last year, but they did not pull the
building permit on time, so the approval lapsed. Since the cost of the building has
gone up, the landscaping budget requirement has also gone up, but there is no
change to the landscaping plan, since those associated costs have also increased.
Ms. Philibert noted there is an issue with glazing. Mr. Barnard said they are
proposing spandrel glass up top which will hide equipment that is not pleasing to
look at. Mr. Gillies said there is no issue with this as 84% of the glazing is
transparent. Mr. Behr did not feel the spandrel glass led to a second floor
appearance and suggested possible frosted glass. Mr. Langford said there is
actually a second floor with offices and a conference room. It is a 2-story building.
He said if the Board wants transparent glazing on the second floor, they will do
that.
Mr. Gillies noted the new landscape budget is $35,970, a $13,000 increase over the
previous plan. Members were OK with the proposed landscaping and budget.
Mr. Moscatelli asked if there were any LDR changes which would affect this
application. Ms. Keene said there were not.
Mr. Kochman then moved to close SP-24-06. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
6. Continued master plan a0pplication #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
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 in 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.
Ms. Philibert noted there were 4 issues to revisit.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2024 PAGE 3
Staff comments were then addressed as follows;
#1. Regarding updating the phasing plan, staff believes it now meets the
standard. Board members voiced no objections.
#2. Regarding updating the construction phasing plan, the Board had no
issues with the proposed plan.
#3. The applicant was asked to bring the management plan up to standard.
Staff noted the language in the management plan identifying who will be
responsible for maintaining water and sewer infrastructure was not clear and they
cannot determine what will be City-owned and what will remain private. Mr.
Gillies noted that the applicant specified on a plan sheet what will go to the City.
Ms. Keene noted that the City accepts water and sewer that are within the right-of-
way. She asked the applicant if they were OK with that. The applicant said they
were.
#4. Regarding the site amenity requirements, Mr. Gillies noted that
buildings #4 and #6 weren’t showing a site amenity. He noted that technically
building #6 is adjacent to a proposed park which touches building #6. Members
voiced no objections to the possibility of considering future requests to reduce the
Site Amenity requirement in certain cases by up to 50%.
Ms. Philibert asked whether members felt they had enough information to make a
decision. Members said they do.
Mr. Behr then moved to close MP-23-01. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
7. Minutes of 6 February 2024:
Ms. Mann moved to approve the Minutes of 6 February 2024 as written. Mr.
Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Keene said she would notify members if there will be a quorum for the first
meeting in April or whether that meeting will be cancelled.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2024 PAGE 4
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned by common consent at 7:38 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on _______________