Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/18/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTONDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT – T. Barritt, Chair; M. Cota, B. Miller, D. Parsons ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Irish, P. Irish, N. Godard, P. Godard, A. Jolles, N. Beck, M. Janswold, J. Leinwohl, J. Nuk, K. Abnet, J. Entis, Tom & Judy Lavanway, J. Lavanway, C. Plante, M. Abrams, E. Vizvarie, D. Viehmann 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The public was invited to comment. No comments were received. 3. Announcements: Mr. Barritt welcomed Matt Cota as the newest member of the Development Review Board. 4. Sketch plan application #SD-15-24 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to alter the grade of the “airport Quarry by adding 5,000 cubic yards of material, 1200 Airport Drive Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to September 1, 2015, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three (3) dwelling units in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to September 15, 2015, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued site plan application #SP-15-36 of Arlo Cota to amend a previously approved plan for an 11,074 sq. ft. boat, recreational vehicle and auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of: 1) removing a large tree in the front yard, 2) adding four (4) light poles, and 3) filling in a stormwater pond and constructing a new dry detention swale in front of auto display area, 3017 Williston Road (the applicant has requested that this item be continued to a future meeting). Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to October 6, 2015, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Conditional use application #CU-15-05 of Nina Beck & Stacy Jolles for after-the-fact approval to construct a 56 sq. ft. deck to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 88 Central Avenue. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to November 3, 2015, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional use application #CU-15-06 of Robert & Marilyn Maddison for approval to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-story addition to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 7 Lyons Avenue (the applicant has requested that this item be continued to a future meeting). Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. Mr. Miller moved to continue the hearing to October 6, 2015, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 9. Conditional use application #CU-15-07 of Paul & Nancy Godard for approval to construct a 6’ X 18’ roof to cover deck which will encroach six (6) feet into the front setback, 3 Duchess Avenue. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing, seconded by David Parsons. The motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch plan application #SD-15-23 of Josef Lavanway to subdivide a 51,708 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 35,704 sq. ft. (lot #1) and 16,004 sq. ft. (lot #2), 1440 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action taken. 11. Design review application #DR-15-04 of Howard Center, Inc. to alter the design of a building by: 1) adding two (2) louvers on the east façade, and 2) making other minor building façade alterations, 364 Dorset Street. Mr. Barritt moved to close the hearing, seconded by David Parson. The motion passed unanimously. 12. Reorganization. The Board continued this item to the September 1, 2015 meeting. 13. Minutes of March 4, 2015, & July 21, 2015. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 21 July 2015 as written, seconded by David Parson. The motion was passed unanimously. No action was taken on the March 4, 2015 minutes. 14. Other business. No Further Business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:50 p.m. , Clerk ___________10/06/2015________________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_24_1200_AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_alter _quarry_grade_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2015 Plans received: February 12, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-24 CITY OF BURLINGTON / BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Applicant Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Owners Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_24_1200_AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_alter_quarry_grade_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-24 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to alter the grade of the “airport quarry” by adding 5,000 cubic yards of material, 1200 Airport Drive COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 24, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Airport Industrial District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Airport Industrial Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 770 acres 9,607 SF lease  Max. Building Coverage 40% n/a No change  Max. Overall Coverage 50% n/a No change  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. n/a No change  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a No change  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a No change - zoning compliance The current 770 acre parcel is in compliance with these requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The project has no impact on water supply or wastewater disposal capacity. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The plans submitted indicate that this requirement will be met. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will have no affect on access, circulation or traffic. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_24_1200_AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_alter_quarry_grade_sketch.doc The project proposes to create a berm which will prevent stormwater from leaving the quarry site and entering Muddy Brook. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The City’s Land Development regulations note the purpose of the subject zoning district as follows: 6.03 AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AIR-I A. Purpose. In areas proximate to the Airport, an Airport Industrial AIR-I District is established to provide sufficient land area for the Vermont Air National Guard and Airport-related uses, support facilities, and commercial activities that may be incompatible with general residential or commercial uses. The standards and regulations for the Airport Industrial District recognize the importance of these facilities and uses to the operation of the City and regional economies while providing appropriate setbacks and buffering to offset their impacts on adjacent land uses. No changes are proposed to the buildings on the property nor to operations on the property. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The project will have no impact on open space. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_24_1200_AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_alter_quarry_grade_sketch.doc B. 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 project will have no impact on the structures, planting, pedestrian movement and parking. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The project will have no effect on parking. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No changes to any buildings are proposed. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No new services or modifications are proposed. C. 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. The project will have no impact on the transitions between the buildings on the property. (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. No new structures are proposed nor are changes proposed to existing buildings. Compliance with Site Plan standards will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_24_1200_AirportDrive_BurlingtonIntlAirport_alter_quarry_grade_sketch.doc 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 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for Approval. (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above 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. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b) 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. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The applicant has submitted plans with information useful for reviewing compliance with this standard. The plans indicate that the berm will not exceed seven (7) feet in height. Staff has not identified any issues which would pose a problem for this application. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review the proposal, seek clarifications on any issues if necessary and then allow this to move forward through preliminary & final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Gene Richards, applicant 14,286 725.7 Natural Resources Atlas Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 10,000 © Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 508.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Meters508.00 NOTES Map created using ANR's Natural Resources Atlas LEGEND 254.00 vermont.gov DISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appearon this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map. May 1, 2015 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1" = 833 1cm = 100Ft.Meters VTRANS State and Town Long Structures VTRANS State Short Structures Town Bridge Town Culvert Railroads Roads Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Urban Collector Local Not part of the Functional Classification System Waterbody Stream AIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTMIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICTPROJECT LOCATION Drawing No. Scale Revision Title Client/Project Project No. Sheet of ByIssued Appd.YY.MM.DD Permit-Seal ByRevision Appd.YY.MM.DD Chkd.Dwn.Dsgn.YY.MM.DD File Name: Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Stantec without delay. Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that Consultants Legend Notes BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MATERIAL TO BE EXCAVATED FROM MARCELINO PROPERTY AND PLACED South Burlington, Vermont 195311051 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington VT 05403 U.S.A. 802.864.0223 802.864.0165 www.stantec.com Fax. Tel. IN THE AIRPORT QUARRY SKETCH PLANNVT STATE PLANE GRIDFalse Northing: 0.0000False Easting: 1640416.6667Origin Latitude: 42°30'00.0000"NCentral Meridian: 72°30'00.0000"WUS Survey FootTransverse MercatorNAD83 Vermont State PlanesVT83 EASEMENT CWD WATERLINE 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET PROPERTY LINE BTV / MARCELLINO LINES POWER TRANSMISSION QUARRY EXISTING AIRPORT & COMPANY, INC. A. MARCELINO AIRPORT BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL CITY OF BURLINGTON, 15.07.24JBL 5,000 +/- CY OVER CWD WATERLINE, LIMIT OF EXCAVATION 5,000 +/- CY OF PLACED FILL, PROPOSED LIMITS 270265260x 258.0x 259.1x 259.1259x 309.5x 309.5x 309.5x 310.8x 310.812+5013+5014+5015+5016+5017+5013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0017+95275 277280280 285 285285290290290 292293295295 298300300304 305305305 308310310310310311312 312315315315315315315315 315 CWD WATERLINE CONTOURS PROPOSED320320 320 320 320 320 320320320EXISTING CONTOURS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_29_916_ShelburneRoad_Perkins_hedge_and_fence_ Aug18mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2015 Plans received: April 30, 2015 916 Shelburne Road SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-29 Meeting date: August 18, 2015 Owner/Applicant Charles and Janet Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-00916 Commercial 1 – Residential 15 Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three (3) dwelling units in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road. The Board informed the applicant at the last meeting that replacing the hedge with a split rail fence was not acceptable and that the hedge had to be replaced. The applicant has since installed a 5’- 6’ high hedge. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on April 30, 2015 and subsequent revisions received on August 12, 2015 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Staff considers the Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements continue to be met. Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed building and uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. 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. No changes to existing parking are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. The parking located to the front of the building is pre-existing. (c)-(d) Not applicable (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING No changes to the building are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. 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. No changes to the structures are proposed. 1. The applicant has removed a cedar hedge that provided a screen between the property and commercial and residential properties located to the north and a large deciduous tree in front of the building. See discussion below under 14.07 D. (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. No changes to the structures are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. 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. No reservation of land is required. B. 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. No changes to utility services are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling 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. The applicant had a new screened dumpster enclosure constructed in early August. This criterion is met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Prior to submission of this application, the applicant removed a 280 ft. long cedar hedge along the north edge of the property. The applicant’s April 25, 2015 letter indicates that the applicants planted the hedge in 1982. The Planning & Zoning Office’s records indicate that a Findings of Fact & Decision issued on May 23, 1989 contained a requirement for the applicant to post a $2,250 landscaping bond and add nine (9) cedar plants in the center portion of the hedge to fill an existing gap. The applicant submitted a letter dated April 25, 2015 indicating the reasons why they removed the hedge and why they wish to install a split rail fence. Their reasons primarily have to do with their concerns over increased trash and inappropriate use of their property by members of the public using the adjacent CCTA bus stop. A large deciduous tree of unknown caliper located on the lawn to the northwest of the primary building was also removed. The Board provided guidance to the applicant at the last meeting. The Board requested that the applicant show an eight (8) foot high hedge on the site plan to replace the 30 foot high hedge that was removed and that they enclose the dumpster storage area. In response to the Board’s direction at the June 16, 2015 hearing, the applicant has planted fifty (50) cedar trees (approximately 5’-6’ tall) along the north side of its property. This new planting starts at an unknown distance from the property’s northwest corner and continues until its northeast corner. The applicant has also planted two (2) Autumn Blaze maples (each about 1 inch in diameter and 8’ tall) in the lawn area to the northwest of the main building. The total cost of the newly installed cedar trees was $5,860.51. The value of the mature hedge that was removed is unknown. The revised plan submitted was prepared by the applicant and not a landscape professional as required under Section 13.06 (F) of the LDRs. The plan does not include a planting schedule, a budget prepared by a landscape professional or planting details. The plan does not accurately depict the locations of the hedge or the two (2) trees recently planted. Also, the hedge recently planted is only 5’-6’ feet in height, not eight (8) feet as the Board requested. Consequently, this plan has not been reviewed by the City Arborist. It also appears that the two maple tree plantings to be an inadequate replacement on a caliper to caliper basis for the large tree that was removed. Based on Google earth street view photo the tree appeared to have been about 3-4 ft. in diameter. 2. The Board should determine: a) if the value of the new cedar plantings meets the value of the hedge that was removed or are additional plantings required, b) how many additional trees should be planted to equal the caliper value of the tree that was removed, and c) whether the 5’-6’ high hedge is high enough or whether it can grow to eight (8) feet. The Board should also require that a revised landscaping plan be prepared by a landscape professional to include planting details, a planting schedule, and budget. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. No waivers are required. RECOMMENDATION The Board should request the applicant to provide the required information described above and continue the application to a future meeting. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Charles and Janet Perkins, applicants CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_15_05_88CentralAvenue_Beck&Jolles_afterfact_deck DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2015 Application received: June 4, 2015 88 Central Avenue Conditional Use Application #CU-15-05 Meeting date: August 18, 2015 Applicants/Owners Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck, Trustees Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck Revocable Trust 88 Central Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs 0330-00088 (88 Central), and 0310-00003 (3 Cedar Court) Queen City Park (QCP) District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-15-05 of Nina Beck & Stacy Jolles for after-the-fact approval to construct a 56 sq. ft. deck to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 88 Central Avenue. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on June 4, 2015 and offer the following comments. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Queen City Park zoning district (which itself also requires review under Section 3.11, nonconformities) and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed † Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 2858 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 51.4 % (1,469 SF) No change  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 67.5 % (1,930 SF) 67.4 % (1,926 SF) * Min. Front Setback 10 ft. 5.2 ft. No change  Min. Side Setback 5 ft. 5.8 ft. and 8.0 ft. 5.1 ft. Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. N/A. No change  Max. Building Height 25 ft. 22 ft. No change  Zoning compliance † Pre-existing non-conforming  Although exceeding the maximum allowed, this is a decrease from the previous approval * Waiver previously granted by Board on May 12, 2014. 4.08 QUEEN CITY PARK DISTRICT QCP F. Nonconforming Structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not: (a) Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or (b) Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (3) The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: (a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck.doc The deck/stairs constructed is substantially lower than the building it accesses and therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on views will be similar or not worse. (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and The deck/stairs constructed is substantially lower than the building it accesses and therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on sunlight will be similar or not worse. (c) Adequate on-site parking. The two (2) properties currently have a total of two (2) parking spaces and will have the same two (2) spaces after development, therefore no adverse effect is created. G. Additional Standards. (1) Development, construction, and alterations within the QCP District within one hundred (100) linear feet of the center line of Potash Brook shall be subject to the requirements of the Potash Brook Overlay District. (2) Multi-family dwellings shall be subject to site plan review, as per Article 14, and shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per structure. The distance of this lot to Potash Brook is approximately 240 feet +/-. This is not a multi-family dwelling. Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.10 shall be required if the establishment of the accessory residential unit involves the construction of a new accessory structure, an increase in the height or floor area of the existing single-family dwelling or existing accessory structure, or an increase in the dimensions of the off-street parking areas (i.e. garages and driveway areas) presently existing on the site. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The deck/stairs constructed is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area’s historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. The deck/stairs constructed will serve the building’s accessory residential unit. This proposed use conforms with the purposes of the district. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck.doc 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. There is no reason to believe that the deck/stairs constructed this will adversely affect the capacity of municipal services. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. High density residential is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Density is not increased. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that the deck/stairs constructed this will adversely affect traffic in the vicinity. Density is not increased. (d) Bylaws in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The deck/stairs constructed represents a decrease in overall building coverage and lot coverage. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The deck/stairs constructed will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. RECOMMENDATION Provided that the Board finds the issues described above to be satisfied under the LDRs, and if no new information comes to light suggesting adverse impacts upon adjoining properties, then the case may be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #CU-15-06 Robert & Marilyn Maddison – 7 Lyons Avenue DATE: August 18, 2015 DRB Meeting. Conditional use application #CU-15-06 of Robert & Marilyn Maddison for approval to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-story addition to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 7 Lyons Avenue. The applicant has not displayed the placard nor mailed the abutter notices. This application should be continued to the October 6th meeting. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #CU-15-07 Paul & Nancy Godard – 3 Duchess Avenue DATE: August 18, 2015 DRB Meeting. Staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact & Decision for the application for your consideration. However, as always, this draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to this draft decision. #CU-15-07 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING PAUL AND NANCY GODARD --- 3 DUCHESS AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-15-07 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-15-07 of Paul & Nancy Godard for approval to construct a 6’ X 18’ roof to cover deck which will encroach six (6) feet into the front setback, 3 Duchess Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 18, 2015. Paul Godard represented the applicants. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Conditional use application #CU-15-07 of Paul & Nancy Godard for approval to construct a 6’ X 18’ roof to cover deck which will encroach six (6) feet into the front setback, 3 Duchess Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Paul and Nancy Godard. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 District. 4. The application was received on June 11, 2015. 5. The plan set submitted consists of a five (5) pages prepared by the applicant with page one consisting of a hand-drawn front elevation of the property titled “Paul + Nancy Godard 3 Duchess Ave. S. Burlington.” CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. 7. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not have an undue adverse effect on community services. (b) The planned character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The property is located within the Residential 4 Zoning District. The purpose of the District is stated as follows: #CU-15-07 - 2 - 4.03 (A) Purpose. A Residential 4 District is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The Comprehensive Plan, last adopted March 9, 2011, includes several objectives and recommendations related to housing in the community. Housing Objective 2 (page 40) states: “Identify and protect existing and developing residential neighborhoods” The Board discussed this item in concurrence with the standards within Section 3.06(J) of the LDRs. Currently, the existing dwellings on this street share a common setback that creates a neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach slightly further into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. In this case, the proposed front steps and roof overhang would project into the setback more than the average of the abutting properties. The Board assessed whether such an encroachment creates an adverse effect, AND if so, whether the adverse effect is undue on the planned character of the area. 8. Based on this information above, the Board finds that this application does not rise to the level of creating an undue adverse affect on the planned character of the area. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. 9. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. An exception is allowed for lots existing prior to February 28, 1974 in Article 3, Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. See below for these standards. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. 10. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not affect the utilization of renewable energy resources. 3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS EXISTING PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling. #CU-15-07 - 3 - (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (c) adequate on-site parking; and (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. See discussion above. 11. The Board finds that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on views of adjoining and/or nearby properties 12. The Board finds that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties. 13. The Board finds that the proposed addition would not affect on adequacy of on-site parking. 14. The Board finds that the proposed addition would not have an undue adverse affect on safety of adjoining and/or nearby properties. DECISION Motion by ________________, seconded by _________________, to approve conditional use application #CU-15-07 of Paul and Nancy Godard, subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #CU-15-07 - 4 - 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of __ – 0 – 0 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_23_1440_HinesburgRd_Lavanway_2lots_Sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2015 Plans received: May 15, 2015 JOSEF LAVANWAY - 1440 HINESBURG ROAD SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-23 Meeting date: August 18, 2015 Owners Judith & Thomas Lavanway 1440 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Josef Lavanway 86 Pinecrest Drive, Unit 4B Essex Junction, VT 05452 Contact Person Corinne Plante 86 Pinecrest Drive, Unit 4B Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel ID- 0860-01440 SEQ Zoning District- NR Sub-District 1.19 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-23 of Josef Lavanway to subdivide a 51,708 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 35,704 sq. ft. (lot #1) and 16,004 sq. ft. (lot #2), 1440 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 15, 2015 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District Requirement Proposed Lot #1 ( with existing home) Proposed Lot #2  Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF 35,704 SF 16,004 SF Max. Building Coverage 15% <15% t.b.d Max. Total Coverage 30% <30% t.b.d Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. t.b.d Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. t.b.d Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. t.b.d  zoning compliance PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Both proposed lots would have access to public streets. The new lot would front on the less busy street, Highland Avenue. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. At this level of review, it does not appear that this project will impact these features. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. See comment below regarding compliance with section 9.06(D) 4. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. No new roads are proposed. Both lots would have sufficient access to public streets. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The subdivision, in and of itself, appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the ten Subdivision standards delineated above will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. Southeast Quadrant District This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts. The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ Zoning District. A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. No new buildings are proposed as part of this application; therefore this criterion is not applicable to this application at this time. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING At this time, there are only two lots proposed. There is approximately 110 feet of open space between the eastern edge of the house on the existing lot and the western edge of proposed lot #2. A shed is located about 90 ft. from that same proposed new property line. Staff considers that the proposed subdivision meets this criterion to the extent necessary at this time. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable subdistrict allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with this criterion at this time. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. At this time, no new development is proposed. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. At this time no construction is planned. Staff recognizes that this may change as lot #2 is developed and therefore this criterion would be better addressed at that time. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. At this time no construction is planned. This criterion is not applicable to this application. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. This criterion is not applicable to this application. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. At this time no construction is planned. Staff recognizes that this may change as lot #2 is developed and therefore this criterion would be better addressed at that time. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. At this time no construction is planned. Staff recognizes that this may change as lot #2 is developed and therefore this criterion would be better addressed at that time. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. At this time no construction is planned. Staff recognizes that this may change as lot #2 is developed and therefore this criterion would be better addressed at that time. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. In response to a query from staff, the Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall offered the following comments via email: From: Terry Francis Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:53 AM To: ray <ray@sburl.com>; Doug Brent <dbrent@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> Subject: RE: 1440 Hinesburg Rd Sketch Plan Ray/Paul: I assume that the lot would have access off Highland Terr. And have a Highland Ter. Address. If that is the case there are no concerns from FMO. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. At this time no construction is planned and this criterion is not applicable. Should a new home or homes be developed on Lot 2, the Board should determine where the access point shall be. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING No new roads are planned as part of this application. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. No new roads are planned as part of this application. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. No new roads are planned as part of this application. 9.09 SEQ-NR Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 400 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the VR sub- district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. (6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of identical housing types. At this time no construction is planned. Staff recognizes that this may change as lot #2 is developed and therefore the Board should discuss this issue and decide if the applicant shall be bound to the design criteria included above. If the Board would like to assess the design criteria, they should do so at final plat review or provide a condition that no units may be built on the lot without design approval from the Development Review Board. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review the proposal, seek clarifications on any issues if necessary and then allow this to move forward through preliminary & final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Corinne Plant, applicant Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULD ONLY BEUSED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINAL LOCAL REVIEW PRELIMINARYSKETCH/CONCEPTJUDITH M. LAVANWAYTRUST15049-RDWHRD5-11-15SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYRECORD DRAWINGCONSTRUCTIONACT 250 REVIEWdescriptiondateby1" = 40'1TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONSKETCH PLANLocation MapN.T.S.SITELEGEND:PROJECT PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SEWER MAINEXISTING STORM PIPEEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING TREELINEBUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED LOT LINE DR-15-04 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DESIGN REVIEW #DR-15-04 HOWARD CENTER – 364 DORSET STREET FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Design review application #DR-15-04 of Howard Center, Inc. to alter the design of a building by: 1) adding two (2) louvers on the east façade, and 2) making other minor building façade alterations, 364 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a hearing on August 18, 2015 to consider this application. Doug Viehmann represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing, and the plans and supporting materials in the application file, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Howard Center, Inc., requests Design Review approval to alter the design of a building by: 1) adding two (2) louvers on the east façade, and 2) making other minor building façade alterations, 364 Dorset Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Dorset Street Real Estate Holdings. 3. The application was received and deemed complete on June 16, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. 5. The plans and photos submitted illustrate the existing building and proposed changes. 6. The plans submitted consist of six (6) pages of plans, photos and spec sheets with page one (1) of the plans entitled “Howard Center San Remo Drive South Burlington, Vermont” prepared by Guillot Vivian Viehmann Architects, Inc. and dated June 12, 2015. The subject property falls within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. #DR-15-04 2 C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of each district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - ………… (2) Design District 2 - This area includes all land on both sides of San Remo Drive. This area is unique in that it is the only area in the designated City Center which is substantially developed with buildings and uses. Many of the buildings, however, are in need of updating and aesthetic improvement. The City’s vision for this area is that of a somewhat unique and eclectic neighborhood with a wide variety in design in terms of color, materials, building shapes and site layouts. It is the City’s vision that the existing buildings and sites be improved for example by replacing metal facades with higher quality materials, adding windows and doors to the first floors, and doing improvements to the sites to better relate the properties to the public street thereby promoting pedestrian movement. Design plans for properties within Design District 2 shall comply with the following design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(F) of the Land Development Regulations: F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. The proposed louvers are consistent in design with other louvers on the building. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows:. ………………. (ii) Design District 2. A wide variety of both natural and high quality man-made materials are allowed. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete, synthetic stucco, wood clapboard (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles), and glass or glass block. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include metal skin and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). The proposed louvers are metal but represent an architectural accent that is harmonious with the overall materials used in the construction of the building. #DR-15-04 3 (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The color of the proposed louvers matches closely with that of the siding. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. The proposed louvers above the windows would add a further design element to the façade. The proposed cameras are small and unobtrusive. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. There are no changes proposed to the roof or roofline. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to #DR-15-04 4 maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. The building is already oriented to the street. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. There are no rooftop devices. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. As the building is not new, it would not be feasible to apply this criterion. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. This criterion is not applicable to the subject application. The Board finds that the proposed project represents a negligible change to the façade of the building and that the property remains in compliance with the standards noted above. DECISION Motion by ___________________, seconded by _________________, to approve Design Review Application #DR-15-04, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans and documents submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. #DR-15-04 5 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the project. 5. Any change to this design plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of __ – 0 – 0 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. AREA PHOTO UP MARKED IN Application and Design ESD-202 is a weather louver designed to protect air intake and exhaust openings in building exterior walls. Design incorporates a drainable head member and stationary horizontal blades to channel water to the jambs which guides the water through vertical downspouts for escape at the sill. The ESD-202 is an extremely efficient louver with AMCA LICENSED PERFORMANCE DATA enabling designers to select and apply with confidence. Standard Construction Frame � � � � � � � �Heavy gauge extruded 6063-T5 aluminum, 2 in. x 0.063 in. nominal wall thickness Blades � � � � � � � �Drainable design, heavy gauge extruded 6063- T5 aluminum, 0.063 in. nominal wall thickness, positioned at 45º angles on approximately 3 in. centers Construction � � �Mechanically fastened Birdscreen � � � � �3/4 in. x 0.051 in. flattened expanded aluminum in removable frame, inside mount (rear) Finish � � � � � � � � �Mill Minimum Size � �6 in. W x 6 in. H Maximum Single Section Size � � � 120 in. W or 120 in. H (limited to 70 ft. sq.) Options (at additional cost) • A variety of bird and insect screens • Blank off panel • Clip angles • Extended sill • Filter rack • Flanged frame • Glazing adaptor • Hinged frame • Security bars • Welded construction • A variety of architectural finishes including: Clear anodize Integral color anodize Baked enamel paint Kynar paint *Width and height dimensions furnished approximately ¼ inch under size. ESD-202 Stationary Louver Drainable Blade ESD-202PRODUCT DETAILS Stationary Louver Drainable Blade Extruded Aluminum SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 July 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; S. McClellan, P. O’Leary, T. Chittenden, N. Benoit, B. Polika, J. Leinwohl, A. Morrow, A. Cook, C. Finnegan, B. Wilson, B. Marquis 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-15-21 of Champlain Housing Trust for a planned unit development to convert a 24-room motel to a 20-unit multi-family dwelling, 1200 Shelburne Road: Mr. Barritt asked about changes since the last hearing. The applicant said they just added details. Also, in consideration of neighbors’ concerns, they have agreed not to convert the garage to community space. It will just be used for storage. Mr. Belair noted there have been no comments received from the Fire Chief. The motion can be conditioned upon the Chief’s comments, when received. Mr. McClellan noted they had met with the Chief who seemed to be happy with what he saw. Ms. Morrow said she wanted to hear about the security proposal. Mr. McClellan said they will keep the existing fence and will add a stockade fence along the east boundary (he indicated this on the plan). There will also be an on-site manager and staff during the day. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 2 Mr. Cook asked when the building will be occupied. The applicant said they will begin construction after the appeal period and anticipate occupancy in November. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-21. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 1 September. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-37 until 1 September 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-15-41 of 73 Ethan Allen Drive/2 Commerce Ave., LLC, to construct a 28,200 sq. ft. warehousing, processing, storage & distribution facility, 73 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. O’Leary said the applicant has 2 lots. He noted that the existing buildings will come down and then showed the location of the new building. They had originally had 22 parking spaces based on the office spaces. Staff has said that only 15 are needed. The applicant feels that 15 are not enough, and they have agreed on 17. They will grass over the other area and will use it for parking only if needed. After some discussion, the applicant agreed to 15 spaces and to grass over the other are for parking use if needed. Mr. O’Leary showed the existing trees and where new ones will go. There will also be some new shrubs added. After discussion, they agreed to add more shrubs where members indicated. Mr. Parsons expressed concern with people having to go through the offices in order to get to the dumpsters. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 3 Mr. O’Leary noted they have not seen comments from the Fire Chief. They have met, and the Chief seemed OK with the plans. Mr. Barritt asked if a tenant has been identified. Mr. O’Leary said not yet. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-41 until 1 September 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-20 of Norman Benoit for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a building consisting of 1,378 sq. ft. of medical office use and 200 sq. ft. of general office use. The application is to construct an 896 sq. ft. addition resulting in the following breakdown of uses for the entire building: 822.5 sq. ft. for personal service use, 629 sq. ft. of medical office use & 1,035 sq. ft. of general office use, 22 Patchen Road: Mr. Barritt noted the unusual situation that the entire building is located within the front yard setback. Part of the addition will also be within that setback. Members had no issue with this given the fact that the other buildings on the street are in the same situation. Mr. Barritt also noted that the building entrance is from the rear parking lot. Mr. Benoit gave members a drawing of what an entrance on the front of the building would look like. Where there is now a window, it would become a door. Handicapped access would remain in the rear. Members discussed the possibility of a sidewalk alongside the building. Mr. Benoit felt this could be accomplished. He felt that most people would still enter the building from the rear parking lot. He agreed to provide a new drawing with the sidewalk and additional landscaping. Mr. Wilking asked if there is a plan to pave the driveway. Mr. Benoit said it would happen eventually. Mr. Barritt noted that 11 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 10 and is asking for a waiver of the one space. Tenants who were present anticipated a total of 4 workers in the building. Members had no issue with the one space waiver. Discussion followed on the need for a 15-foot evergreen buffer between this property and the adjacent residential area. Mr. Benoit said he will fill in the area with additional trees. Mr. Belair stressed the trees had to be evergreens. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 4 No other issues were raised. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-22 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 65,150 sq. ft. aircraft maintenance hangar. The amendment consists of: 1) expanding the parking area to add 14 spaces, and 2) adding two infiltration basins for stormwater treatment, 228 Aviation Avenue: Mr. Leinwohl said they were OK with the Fire Chief’s comments. He noted that the existing previous parking lot is 7-8 years old and is starting to fail because of salting. They will replace the concrete with a bituminous surface which will better handle the stormwater situation. In addition, Heritage sees the need for additional parking and will use this opportunity to add 14 spaces as part of this project. They will also add some lighting similar to what is out there now. No issues were raised. 9. Conditional Use Application #CU-15-04 of Carlee Cardwell & Lance Ohlsson for after-the-fact approval to allow a new 7.5 ’X 10’ entry to project three feet into the front yard setback requirement, 34 Cortland Avenue: The applicant was not present. Mr. Belair explained that the previous approval for this exact plan had expired. The applicant cannot sell the house without it. He recommended closing the hearing. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-15-04. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 7 July 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 7 July 2015 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 5 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:35 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date