Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_DRB Minutes DRAFT PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JUNE 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 June 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, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; T. McKenzie, A. Poulos, A. Frosino, L. Lackey, D. Carman, D. Bright 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: Ms. Keene advised that at last night’s meeting, the City Council re-appointed Mr. Kochman and appointed Jody Lesko to the DRB. Ms. Lesko will join the Board for its 2 July meeting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 2 5. Site Plan Application #SP-24-17 and Conditional Use Application #CU- 24-06 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an outdoor storage yard. The amendment consists of constructing a 1.02 acre paved parking lot and changing the use to commercial parking facility, 1877 Williston Road: Mr. McKenzie said he owns the storage yard which was used for construction storage. It is now underused. When Pete’s lost a lot of their parking and storage for RVs, he felt the parking facility would be a better use for the property. Mr. Gillies said staff has no issues with the Site Plan and Conditional Use standards, and they are willing to move to a draft motion which has a few issues. #1. The applicant was asked to clarify whether there will be any dumpsters. Mr. McKenzie said there will not. #2. The applicant was asked to identify snow storage plans. Ms. Poulos said they were OK with the condition to relocate snow storage at the western end of the parking lot. Mr. Kochman said he looked at the definition of “commercial/private parking lot. He asked if there is a use with which this property is associated or is it a principle use. Ms. Poulos said it is just a commercial parking lot. Mr. Kochman said he did not feel it meets the definition that is attached to it. He said that as he reads the definition, it was designed for the exclusive use of a business which is different from a commercial parking lot. He added that if it fits another category, he can consider it. Mr. Poulos said their original request was for “outdoor vehicle storage.” They also discussed a private provider including vehicle storage, but it was clear it didn’t fit that category. Mr. Moscatelli said it has to fit some category as it is not a prohibited use. Ms. Keene said her definition is that this is a parking facility. If it is to Pete’s RVs, it would be a business. Mr. McKenzie said it would be “for customers.” Mr. Kochman said he still feels it doesn’t meet the last sentence of the definition. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 3 Mr. Behr said he was comfortable with it as presented. It is a commercial or private parking facility and can be a “stand-alone” parking facility. #3. The applicant was asked to revise the relocation of the access drive so it is not within the Flood Plain Zone. Ms. Poulos said they will do that. She showed a plan with everything outside of the Flood Plain Zone. #4. Staff asked for details of the fence. Ms. Poulos said they will provide this. Mr. McKenzie said it is likely to be a standard chain link fence. Mr. Kochman said if it is a parking lot, it has to comply with landscape standards for parking lots. Mr. Gillies said this requires 1 shade tree for every 5 parking spaces and 10% interior landscaped islands. Mr. McKenzie said it will be difficult to meet those standards, and they will have to do some engineering. Ms. Keene noted that in the past, the Board has allowed a couple of large islands instead of a number of smaller islands. She showed a picture of what she would consider to be 10%. Ms. Poulos said the biggest concern with islands is the movement of large vehicles through the lot. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-24-17 and CU-24-06 until 2 July 2024. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-24-26 of Burlington School District to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of renovating an existing hangar for the use of Burlington School District’s Technical Center, including reconfiguration of the parking and site circulation, 200 Devinci Drive: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to relocate the crosswalk to provide safe pedestrian movement. Ms. Keene said the proposed location is OK, but there is concern raised in connection with stormwater as to whether it should be curbed. #2. Staff raised a question regarding the turning movement plan. Mr. Frosino showed a new plan. He noted that Beta’s loading dock will have to be accessed by a 53-foot long trailer which will have to back in. That is why the entry is as large as it is. Mr. Frosino also showed the entry of buses unloading, then pulling out. He showed a small triangular piece that they will be closing and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 4 indicated the proposed pavement. He then identified the security gate into the Airport which will be maintained. #3. The applicant was asked to raise the sidewalk so it is protected. Mr. Frosino showed why they feel this cannot be done because of truck traffic. Trucks use up most of the space to back into the loading docks, and adding curbing there would impact truck turning movements. He showed an area where they could put a raised sidewalk, but it would require ADA ramps on either side. The applicant also noted that the receiving loading dock area is Beta’s property. Mr. Gillies showed an area where the sidewalk could be put. Mr. Frosino said their preference is to keep it where it is. He didn’t know that students would use it. Ms. Keene said they have to weigh the 2 arguments against each other. She read the regulations regarding sidewalk requirements and noted that there is not a requirement for curbing because most of the time separation is a better alternative. Mr. Frosino said they could move the sidewalk and provide a short area of curbing, but the rest of the section would have to remain flush because of vehicles driving over it. This is the gate where the Airport brings in trucks. Mr. Kochman asked how much time is used by those trucks. Mr. Lackey said it is limited, but he didn’t have exact numbers. Mr. Kochman suggested a temporary barrier. Mr. Frosino said he was trying to visualize that. Mr. Kochman said about 18 inches high metal piping supported that would allow a truck to get through. Ms. Keene said there are a few ways to protect pedestrians: visual separation, curbing, or bollards. She said she would not recommend anything that isn’t “normal” because of the liability. Mr. Lackey asked what they are trying to protect. He suggested moving the fence further to the west. Mr. Behr felt they had belabored this. He noted they have done what the applicant requests on residential streets. He was comfortable shifting the fence away and just curbing it. Mr. Lackey said there is limited truck traffic when students would be present. Ms. Keene noted that an O’Brien development has a permanent visual barrier of a change in pavement. Mr. Frosino asked if they did that, would they have to move the fence. Mr. Moscatelli said his concern is with trucks needing to get into the walkway. If they move the fence, the conflict is eliminated. Mr. Gillies said they would still need curbing because the truck drivers would still take the 4 feet for turning. Mr. Kochman said that moving 4 feet to the left and curbing meets the regulations. Mr. Frosino noted there are light poles there that would have to be avoided. They will work on it. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Frosino noted they have increased the landscaped area to meet the 10% requirement. He also showed a plan where curbing has been added. Members voiced no objection to these. #6. Regarding shade trees, the applicant noted they coordinated with USDA. The aim is to reduce wildlife hazards to aircraft in the field. Larger trees attract birds of pretty which are a hazard to aircraft. Ms. Philibert asked if the Board can cut some slack on this. Ms. Keene said the Board has authority regarding dimensional standards. She read from the regulations that would support the applicant’s argument. Mr. Lackey noted the Board has allowed ornamental grasses on Davinci. Mr. Frosino noted they tried to put in 2 small trees, cut the USDA did not approve of that and asked that they be removed. Ms. Philibert said safety preempts beauty. #7. Regarding snow storage, the applicant showed a revised snow storage plan. Members were OK with this. #8. Regarding compensation for tree removal, Mr. Keene noted they will be removing 4 trees from the front of the building. They are asking to have shrubs and ornamental grasses as compensation. Members expressed no objection to that. #9. Regarding stormwater, the applicant indicated they had met with stormwater people and provided an updated model and plans. Staff will review this information. #10. Regarding screening of the transformer and generator, Mr. Frosino said they shifted the transformer to make room for some shrubs. They also got confirmation that the generator won’t be required, and there is a good chance it will be removed from the project. Mr. Frosino suggested putting the sidewalk on the opposite side of the light poles and relocating the fence 8-10 feet to the left and putting the walkway there. He stressed that they are trying to get the project to bid. He showed where the new sidewalk would be and where there would be a portion of raised sidewalk to the building. Members were OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 6 Mr. Behr moved to close SP-24-20. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 7. Master Plan Application #MP-24-02 of Burlington School District to amend a previously approved Master Plan for a 340,000 sf manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sf office and retail building, a 15,600 sf commercial building, and an 85,000 sf flight instruction and airplane use building on 40.43 acres. The amendment consists of modifying the access and circulation to an adjacent existing hangar, 154 Davinci Drive: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff recommends the Board affirm that it will accept the submission requirements as having been adequately addressed. Ms. Keene said this is a minor amendment to a Master Plan. Staff considers that not a lot of background information is needed. Members were OK with that decision. #2. Regarding phasing, staff asked to include a condition modifying the approved phasing to require the removal of those elements as part of the “orange phase” consisting of the second half of the manufacturing building. Ms. Keene noted that when the tree replacement plan happened, there were some minor amendments to the phasing plan. The Board approved that. At that time, staff didn’t update the Master Plan. They are trying to do that now. The applicant was OK with this. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close MP-24-02. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion pass with all present voting in favor. 8. Minutes of 4 June 2024: Mr. Johnston moved to approve the Minutes of 4 June 2024 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 7 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _____ PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 August 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; Q. Mann, M. Behr, J. Lesko, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; E. Quallen, R. Dickinson, A. Dery, J. Anderson, W. Higgins, R. Greco, F. MacDonald, B. McMeekin, M. Mittag, C. McQuillen, F. Delwiche, B. Britt, A. Cousins, G. Knisley, A. Gill, C. Ruggiero, B. Currier, C. Scott, P. & D. Allison, A. Blair, D. Smith, M. Todd, V. & Al. Bolduc, An. Bolduc, M. Malpuri, D. Johnson, B. Sirvis, Christie, Michelle, C. Frisbie, J. Hawkins, M. Lisak, A. Chalnick, E. Nelson, S. Daniels, T. Yeats, Elizabeth, Miles, C. Casey, K. Ryder, D. Leban, S. Homsted, Michael, J. & C. Ruggerio, R. Jeffers 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: Amendments to the LDRs went to the City Council last week and will be warned for a public hearing to be held in early September. Last night, the City Council passed an updated Water Ordinance. They will be considering an updated Sewer Ordinance at their next meeting. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-24-17 and Conditional Use Application #CU-24-06 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an outdoor storage yard. The amendment consists of constructing a 1.02 acre paved parking lot, and changing the use to commercial parking facility, 1877 Williston Road: Staff noted that the applicant requested a continuation. Ms. Lesko moved to continue SP-24-17 and CU-24-06 to 17 September 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-24-26 of the City of South Burlington to develop an existing 60.7 acre undeveloped site with a parking lot and recreation path and change the use to public park, 124 Nowland Farm Road: Ms. Quallen reviewed the history of the city’s purchase of the property using Open Space and Conservation funds. There is now a plan to move forward with a recreation path and parking lot. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to confirm that utility lines will be underground. This was confirmed by the applicant. #2. Staff requested the sizes of the impacted wetlands. Mr. Dickinson showed the plan and indicated the wetlands. Wetland area “C” is 8882 sq. ft.; area “M” is 1142 sq. ft.; area “L” is 6064 sq. ft. for a total impact area of 11,018 sq. ft. Ms. Keene noted that area “M” is not regulated. #3. The applicant was asked to demarcate the border of the unimpacted wetland and buffer. Ms. Quallen said they can do this with mowing and signage. Mr. Dickinson said the State prefers 4x6 signs every 50 feet. #4. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the city’s Stormwater Section. Mr. Dickinson said they have submitted the information. There is very little increase in runoff. Ms. Quallen noted that the State signed off that a 9050 permit is not needed. Mr. Behr asked about site lighting with regard to height and downcasting. Ms. Quallen said lighting is only 15 feet tall and won’t spill onto the neighbors. Mr. Dickinson directed attention to the detailed lighting plan. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Ms. Greco: She opposes the use of asphalt and also the size and lighting of the parking lot. She prefers permeable pavement. Approval should be delayed until this is explored. Mr. Mittag: Concerned with lighting and noted that other natural parks have no lighting in their parking areas as parks close at dusk. He asked to reduce the size of the parking area as there are never more than 5 cars in the gravel parking areas now. Mr. MacDonald: There should be shrubbery on the south side to block light. He questioned whether brush hogging can continue. It should happen once a year. Mr. McMeekin: Less parking is better. The runoff to the east surprised him and he felt this was good. He noted that a “20-year storm” may be a “10—year storm” now. Ms. McQuillen (representing Common Roots): Overall supports the project. Wants to be sure there is no effect of stormwater on the land they lease. They also don’t want the public tromping through their vegetable gardens. There is an electric fence there. They want to be sure their lease is protected. Ms. Delwiche: Opposes any plans to develop the land including the path and parking lot. She is concerned with bobolink habitat. The path goes through the meadow where they nest. Mr. Britt: The surface is clay; putting a permeable surface wouldn’t change anything. The path is being paved to accommodate wheelchairs, strollers, etc., so the Park can be for everyone. Ms. Cousins: Paving the path will make it accessible to the neighborhood. Very much supports the project. Mr. Knisely: Objects to asphalt. Concern with heat and runoff effects on creatures. Feels a bridge would be preferable where the path crosses the wetland. Sees no need for lighting. Miles: Opposes asphalt and lights. He liked the 3 white oaks and suggested more of them. Mr. Behr asked the applicant to address the lighting issue. Ms. Quallen said the lights could be on a timer. Mr. Behr cited issues with pervious paving which, he said, bogs up and becomes asphalt after a few years. Stressed that this is a park for the whole city. He felt the impact is minimal and represents a balance of benefit to residents and conservation. He would like timers on the lights and also plantings on the north side. Ms. Mann asked about the bobolinks. Ms. Quallen said there are significant communities of various species. There are statewide inventories. She noted they will continue to brush hog once a year. Ms. Greco asked why there is a mowed area on either side of the path. Ms. Quallen said that was in response to people who want to walk on an unpaved area. It is only 10 feet on one side of the path. Ms. Leban: Suggested posting the speed limit on the path. Following public input, Ms. Lesko moved to close SP-24-26. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-24-12 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development of 155 homes in single family duplex, and 3-family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 24 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces. The amendment consists of subdividing a 0.17 acre lot for the purpose of a battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved for open space, adding 14 units in 2-family homes, replacing 2 large single-family homes with 4 detached cottage-style units, modifying the approved phasing, and other minor amendments, 500 Old Farm Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked the Board for more direction regarding a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Keene noted that some of the items on the list are already allow. She showed the list of items that are not included: a. Concrete curbing b. Concrete sidewalks c. Topsoil/seed d. Installation of water main e. An item where documentation can be provided where best practice prohibits it from being done (e.g., work where the DPW would prefer it be done in warmer weather Ms. Keene asked what the Board would agree to. Mr. Gill noted the Board wants to ensure that the natural playground is completed by the 75th home. He said they can make a full effort to do that, but weather conditions for a large part of the year could affect their ability to accomplish it. They also can’t do a sidewalk in December because it will fail; doing it in April is better. Water mains cannot be installed from mid-November to mid-March, and this could interfere with other work getting done. Ms. Keene said she spoke with DPW and was told the asphalt plants close, but concrete does not. She also got clarification about what Mr. Gill said regarding water mains. Mr. Homsted said the Water Dept. will sometimes extend the period by a week or two, but they will not allow mains to be installed in February, and manufacturers will not provide warrantees if mains are installed at the wrong time of year. Mr. Johnston said he was OK with the whole list. Ms. Lesko agreed and used the phrase “unforeseen/controllable.” Ms. Keene said she would use that language in the motion. Mr. Gill stressed that this is a massive project with many variables. They can’t have the ability to sell homes shut down because that is how they keep the project going. Mr. Behr said the Board wants to be as flexible as possible to allow the applicant to work with staff. He agreed with some latitude with seasonal buffers. Mr. Gill asked for language to allow them to get back before the Board if an issue arises. He said they usually know in advance when there will be an issue. Mr. Gill then cited an issue that has come up as they are working on building the park. The Old Farm Road portion will be lowered 4-6 feet. That work isn’t happening and is not required till the 125th unit. Connecting the rec path to that road isn’t possible until the road is lowered. Phasing has to allow for such possibilities/conflicts. Staff and the Board were OK adding this to the list. Mr. Gill also noted that at the bottom of p. 5, there is a question of density. He stressed that density is not changing. Ms. Keene said that because there is no master plan, there is no vesting, so this is not an issue. Mr. Gill said the finding of fact is not relevant and will go away with the new zoning that is going into effect. Ms. Lesko then moved to close SD-24-12. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-14 of Christopher and Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 13.5 acre lot developed with two barns, a single family home, and accessory shed into two lots of 1.9 acres containing the 2 existing barns (Lot 1) and 11.6 acres containing the existing single family home and shed (Lot 2), 197 Autumn Hill Road: Ms. Philibert that there is a request for the applicant to come back with redesigned plans. She asked why they are not doing that. Mr. Currier said the first item is for a “robust conversation.” The intent of the project is to deed some of the land to the neighbor to the north. This requires subdivision review. The regulations allow for this. He read the regulation and said they feel they meet the requirements. Ms. Keene noted that a boundary line is allowed when 2 parcels are submitted at the same time and there is a maximum size. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked for a discussion of whether protection of wetland standards supersedes rules 15-A-11 and 15-A-12. Ms. Keene said that what is on the site are 2 barns and a large mowed area. The Board would have to see a reduction of the mowed area. Subdivision standards say you can’t put anything into a wetland or wetland buffer or subdivide a wetland or wetland buffer. Mr. Currier showed where the buildings are completely within the buffer. They submitted a revised plan. They are planning no development with regard to the barns. They believe this fits the subdivision regulations. He added that the minimum lot size for all other uses is 40,000 sq. ft., and this meets that requirement. Ms. Keene said once subdivision exists, development is possible within the rules. She asked how the applicant proposes to modify the wetland standards. They would need an opinion from a wetland scientist. Mr. Currier said that would not be needed with this application; the new owner could do that at another time. Mr. Behr asked what potential development the new owner could do. Ms. Keene said the barns are not in good shape, but they could have multi-family housing with exterior modifications. They could also have limited neighborhood commercial. She felt the plan is more realistic if there are only interior renovations. She asked if the Board would consider the new proposal as allowable. Mr. Currier read the regulation he believes allows this. It allows building only in the buildable portion of the lot. He added it is not cut and dried that you can’t put a subdivision line through a non-developable area. #2. This no longer applies. #3. The applicant was asked for a plan for development of each parcel. Mr. Currier said they would develop to a minimal extent on the eastern side so the western corner could support something small. The intent is not to develop the property to the full extent allowable. Ms. Keene noted the new LDRs will eliminate the Conservation PUD. Mr. Currier said he could see a duplex on the southwest corner with some single-family homes elsewhere. Ms. Keene said the primary concern is access as there are a number of restrictions. Mr. Johnston said it would be good to know what the applicant intends to do with the barns. Mr. Ruggiero said it was the Jewett’s who were planning to build 28 lots. He and his wife never favored that. They are trying to do the 2-acre cut-out from each lot to put in a couple of houses, not build it out. They would like the barns to remain, and the other lot could be for their children someday. #4. Staff noted there would be a road limitation because of the dead end street. The applicant asked how to address this in light of the regulations. Mr. Currier said he didn’t think crossing the wetland was viable. He didn’t feel the 200-foot road standard would preclude development and that a loop could work or the option of a road to the northern lot. He noted there is a right-of-way on Windswept Lane to the Jewett line. Mr. Behr said the DRB needs to see that so they can see there is the ability to do something down the road, even with the constraints on the lot. Ms. Quinn said it would be different if this was a subdivision where it was clear there would be no future subdivision possible. Mr. Currier said he thought that was a new interpretation of the “carve-out.” Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to continue SD-24-14 to 4 September 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-15 of Christopher and Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 19.5 acre undeveloped lot into 2 lots of 17.6 acres (Lot 1) and 1.9 acres (Lot 2) and reconfigure an existing private road (Autumn Hill Road) by removing approximately 580 feet of length and connecting to an existing public road (Windswept Lane), 197 Rear Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Ruggerio said he felt this was a more straightforward application than the other. Mr. Currier said they are planning a new driveway off Windswept Lane. There is a 60-foot right-of-way to Windswept which would be a private drive. They would relocate Autumn Hill Road to the right-of-way. There is minimal wetland crossing. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to modify the subdivision boundary. Mr. Currier said they submitted a revised plan which accomplishes that. It shrinks the lot to about an acre. He showed the new plan and said there is still room for a house. #2. The applicant was directed to submit a revised sketch plan application prior to submission of preliminary plat. This will be subject to the regulations in effect at that time. Mr. Currier said that has been addressed. #3. The applicant was asked to revise the plan so that habitat blocks and connectors are not being subdivided. Mr. Currier said the new plan addresses that. #4. The applicant was asked to compute the buildable area. Mr. Currier said it is .8 of an acre. #5. Staff indicated it support of comments from DPW and directed the applicant to address them in the revised sketch plan application. Mr. Currier said they will remove Autumn Hill Rd. He added that the neighborhood has been talking about doing that for some time. He then asked if the Board would talk about the number of units off Autumn Hill Rd. There was a requirement to upgrade to a public road with the next unit. He said that access would be improved. There would be 5 units for the first 500 feet. Mr. Behr asked why there are curb cuts off the driveway. Mr. Currier said they meet Fire Department requirements. Mr. Johnston said he was more in favor of a driveway into Autumn Hill Rd. than 2 curb cuts. #6. Staff asked how many buildings are being proposed. Mr. Currier said only one. #7. Staff asked about utilities. Mr. Currier said they will use both city water and city sewer. #8. Staff questioned whether to allow reconfiguring to allow for infill development. Ms. Keene said the draft regulations have a minimum threshold of 2 acres below which there is no minimum density, so with a single family home the Board does not have to require allowing for future development. In the new regulations, that will change, so it will depend on which regulations the applicant comes in under. Mr. Currier said that once the new regulations are warned, they will have to come in under those. #9. All homes must front on a public or private street. Ms. Keene said the Board does have some ability to modify some standards. Mr. Currier said this lot has no frontage. Ms. Keene said the Board would like the applicant to demonstrate that modifying the standard would better meet the purpose of the regulations. #10. The applicant was directed to redesign the plan to avoid bifurcating the connector. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Allison: The neighborhood unanimously opposes elimination of the end of Autumn Hill Road. They feel it would have adverse impacts including increased traffic and noise. It is a quiet neighborhood with a lot of wildlife. He said Autumn Hill Rd. has worked for 40 years. There is a utility easement along the road. Neighbors oppose cutting into Windswept Lane. Mr. Blair: He favors this application. He lives across from the 2 barns. He didn’t see why that can’t be used for more housing. He said that no matter what is built, the animals will still be there. Ms. Smith: She said she has nothing very negative to say about the application, but she is opposed to having the road come up to the first duplex. The tree line behind her house in very important to her and she would oppose removal of any of those trees. Mr. Todd: He was concerned with increased traffic if there is access on Windswept Lane. Mr. Zaberty: Has no objection to the development but has the same concerns about the road as other neighbors. Mr. Ruggerio said the road for Windswept was supposed to be one road, but there was a feud between 2 property owners. Mr. Behr explained the history of those 2 roads and said the connection of Autumn Hill and Windswept was always planned. Members were OK concluding the sketch plan. 10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-24-11 of Allyson and Vincent Bolduc to subdivide an existing 16.46 acre lot developed with a single family home and accessory structures into two residential lots of 2.0 acres and 14.46 acres, retain the existing single family home and accessory structures on the 14.46 acre lot, and construct a duplex on the 2.0 acre lot, 252 Autumn Hill Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff is requiring a revised subdivision to exclude protected resources. Mr. Currier said the first plan should that 2 acres extended into the wetland to the west. They submitted a new plan that corrects this. The western boundary was moved. The building envelope is now within a .74 acre lot. They will need a setback reduction for this to work, reducing the required 30-foot rear setback to 5 feet. Ms. Keene asked why they don’t just shift everything to the south. Mr. Currier said when you go through to the first tier, it involves mature trees. The habitat block exchange wants them to be further north. Mr. Behr suggested changing the lot line to square it off. Ms. Keene noted that the LDRs said a building lot may extend into a wetland only to meet the minimum lot size or frontage requirements for the district. Mr. Currier said if staff prefers, they can subdivide following the buffer. That would just make it a more irregular lot. The regulations say you just have to demarcate the buffer, and they intend to do that. Ms. Bolduc said the rest of the land is in conservation and will not be used. #2. Staff asked to require the applicant to reconfigure the lot/easement so there is actual access to Lot 1. Mr. Currier said they can just slide over. He showed this on the plan. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to close SD-24-11. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 11. Minutes of 18 July: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 18 July as written. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 12. 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 10:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___________