HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/06/2024
PAGE 1
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. Scott: They preserved the lands of the Scott Preserve with the intention of
causing surrounding lands to be conserved. They were able to do this because
they created carve-outs. Is in favor of Board amending 1970s decision.
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. Chatterjee: 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 September 4, 2024