HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_2019-10-01 DRB Minutes draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 October 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1
October 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Sullivan, Acting Chair; M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D.
Marshall, D. Kerwin, J. Illick, M. Abrams, E. Sternberg, D. Saladino, B. Dousevicz, B. DeLaBrere, S.
Baker, B. Curley, C. Starr, L. Dagostino, K. Darr
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Sullivan provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Agenda item #7 has been continued to 15 October.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐28 of Donald & Lois Kerwin to subdivide an existing 2‐
acre parcel developed with a single family home into two parcels of 1.2 acres (Lot 1)
and 0.8 acres (lot 2) for the purpose of constructing a single family home on lot 2,
1420 Hinesburg Road:
Mr. Marshall showed a plan of the Kerwin property and identified the streets in the area. He
noted that the lot on the east side will be lot #2. Mr. Marshall also noted that they have been
to the City Council to address Interim Zoning. They cannot do a 4‐lot subdivision because of
TDR issues at this time, so they are doing this subdivision to have the existing home on its own
lot. The property cannot be served by municipal water, but it will be hooked up to the
municipal sewer.
Mr. Behr asked where this property is in relation to the previous four lot subdivision on
Highland Terrace. Mr. Marshall showed this on an overhead photo. Mr. Behr felt this proposal
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 OCTOBER 2019
PAGE 2
will be similar to the Highland Terrace subdivision but not as dense. He also noted that if the
TDR issues get resolved, the applicant can come in for 2 more lots. Mr. Marshall said that is the
intent.
Mr. Abrams said this is a 40‐year old established neighborhood, and recently more houses are
being built closer to the street which has changed the character of the area. He felt the current
proposal will affect his property values and his financial and physical health.
Ms. Sternberg said she has testified on similar topics and cited the importance of green spaces
for health. She offered the Board a document on the importance of even small green spaces.
She felt the current proposal seems to be going “opposite to sustainability.”
Mr. Behr said the zoning code aims to create more density in pockets of development and
larger blocks of open space in perpetuity. This particular property is to have higher density. He
also noted the Board enforces the regulations, and this application falls under the zoning code.
Ms. Keene said that Mr. Abrams could talk to his neighbors regarding the possibility of saving
some of the trees. Ms. Philibert asked whether Ms. Sternberg was aware of the LDR requiring
parks in new developments in the district.
Mr. Abrams said he also has an issue with cutting new driveways on Highland Terrace.
Mr. Sullivan noted receipt of emails from Mr. Abrams and Ms. Sternberg and also an email from
Linda Luxenberg who supports this proposal.
6. Continued final plat application #SD‐19‐21 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a
previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family
dwellings, four 4‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and three commercial buildings. The
amendment consists of an after‐the‐face request to reduce the rear yard setback for
Lot 7, containing seven single family dwelling units on Fall Street, from 20 feet to 13
feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road:
Mr. Dousevicz addressed staff comments:
1. The setback waiver would have to apply to the whole of lot 7. Mr. Dousevicz agreed it
would.
2. Mr. Dousevicz said they will remove the dotted lines.
3. Staff recommends the Board consider the park standards. Mr. Dousevicz said the park is
2.5 acres in the middle which will be deeded to the city as a park. The playground is
being used extensively. Even though the proposed deck will get closer to the park, it
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 OCTOBER 2019
PAGE 3
won’t make the park any smaller. There are also still good back yards for all those
homes.
Ms. Keene noted that the DRB had wanted good demarcation between the homes and the
park. She noted that the boulders are in the park, not on the line as suggested they be moved.
Mr. Dousevicz said the contractor told him they are on the line, but it they are not, they will be
moved.
Ms. Keene also said that because this is an “all or nothing” situation, there would have to be a
condition that no other lot can build into the setback.
Ms. Philibert asked at what point does the Board say the LDRs exist for predictability, and we
gave the applicant some fair waivers. Mr. Dousevicz said it was their mistake because they
rarely have to be concerned with rear yard setbacks. They are already working to be sure this
doesn’t happen with any other units. They just want to fix the problem on this one lot. The
other alternative they have is to cut the deck in half and have steps down to the patio.
Mr. Behr asked if this was where they were going to have the “cottage concept.” Mr. Dousevicz
said that wasn’t for this lot because it wouldn’t fit in.
Mr. Behr said his issue with the waiver is that this would be the only one sticking into the
setback, and he was inclined not to approve it. Otherwise, he thought it was a nice
development.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert moved to close SD‐19‐21. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 4‐0.
7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐22 of SunCap Property Group
to resubdivide five lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into four lots of 6.9
acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres (Lot 11) and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), and
eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, for the purpose of
constructing an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and distribution center,
635 Community Drive: and
8. Continued site plan Application #SP‐19‐28 of SunCap Property Group to construct a
144,000 sq. ft., 35 ft. high warehouse building, paved equipment storage and parking
areas, and associated site improvements on a proposed 42.8 acre lot, and widen and
Signalize the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue, 635
Community Drive: and
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 OCTOBER 2019
PAGE 4
9. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU‐19‐06 of SunCap Property Group to allow
a fence approximately sixteen feet in height for the purpose of supporting a gate for a
warehouse and distribution center, 635 Community Drive:
Ms. Keene noted new items since the last hearing: a revised lighting plan and an updated noise
study. The Board also needs to decide whether to recommend to the City Council that the
Council address whether to grant an impact fee waiver.
Mr. Sullivan noted receipt of letters from Ms. Leban and Dr. Caballero‐Manrique regarding
lighting. The Board retroactively authorized the technical review of lighting which has occurred.
One issue found in the review regarded flood fixtures. The levels have been reduced and the
angle is OK. Some fixtures have been removed. They now quantitively meet the LDRs.
Mr. Illick said he would testify that they meet the regulations. This parking lot is half the size of
the next parking lot, and they don’t abut any residential properties. Mr. Illick said he owns the
adjacent property and has no issue with it. The parking lot does have motion sensors now in
response to Ms. Leban comments.
Regarding the impact fee waiver, Ms. Keene said the Council has the ultimate authority, but
looks to the Board to make a recommendation on whether to grant the waiver.
Mr. Illick said the intersection is already at a troubled level of service, and this development will
exacerbate it. They are contributing 15% of the traffic, so they shouldn’t have to bear the full
burden, and 85% of the signal cost should be offset. Ms. Keene said the total for the signal
$477,000.
Mr. Behr said he supports the request because of all the improvements. A rec path has been
constructed, and the applicant is maintaining that well‐used path.
Staff comments were then addressed:
1. Regarding view lines Mr. Illick showed sight line from the viewpoint of a driver. The
driver can see the top of the building but not a trailer.
2. Landscaping and signage: The applicant was OK with the “boiler plate” item.
Mr. Sullivan asked about noise. Ms. Keene said staff is satisfied with the memo from the
applicant regarding noise.
There was no public comment.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 OCTOBER 2019
PAGE 5
Regarding the issue of a child care facility, Mr. Illick said this is a positive in an industrial park.
The outside area is fenced, so the children are safe.
Mr. Behr moved to close SD‐19‐22, SP‐19‐28 and CU‐19‐06. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion
passed 4‐0.
10. Minutes of 4 and 17 September 2019:
Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 4 & 17 September as written. Mr. Behr
seconded. Motion passed 4‐0.
11. Other Business:
No other issues were brought to the Board.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8: 22 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ___