Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10A_2018-11-20 DRB Minutes Draft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 November 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan (via phone) ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Acting Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Messina, R. Rushlow, B. Gardner, P. Washburn, M. Goldfield, C Montgomery, B. Bartlett, D. Peters, W. & K. Hays, R. Brinckeroff, D. Heinberg, C. Miller, D. Seff, K. Shepard, P. Kahn, S. Dopp, C. Fran, A. Chalnick, C. Myers 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move the South Village application to #5 on the Agenda because they are asking to withdraw. 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-18-31 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved Master Plan for a multi-phase, 334 unit, planned unit development. The amendment consists of reducing the total number of units to 278, converting Lot 11, currently approved as educational, to residential, and converting Lot 11A, currently approved as residential, to limited neighborhood commercial, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant requests to withdraw and will resubmit at a later date. Ms. Keene also noted receipt of letters from people in the neighborhood. 6. Appeal #AO-18-01 of Tom and Donna Anfuso, et al, appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer that the Master Plan application #MP-18-01 and Preliminary DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 Plat Application #SD-18-29 of Dorset Meadows Association, LLC, were complete as submitted on 26 September 2018, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Seff, representing the appellants, gave members a handout enumerating statutory references. He then presented the two points upon which the appeal is being based, as follows: a. The appellants believe the applications are premature and invalid because the DRB sketch plan review is still open as there was no formal decision on the sketch plan which they believe is mandatory and prerequisite to filing the applications for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat review. b. Even if the applications were timely, Mr. Conner lacked authority to deem the applications complete because Ms. Keene, who signed the applications as “administrative officer, was not the city’s administrative officer. Mr. Kochman said that with respect to “a,” the DRB’s precedent has been that the Board reviews recommendations made by staff and staff determines if the application is complete. Anyone who disagrees with that determination has to tell the Board why the application is not complete. Mr. Conner stressed that sketch plan review is not warned as a “public hearing.” Applicants are not under oath during that review. It is simply a meeting at which the Board can provide non- binding guidance to the applicant(s). Mr. Kochman added that the DRB has never made a formal finding on a sketch plan, and the Land Development Regulations do not require them to do so. That precedent is well established. Mr. Conner was asked if there would be any harm in the Board formally approving a sketch plan. Mr. Conner said that there would be harm because it would create an appealable action which could be appealed to the Environmental Court. The Board would have made a formal decision without seeing more than a single page of the application. He added that this interpretation was upheld in the Saxon Partners case before the Environmental Court related to the BJ’s Warehouse sketch plan application. With regard to point “b,” Mr. Conner presented a written statement that neither State law nor the Land Development Regulations require the administrative officer to state when an DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 application is complete. That determination can be made by the administrative officer or any of the staff appointed by the City Council as assistant(s) or acting staff. He then noted that in March, Ms. Keene accepted the position of Assistant Zoning Administrator and in August he was appointed as the zoning administrative officer by the City Council, position which he still holds since the appointment of Dalila Hall was as “Acting Administrative Officer,” which will be effective until the next City Council action in March, 2019. Mr. Rushford, attorney for the Dorset Meadows applicant, said he agreed with staff’s memorandum and with staff’s argument regarding the sketch plan. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Rushford if there is anything that says the DRB has to take a final vote on a sketch plan. Mr. Rushford said he does not believe there is. Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Peters asked why there isn’t a vote on a sketch plan. Mr. Miller said the purpose of sketch plan review is to provide guidance to the applicant so that the applicant doesn’t waste time or money on a plan that the Board will not approve. Mr. Chalnick said he was at the sketch plan hearing and it just “kind of ended.” He felt there should be a vote so people know what is happening. Mr. Seff said an applicant needs their “ticket punched, so they can go ahead with preliminary plat. Mr. Kochman said that is not true. An applicant can foolishly go ahead and file a preliminary plat even when the DRB has indicated it does not favor the plan. Mr. Conner provided Board members with copies of the Saxon Partners Entry Order. As there was no further testimony, Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previous approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to 5 feet and increasing the height to 15 feet, 30 Myers Court: Mr. Washburn said they were at the DRB in March and went through the construction phase. There were some “misunderstandings,” to be dealt with now. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Washburn said one of the issues is what constitutes “living space.” He noted there are many different figures available from different sources. Building code regulations require that any point needs to be 7 feet in height. The highest point in the loft space is 6’5” and 6’6” in the cellar. Ms. Keene noted there is no dimension in the LDRs. Staff feels this is not living space. Mr. Washburn said the loft/attic is not intended as living space; it is for storage only. Ms. Keene said the LDRs limit the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit. If the Boards determines the loft/attic is living space, then the accessory unit is too large and can’t be approved. Mr. Kochman confirmed if the loft/attic is not habitable, it is approvable. Mr. Washburn said the other issue is building height. He acknowledged they drew the plan wrong. The foundation had to be high enough for sewage to flow downhill. They made the mistake of thinking the final height was based on frontage, not on previous construction grade. Mr. Kochman asked how high above the allowable height is it. Ms. Keene said about 16 feet. Mr. Washburn said if they have to tear it down, they will lose their life savings. Ms. Keene suggested the Board can approve a new preconstruction grade because of physical necessity. She showed on the plan where the new line would be. Members had not issue with that. Mr. Messina, representing the owner of the abutter’s property, said they didn’t contest the original permit based on the language submitted. They feel the conditional use permit is inaccurate. His clients hired TCE to do a measurement and they found it was 21 feet to the peak, 18 feet to half-peak (this was done by laser, not an on-property measurement). They are asking for a third part confirmation of the numbers so that the DRB can have all the facts before making a decision. Mr. Messina gave members a copy of their engineer’s report. Ms. Keene noted the difficulty in determining pre-existing grade since the site has already been disturbed. If the Board establishes a new pre-construction grade, that is the place from which a new measurement will be taken. Mr. Messina then showed a picture of what the structure looks like from the neighbor’s house. Mr. Miller said he felt a third party measurement was a good idea. Members agreed measurements should be done by an independent engineer. Mr. Cota moved to continue CU-18-12 to 5 January 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 8. Site Plan Application #SP-18-51 of NFI Vermont, Inc., to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home. The amendment is to construct a building addition, 4 new parking spaces, and pedestrian walkway, 102 Allen Road: Dr. Myers explained that NFI is a 501C-3 offering mental health and special ed services. Many of those they serve are in DCF custody. The house in question was donated to the Alenbrook Foundation many years ago and was given to NFI 10 years ago. It is state-funded and serves 8 youth, 4 girls, 4 boys on 2 separate floors. They received feedback through DCF/Licensing that their bedrooms are very small, and they were encouraged to expand them. Dr. Myers also noted that the youth are more “problematic” now, with developmental trauma, and there is a need for staff rooms overnight. It is felt that it will be better to have all the rooms on one floor, so they can be monitored by one person. Mr. O’Leary said the plan is to add 1640 sq. ft. in a 2-story addition along with a gas line in the back of the existing building. They will also increase the size of the water line and add a sidewalk on the back for the property and 4 new parking spaces. He indicated the 50-foot setback from the seasonal watercourse. There would be a small incursion for grading. Mr. Kochman asked if the population of the facility would be increased. Dr. Myers said it would not. Ms. Keene noted the property is well-screened from abutters. Staff notes were then reviewed. The applicant noted that placing existing wiring underground would be a sizeable investment for a non-profit. Members were OK with leaving the wiring as is. Mr. Sullivan noted they would need a finding of ‘infeasibility.’ The applicant was OK with all other staff requirements. Ms. Keene noted the application could not be closed until the Board sees an upgraded landscaping plan as it has to approve a specific plan. A representative of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee asked about the gap in the sidewalk on Allen Road and asked if there is a way to facilitate that sidewalk being built. Ms. Keene noted that sidewalk is a priority project. The Board would have to decide whether there is a nexus for requiring it of the applicant. Dr. Myers said they are willing to work with the city on an easement. Mr. Kochman felt it is a city problem and would be an “inappropriate requirement” for this applicant. Other members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-18-51 to 4 December 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date