HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11_2019-11-05 DRB Minutes draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 November
2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan; J. Smith,
alternate
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Crawford,
M. Mittag, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, R. Greco, B. Sirvis, L. Lackey, P. Smiar, P. Kahn, A. Chalnick, D. Seff, J.
Stern, M. Busher, T. Perrapato, N. Hyman, D. Partido, B. Kakalec, K. Ryder, D. Peters. C. Montgomery, L.
Hammond, B. Bartlett, C. Montgomery, F. Landry, A. Bartella.
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Cota asked to move the Minutes to follow the announcements.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Mr. Cota advised the public that there is an opening on the DRB. The City Council will be holding
interviews soon.
Mr. Cota then spoke of the great nature of the people of the City of South Burlington and particularly of
the acts of kindness when his son was recently struck by a car when riding his bike. He specifically
thanked the EMTs who responded to the call, Police Cpl. Brunell, the neighbor who made them dinner,
Councilor Tim Barritt who retrieved the bike, and the nurse in the next car who helped until the
ambulance arrived. Mr. Cota also noted the time DRB members devote to being at meetings and
preparing for meetings as volunteers giving back to the city. He cited the contentious issues they often
deal with and asked that people be kind to each other, whether they agree or not.
Mr. Wilking noted the recent passing of Larry Michaels who often attended meetings and said he will be
missed.
5. Minutes of 15 October 2019
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 2
Ms. Philibert moved to approve the minutes of 15 October as written. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion
passed 5‐0 with Mr. Wilking abstaining.
6. Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐29 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend Phase IIIB of a
previously approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment
consists of removing the master plan condition requiring construction of a left‐hand turn lane
at the southernmost entrance from Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road, 1840 Spear
Street:
It was noted that this item was to be continued as the applicant failed to meet public notice
requirements.
Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐19‐29 to 19 November 2019. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6‐
0.
7. Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐03 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of an
overall affordability plan for a previously approved multi‐phase, 334 unit planned unit
development, 1840 Spear Street:
It was noted that this item was to be continued as the applicant failed to meet public notice
requirements.
Mr. Cota moved to continue MS‐19‐02 to 19 November 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐
0.
8. Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐04 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership to allow
encroachment into a Class II wetland buffer, 1068 Williston Road:
Mr. Smiar said this is part of the Holiday Inn site in the T4 district. There is a small wetland buffer. 702
square feet of that buffer will be lawn and landscaping, and is currently part of the lawn and patio for
the existing pool. They have received a wetland permit from the State.
No issues were raised by the Board or the public.
Mr. Cota moved to close MS‐19‐04. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
9. Continued Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐35 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International
Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment
consists of constructing a 5,4000 sq. ft. addition to an existing maintenance building to
provide covered storage for snow removal equipment, 1200 Airport Drive:
Mr. Lackey addressed staff comments as follows:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 3
a. Staff noted that in order to take credit for the activity as landscaping, it cannot also
be applied for as an agricultural exemption for the beehives. The applicant was OK
with this stipulation.
b. The beehives must be managed by professionals. The applicant agreed.
c. The applicant must submit an overall plan for future landscaping at the Airport
commensurate with the next application that requires landscaping. Mr. Lackey said
they will be coming in with a bigger project and will bring that in as part of that
application.
d. They must provide evidence of wetland coverage. The applicant was OK with this.
Mr. Wilking asked if there is a requirement that the beehives be added to if any die. The applicant
agreed to this. Mr. Wilking said this should be a stipulation in the motion. Mr. Conner said that the
Board could add a condition that the prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant must show evidence of
how the colony will be maintained. Members were OK with this.
There were no other comments by board members or the public.
Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐19‐35. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned
unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit
development is to consist of 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35
dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single‐family home, conservation of 15.80
acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the purchase of 68
Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street:
Messrs. Sullivan and Wilking recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Cota welcomed Ms. Smith, the alternate DRB member, who may serve when there is a quorum
issue. He also noted that discussion would be limited to an hour as Mr. Behr must leave.
Mr. Cota also explained what final plat means and how things will proceed. He noted the complicated
history of the project and read an outline of the history and also read from “legal considerations”
involving TDRs. He noted that the status of TDRs is not yet decided in the courts and that the applicant
has chosen to proceed at their own risk. Mr. Cota then outlined the appeal process and what can be
appealed.
The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:
1. The applicant will record the conservation easement and density transfer before the
83rd unit
2. The applicant will record unit design guidelines.
3. The applicant confirmed that the grades are unchanged.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 4
4. The applicant confirmed that each structure will be compliant with the view
protection zone.
5. Mr. Currier said that no more than 50% of the homes will be completed in each
phase before the open space for that phase will be completed. This is 40 units in
Phase I, so that the open space will be built before unit 21 is built.
Mr. Behr asked when roads will be built for each phase and how they coordinate with open space. Mr.
Currier said roads for each phase will be built as part of that phase.
6. The applicant confirmed that the turning movement plan has been revised to
comply with the Fire Chief and that sign will be moved as a condition of approval.
7. Stormwater comments: no discussion
8. DPW comments: no discussion
9. Regarding the path within the proposed easement, Mr. Currier said the exact
location of the path is not yet known. He showed its general location and said they
will complete the clearing of the path. He agreed to the language provided.
10. Regarding landscaping values, Mr. Currier agreed the value shown is for trees and
shrubs only. He noted it is still about twice the required amount.
11. There will be a $293,000 budget for landscaping that will run by phase as follows:
$58,000 Phase I; $74,982 for Phase 2; $49,746 for Phase 3, and $35,454 for Phase 4;
$35,454 can be done at any time.
12. Arborist’s comments: no discussion
13. Regarding screening standards, Mr. Currier said they are proposing evergreens on 3
sides as allowed by Green Mountain Power. There will be ornamental grasses in
front to satisfy GMP. He showed a plan for this.
14. The applicant will show a plan for maintenance of the trail
15. Plans did not show tress. This has been corrected.
16. A buffering plan has been provided and includes a split rail fence. This will be
maintained by the homeowner association.
17. The applicant was OK with excluding the pedestrian easement from the common
element as a condition of approval.
18. The applicant was OK with a minor modification to driveways to multi‐family homes
to allow fire trucks to turn.
19. Mr. Currier said there are lighting standards for crossings. Most trail heads are lit
but not the trails. The applicant had no issue with adding lighting at three placed
indicated by board members. Mr. Behr indicated a little “stub” which he felt should
go. The applicant agreed to either option.
20. The applicant proposed to tie the next phase zoning permit to the previous phase.
They proposed to pull the first zoning permit within 18 months after final approval
and all appeals. Mr. Conner explained what would happen if they don’t meet this
schedule.
21. The applicant reiterated that no more than 50% of homes in each phase will be built
before the open space for that phase will be built.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 5
22. The applicant showed a chart of bond amounts. They were OK with revisions based
on a qualified estimator.
23. Staff notes this comment was no long applicable
24. The open space management plan will be separate from the homeowner bylaws.
Public comment was then received as follows:
Mr. Cota noted receipt of letters from members of the public from Lawrence Agee, David Weissgold,
Beth Tolmie, John Stern, Rosanne Greco, Andrew Chalnick, Louise Hammond, and Robert Brinkerhoff.
These will become part of the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Stern noted sightings of a marten in the field. This is an endangered species and should be
addressed.
Mr. Chalnick gave members a handout of maps including flood plain and conservation areas. He said the
development is not appropriate for this area because the regulations say flood plains should be
protected and experts have identified this area as flood plain (he cited the Arrowwood study). Mr.
Chalnick felt the 50‐foot buffer does not give the assurances needed.
Mr. Seff, attorney representing a number of residents, showed a brief video of the site taken during the
recent storm. He said this is a riparian area and flood plain that should be protected
from development, and there are a large number of units planned for this area. He also cited the critical
nature of wildlife and ecological resources in the area and said the city marked this area for no
development.
Regarding TDRs, Mr. Seff reviewed the history of the Court ruling and the appeals. He noted the city has
a new bylaw taking into account what the court said. He felt this project had to be heard under the old
bylaw, which was deemed illegal, and that the applicant should have to start over to be heard under the
new bylaw. Mr. Seff also believed that the zoning boundary line should not be moved.
Mr. Behr excused himself during this segment and reported that he would catch up with the remainder
of the hearing over the video recording.
Mr. Cota replied that the DRB doesn’t write the regulations. It acts on the regulations that exist and
cannot pick and choose what regulations to enforce. He noted the applicant is taking a risk in terms of
the TDRs. Regarding Map #7, Mr. Cota said more detail is needed to that map, which is why field
mapping is relied upon. Mr. Seff said there is no option for field delineation for riparian areas. He
believed the map has the force of law.
Mr. Landry favored the development and cited all the young families now living in Cider Mill. He noted
there is not enough housing in the city and hoped his kids could live in this development.
Ms. Perrapato felt the city is too developed and wildlife is being impacted.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 6
Ms. Greco said she did research on riparian areas which filter contaminants from getting to Lake
Champlain. She noted the Comprehensive Plan encourages density in transit areas and encourages
preserving open areas.
Ms. Bartella showed photos of wildlife whose nests were mowed over. She said new houses sound
good, but asked who protects the animals.
Ms. Sirvis cited the O’Brien Farms development and asked that something like that not happen here. All
the trees there were lost. She didn’t suggest no development, but a compromise so people and animals
can live together.
Ms. Hammond questioned why the Comprehensive Plan isn’t followed. She felt the city just wants to
“build build build.”
Mr. O’Leary addressed comments regarding map 7. He noted the city has never mapped any of this. It
all comes from Biofinder which says the maps are not to be used for legal purposes and need to be field
tested. He then added that they met with Rebecca Pfeiffer of the State who verified that the buffer
shown encompasses the wetland, wetland buffer, and entire flood plain. He stressed that this is not the
“Great Swamp,” as has been suggested. That is to the west. He also noted that most of the short video
that was shown is in the buffer area.
Mr. Langan asked about traffic. Mr. O’Leary said the intersection is now level of service D.
Members agreed they had enough information to begin to discuss their decision.
Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐27. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0.
11. 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 9:21 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ____