TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Approved
*
There is currently one vacancy on the
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Minutes of the
Ted MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0, with Greg and Zoë abstaining.
Training Session for
New and Revised Regulations for the
Alex presented a training session for
- New, revised and unchanged zoning districts – there are now 8 districts making up the area considered as the Village Growth Center (VGC).
- Density – base/maximum densities and density incentives were established.
- Stream setback provisions – Setbacks are now variable within the VGC, ranging from 25’ to 130’.
- Design Standards – site-level and building-level standards were revised or added; these standards do not apply to the Industrial and Commercial districts.
- Energy Efficiency, Affordable Housing and On/Off-street parking standards – established various guidelines and requirements for development projects.
-
Official Map – a map showing future desired public
infrastructure was adopted; it is a regulatory document that must be considered
by the
Alex also discussed a new requirement that states “all
wastewater disposal and water supplies shall be by connection to the town
wastewater and water systems”. This
requirement applies to all new projects within the VGC that require
Questions raised by
- Waiver options for developers and how those may be given while still meeting the district purpose statements and general standards.
- The regulatory significance of district purpose statements versus more “black and white” criteria involving dimensions, standards, etc.
-
Whether
- The definition of a minimum lot size within the Commercial district.
-
How stream setbacks that have the ability to change with
the flow of the water way (due to a significant weather event or over time) effect
prior and future
-
Determining densities for a given parcel’s acreage,
particularly when lots within the parcel are NOT developed, or even determined,
at the same time. Alex said all parcels
within the VGC now have a predetermined base/maximum density potential based on
1) acreage as of
- Density incentive programs and how bonuses are calculated.
- The affordable housing provision and whether development over time is subject to requirements once a project goes over 10 units. Alex said only those projects that build out 10+ units within a rolling 5-year window are subject to requirements (like Act 250).
- The requirement for on-street parking and how to calculate a project’s needs.
Select Board member Ken Brown noted the importance of the purpose
sections as they are meant to convey the Planning Commission’s vision for the
Village (and the SB’s endorsement of that vision). Select Board member Andrea Morgante encouraged
feedback from
Tom Lyman commented about landscaping and town-owned
buildings. Alex said town projects will
be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Carl Bohlen asked if the density bonus options would be re-considered if
it was found that developers were not taking advantage of them. Alex and
Sketch Plan Review – 4-lot Subdivision – Route 116 - Applicant: Milot Real Estate LLC – Landowner – David Lyman (Tax Map #08-01-06.320)
Continued Hearing(s): April 21 and
Greg left the board at this time (
Ted commented that the goal of this sketch hearing should be to focus on determining lots lines within the 50-acre parcel. He agreed that while many good details that may help with that goal have been discussed, the Board should not be conducting a site plan review.
Greg Rabideau of
Rabideau Architects reviewed project details presented to date; no changes have
been made, or new materials submitted, since the May 5th
meeting. He stated his desire to focus
on typical sketch plan issues and said details of other issues would be
addressed during later phases. Board
members offered that certain issues such as master planning, stormwater,
parking and screening were appropriate to discuss during sketch, as those plans
helped to determine where line(s) should be drawn to create viable lots.
Dick asked whether the internal configuration and/or orientation of the Kinney building were fixed. Greg R. said some elements such as the drive-through and entrance locations had certain requirements but that Kinney has expressed a high degree of flexibility for the appearance of all elements (facades, landscaping, etc.). Dick said the size of the Kinney site to the south was driving where the lot line between sites was proposed, and thus constraining the site to the north. He suggested removing the parking lot at Route 116 & Farmall Drive and re-orienting the store entrance from the SE to the SW corner. Brett Grabowski said locating the entrance on Route 116 is part of a marketing strategy to maximize the visibility of the building. He said details of the parking lots, the retaining wall planned to the north and other topographical issues would be discussed at site plan review. Greg R. said a SE entrance would encourage pedestrian connections; he also would not want to turn the building’s back facing Route 116.
Zoë asked if there was a particular ratio of parking to building size required by Kinney. Brett said Kinney’s would like as much parking as possible but that Hinesburg’s requirements for parking would fit their needs. Ted said the Board needed to understand what the minimum parking requirement was for Kinney’s. Greg R. said they will look at sharing parking between the two commercial buildings.
Zoë said as lot lines are determined by building footprints and parking areas, it was important to understand whether the entire side parking lot or even half of it were necessary. She reiterated Dick’s comments about the lot line location and how it may be constraining the north lot; she also said it may be driving the decision to place the stormwater area within the stream buffer zone. Greg said changing layouts was not the only way to address site concerns, noting landscaping and treatment technologies. George Munson expressed concerns about the visual impact of the Kinney building that stood alone (i.e. before another building was built to the north). He also asked about the possibility of relocating the stormwater treatment area to the west. Brett said there was a possibility that the two buildings could be built within just a few months of each other. Greg said they would consider a permit condition that required landscaping screening to be done in Phase 1 (the Kinney building construction)
Ted asked the applicants to address plans for the entire parcel. Greg said the balance of development will occur to the western agricultural district line. Ted questioned how the Board could implement new VGC regulations if the first phase of a project did not fulfill a district’s requirements, even with assurances that later phases would. He said the current proposal and additional future plans for a residential community to the west felt like 1) a commercial project to the east and 2) a residential project to the west, not the mixed-use project(s) required within the district.
Greg said one way to show the relationship between the
commercial area and future projects was to begin to establish a grid of
roadways. He pointed out connections
into Creekside and also northwards to the Bissonnette property (the NW
district). He said they had pragmatic
concerns about introducing commercial projects too far back off of Route 116
and don’t necessarily see the parcel turning into another
Tom noted time limitations, and asked audience members to return to the June 2nd meeting to provide comments, or to submit their comments in writing to the P&Z office.
Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the June 2nd meeting. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
Greg rejoined the Board at this time (
Revision to an
Approved Final Plat – Boundary adjustment between 2 parcels - Silver Street –
Applicants: Virginia Iverson and Susan and Daniel Thomas
(Tax Map #s 11-01-39.100 and 11-01-39.400)
Virginia Iverson and Susan and Daniel Thomas presented their
request for a boundary adjustment in two locations between their properties. The
Iverson parcel will receive land directly south of their horse barn.
Roger Kohn spoke on behalf of Jim and Kitty Frazier,
adjacent landowners who have expressed concerns regarding the proposal and
future facility. He said the riding
facility would be directly in their view.
He said the placement of building envelopes was done carefully during
the original building process in order to protect views. He asked the
Kitty Frazier said she was concerned about the aesthetics of the facility, stating the project would change the feel and value of their property. Roger discussed the road agreement, a provision of the original subdivision; he said that agreement presumes properties will have single-family homes. Greg asked if, because this was an active horse stable when subdivided, there were right-to-farm deeds in the original subdivision. The location of the facility to the existing barn was discussed. Greg suggested the applicants and the Fraziers take some time to speak together about the issue.
Greg MOVED to continue the public hearing to June 16th. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
Final Plat Review –
2-lot Minor Subdivision –
Zoë left the board at this time (
Jaime reviewed staff report comments, noting all requested revisions to the plat and deeds that would be made. He said a house site has been chosen, located on a knoll behind trees.
Greg said his only concern about the project was how to
bring electrical power to the site. He
said he did not want to see a proliferation of single power-line poles on
A ROW being given to Andrea Haulenbeek for access to her farmland was discussed. The grade at the house site was discussed; Peter asked the Board to state in the Findings that the existing grade is 500 feet. Drainage from the end of the driveway was discussed, whether ditches would follow along all the way down the driveway.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to June 2nd. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
Zoë rejoined the board at this time. (
Other Business
Carse Final Plat Review – Greg MOVED to continue the public hearing to July 7th. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
The meeting ended at approx.
Respectfully Submitted:
Recording Secretary