TOWN
OF
DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Approved
* There is currently
one vacancy on the DRB.
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Minutes of the
Greg MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7–0.
Zoë left the board at this time (
Final Plat Review –
2-lot Minor Subdivision –
Continued Hearing(s):
Alex said he received feedback from Mike Anthony and Jeanne
Wilson explaining why they would not grant permission for the applicant to
excavate the road. They said when the reconstruction
work is done on a section of road everything in that section is replaced at the
same time (culverts, for example) so the road does not have to be disturbed
again. Alex said this left two options
for bringing electricity to the site - boring under the road or installing a new
utility pole. Jaime said boring would be
prohibitively expense ($6500 per utility line plus related expenses). He asked the Board to allow a new pole to be
installed on his property to bring utilities over from the opposite side of
Ted MOVED to close the
public hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted: Ted
Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, George Munson,
Abstained: Zoë Wainer
Zoë rejoined the board and Greg left the board at this
time (
Sketch Plan Review – 2-lot* Subdivision – Route 116 - Applicant: Milot Real Estate LLC – Landowner – David Lyman (Tax Map #08-01-06.320)
Continued Hearing(s): April 21, May 5 and
Brett explained that the proposal has been changed from a
4-lot to a 2-lot subdivision to reflect what was previously approved by the
Tom asked about the internal road (Kaylee's Way). Brett said although there were no plans to offer the road to the Town for dedication, they would construct the road to town standards. He said they have removed the 60-foot wide road for now, stating that an existing road in the Creekside neighborhood may be a better choice for a north-south connector road extending north past the Lyman property line.
The Board took the following public comments:
Greg Tomczyk –
inquired about the revision in terms of dimensions; Brett said
Valerie Spadaccini – noted many written comments that had been submitted as part of this application, and asked if any of those topics or concerns raised in those submissions had NOT been brought at the public hearings. George said they received new testimony shortly before the meeting, and have not had a chance to review it. Tom said the Board reads and appreciates all written testimony.
Greg Tomczyk –
asked if the road width for
Carl Bohlen – stressed
the need to take the advantage of the all the work done by the Planning
Commission on the new regulations. He
described the proposal as a strictly commercial project, not what the community
has indicated it wanted. He asked for
clarification on the comparison of this project to the one approved in January
2008. He said the parcel was an
important one to the town, and that building there should expand both up and
out. He said he would prefer to see a
strictly commercial development in a commercial district, not in a village
district.
Jim Collins – said the two multiple-use centers already established in the town have not been able to support smaller businesses. A drug store would be central to our village, a needed service and easily accessed by village residents who could walk there.
Mike Buscher – said he liked the location of the building close to the road (Route 116) and also the proposed on-street parking. He cited streetscapes in Middlebury and Brandon that work well with on-street parking. He said he has concerns about the organization of the building at the back of the lot, excessive parking and a building limited to one story. He asked if new density bonuses have been attractive or not.
Vince Gomez – said he did not like parking on Route 116, citing safety concerns.
Bob Blanck – said he would appreciate a pharmacy within a development that was carefully planned. He thought it was a mistake to remove the slip lane into the parcel.
Sharon Ceveny – said
having a pharmacy nearby would be beneficial to the residents of Kelly’s
Field. Tom asked how feasible it would
be to walk to that location;
Amy Escott – said she would like more information about a master plan for the 50-acre parcel, noting that the hearings have been focused on the commercial buildings up front. Greg Rabideau (the architect for the proposal) said although an older master plan had been shown and discussed, it would evolve between now and the next step. He said he welcomed a condition of sketch plan approval that required incorporating some of the master planning goals into the project. He noted future plans for a secondary north-south road, the creation of open space and public amenities, and the potential for a global stormwater plan perhaps phased over time. He said the applicant would like to avoid the large expense now of something associated with long-term (10 years) projects. He said they would consider mixed uses for the remaining acreage west of the current commercial project. He said he has taken public and staff comments into consideration but also needs to consider other matters such as the need for an anchor tenant and up-front engineering and other costs.
Tammy Orlow – said she thought the two lots looked like an important wildlife corridor and if created would separate a future riparian park area planned for the area. She asked if development could be cited further south on the parcel. Greg R. said the new stream setback allowance (100 feet on either side of Patrick Brook) has been taken into account, and that they would look at a creative use of hardscape; he noted the possibility of consolidating stormwater long-term into a communal facility.
Valerie Spadaccini – said Town boards (the PC and SB) have set regulations into place that designate this as a concentrated growth area, not one planned for open space.
Carl Bohlen – agreed with the removal of the sliplane and is also concerned about on-street parking. He cited differences between Hinesburg and other towns with on-street parking, mainly in that Hinesburg lacks the cues to slow cars down as they enter the village area. He asked for a description of Kinney ‘s bottom line issues, for example, would they accept a building with a second story, or a building without a drive-thru. Greg R. said while Kinney company officials have expressed flexibility in the areas of building design and materials, they want a store of a certain size with a drive-thru and do not want a second story with apartments - he would approach them with the idea of a second-story commercial use. He stated that Brett is considering building a two-story, mixed-use building to the north and has had some local businesses inquiry about space.
Elizabeth Lee - said she was concerned about over-development on the parcel and the introduction of chain stores that may adversely effect on local businesses. She also said she did not think the stream buffer was large enough. Greg R. said he did not expect the same level or nature of development as Williston, for example; Hinesburg was not near I-89 nor did its regulations support that type of development.
Laurie Wilson – noted the designs of four different Kinney Drug stores, stating none of them looked alike.
Nancy Gomez – asked about landscaping and lighting plans, stating she wished to ensure lighting would not interfere with current and future residential areas. Brett said plans would adhere to Hinesburg regulations as well as the ACT 250 process in place for photometrics. Ted said the Board would review those plans in detail in next steps.
Mike Buscher – noted
that
Tom MOVED to close the public
hearing and discuss the matter in deliberative session. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion was APPROVED 6-0.
Voted: Ted
Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, George Munson,
Abstained: Greg Waples.
Greg rejoined the
board at this time. (
Site Plan Revision / Sign Review – Applicant:
Peter Erb explained his decision to treat the application as a Minor review. He discussed the proposal’s goal to provide more maneuvering space for busses entering the front drive. He said this proposal did not change the intent of previous site plan approvals. He described how the original plan had been revised to include a larger green area with specific plantings (new or retained trees).
No vote was taken as the Board agreed not to open a formal hearing. The application will be considered a Minor Review, allowing the Zoning Administrator to render a decision.
Final Plat Review – 2-lot
Subdivision –
Judy Fritz said plans now comply with all conditions of the preliminary approval. Peter Erb reviewed changes made since Preliminary and/or language in the draft final decision:
- Building envelope has been tightened and is now in the flattest location
- Conditions in the decision ensure the road will not impact Texas Brook
- The applicant has located where power will come into the site
-
- Density and wildlife corridor issues are addressed in the decision
Ted suggested adding the “contractor" to the statement re: the construction of the driveway, and also a correction about the word “riprapping”.
Tom MOVED to close the
public hearing and to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.
Voted: Ted
Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, George Munson,
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Milot/Lyman and Haulenbeek/Ciffo applications. Dick SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
The meeting ended at approximately
Respectfully Submitted: