TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Approved
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm.
Minutes of the October 6, 2009 meeting:
Zoë MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Dick SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4–0, with George abstaining and Greg not voting.
Wayne Bissonette / Champlain Oil Co. for Sketch Plan Review of a 2-lot
Subdivision of property located on the corner of Route 116 and Shelburne Falls
Road.
[Tax Map #16-20-56.500] ** continued from the September 15th
meeting.
Brian Cairns submitted a letter from his father Tony Cairns. Tom noted other written testimony submitted that evening.
Paul Wamsganz described changes made to the subdivision plan since the last meeting, based on more conversations with Alex and also a review of two new studies, a traffic assessment by CCMPO and a wetlands delineation. Changes include:
- correcting the stream location to be west of the property line and then resetting the 75’ stream setback
-
the orientation of the
building (now faces
-
adjusting the main road access
at
- The in-only access road is located directly across from Ballard’s Corner Road; This road continues south, includes 2 site access points (to the gas station) and one future access to Lot 2 (the corner lot at SF Road and Route 116).
Paul explained how diesel truck traffic would flow through the site and also pointed out existing Class 3 wetlands as indicated in the new delineation. Brian Cairns said having access to the station off both access roads benefits the project, adding they would be willing to pay for a portion of the West Side Road. Paul cautioned that this proposal would lock in the location of the West Side Road somewhat, and also expressed concerns about access to Lot 2, particularly if the in-only road were not allowed to change in the future (to both –n and out access), depending on what development took place on Lot 2. Zoë asked Paul to address Alex's suggestion to make that road solely a one-way. Brian and Paul reiterated that it would limit Wayne’s ability to develop that lot, comparing its configuration as proposed to challenges in accessing the Windjammer in S. Burlington.
Greg asked Alex for his comments regarding the two access roads. Alex said transportation planners generally advise consolidating access points, and noted the specific recommendation in the new CCMPO report to keep access off Shelburne Falls Road as far to the west as possible. He discussed details of the report, including what data was pulled into the report (the current traffic situation at that intersection, low and high build-out scenarios and 10-year traffic projections for Route 116). He said the report summarized that the primary access point to any development on this portion of the 90+ acre parcel should be as far west as possible. He cautioned overbuilding the site in an attempt to anticipate what a future use would need or want, adding this board was unlikely to make any final decisions on an in-only or in-/out access point. He also said the state had plans to eventually improve the SF Road/Route 116 intersection, possible adding a right-hand turn lane (off SF Road, going south).
Dick asked if the location of the
West Side Road being offset to Pleasant View Road was an issue. Alex said the applicant has respected the
stream setback as spelled out in the current regulations; the SB could encroach
on those setbacks if they wished the road to be more aligned with Pleasant View
Road. Paul thought disturbing the
wetlands in the area may present more of an issue than whether the two roads
were aligned. It was also noted that
traffic from
Amy Escott, a
Ginny Roberts described the parcel as the gateway to our town. She said she had attended many planning meetings in which residents stated their desire to maintain a rural village. She said she was disappointed that the first project on this parcel was for a shiny new gas station. She said she was less concerned about the details being discussed (site access, etc.) than about the appropriateness of this project to the stated goals of the new regulations for this area of town.
Andrea Morgante quoted the Northwest district purpose section, particularly what types of uses were envisioned for the area. She felt that without a master plan, those stated purposes would be undermined. She described this project as a 3-lot subdivision by default, as the positioning of the proposed Jiffy Mart site predetermined a 2nd lot to the east, with remaining acreage to the south. She emphasized that this is a subdivision being created by the applicant and the landowner, both of whom need to think about these access points, not only in terms of incremental projects but whether they would benefit the community at large.
Earla Sue McNaul said she also went to many planning meetings and expressed concern about a lack of a master plan for the parcel, and the proposed use in general (a gas station). She also asked about the proposed bicycle path and how that would be fit into this project. Mike Bissonette said the area was discussed for many years and residents eventually voted to make it a commercial area that included the uses now being proposed.
Tom Lyman suggested that a developer that owned 100 acres and a private landowner that owned 100 acres should be treated differently in that the landowner, not knowing what he wants to do with his property, should not be stopped from doing what he wants with a particular lot. David Lyman gave his support of this project.
Paul said his company was
offering a nice facility to the town, with a better queuing situation off
Zoë said although the staff has asked for master planning, something the Board has talked about in the Kinney application, she understands the difficulty of future planning and can see both sides. She said she thought the two SF Road entrances and related traffic issues needed more discussion, as did other questions, and was not sure whether those issues were “non-starters” to the sketch plan phase. Peter emphasized that subdivision sketch review should take into account all the lots being proposed (in this case, 2 lots) and not solely focus on the one lot coming in with a proposed use. Alex described sketch review as a time to discuss natural constraints, overall red flag issues, access issues and whether the proposal meets the purpose of the zone. He said although the Kinney's project did provide some level of master planning at sketch, it received approval with implicit conditions to provide more detailed master planning in further steps.
Mike Bissonette said the town has started planning for this lot already, with the addition of the West Side Road to the parcel. George Munson clarified that this proposal was for a 2-lot subdivision, not a 3-lot, noting although the stream to the south of the Route 116 corner acreage physically divided it off from the remaining acreage to the south, that division was not being proposed at this time. (Andrea later asked if a stream divided a parcel in two; George said a road would divide a parcel but not a stream).
Wayne Bissonette said he did not know what he wished to do with the larger parcel at this time. He said he does not know how to prepare a master planning document and has presented a number of ideas to the town that have not been met with approval. He said Champlain Oil is very open to designing an attractive site and building.
Peter described a basic master plan as something that took all systems (e.g. utilities, gas lines, sewer lines, roads, bike and pedestrian use, stormwater, etc.) into account for the entire parcel, so that neither the landowner nor the town got built into a corner. He said he did not necessarily see a master plan as describing uses, only those systems that would be common to a variety of uses. Wayne agreed that would be necessary if development were being proposed for the middle of the parcel, but not for a proposal at the edge.
Dick asked about stormwater for the Jiffy Mart site, whether it could be managed on its own acreage or needed to be done off the lot with easements. Alex noted the site, mostly impervious surface, was framed by roads on all four sides. Amy Escott noted the wet area at the end of Pleasant View Road and her concerns over impervious surface.
Greg asked if conditional use and site plan applications would be heard concurrently with this subdivision application. Paul said they were at sketch to get a sense from the Board whether they could move forward with the entire plan (ultimately to build the Jiffy Mart). He said they have to upgrade the sewer system at the existing development and could not wait indefinitely to do so. He said their short term plan would be to tie back into their sewer system if the project was allowed across the street. Brian said they would like to build next year so yes, they would apply for the necessary approvals concurrently.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted:
Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Stephen & Joanne Hoke and Robert & Elizabeth Quackenbush for
Final Review of a Major Subdivision for property located south of Burritt Road
and west of Baldwin Road. [Tax Map
#08-01-73.000]
George Bedard spoke on behalf of the applicants. He reviewed changes in the proposal since the preliminary review, including: a lot boundary adjustment between the Quackenbush lot and Lot 1; a building envelope change for Lot 6 (made so as not to interfere with existing trails); a shift of the Lot 4 building envelope to meet a requested 125 foot setback and changes in easement language for stormwater retention areas.
George B. discussed several legal
documents including quit claim deed language and the homeowner Covenants which
now contained language taken from other
The group discussed George’s additional language to Order #8 in detail, whether homeowners would be allowed to clear trees and other vegetation with a 35-foot buffer outside their building envelopes. George B. said that language was added to deal with very tightly configured building envelopes and any large trees that might threaten a building foundation. Peter said the concept of clearing outside the building envelope had been rejected in other hearings before.
Peter also wanted to ensure the preservation of a wildlife corridor near Lot 4 and remove as little vegetation in and near it as possible. Steve Hoke said they have been instructed by forestry experts to cut brush on a regular basis, about every three years. George B. said they have tried to create a different management plan for the tail end of Lot 6, but cautioned that you can’t create language that the state feels disturbs their ability to function under their regulations. He suggested adding language to Order #5 that if a lot was not under contract with the state, it should be managed like the other lots. He also agreed to wording that would limit cutting outside the envelope to deal only with larger trees (not the 35’ radius as proposed). Tracy Maurer asked when the project would be started; George said next spring.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the November 17th meeting. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted:
Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Nancy Ruben / Tracey Maurer for Revision to
a Development on a Private ROW Approval at 460 Burritt Road.
[Tax Map #08-01-57.100] ** continued from the September 15th
meeting.
Joe Gannon spoke on behalf of the applicants. He said he had reviewed Peter’s comments regarding the 1991 decision language, and felt it did not specify what happened to the driveway once past the curb cut. He said the two parties involved are just trying to rearrange the driveway; if the single curb cut was a sticking point for the Board, there were several ways they could do that from a single cut (and not pursue an additional curb cut to the west as originally proposed). He emphasized that this request came from two neighbors wanting to deal with their own properties, and that it did not affect other neighbors or the environment in any way.
Zoë gave details of her visit to the site. She walked the staked-out portion, noting the proposed curb cut was not quite lined up with the neighbor’s cut across the street. She walked up the proposed drive, over the ledge, noting the grades seemed fine for a driveway. She said she did not question whether a driveway could be constructed there, only whether the Board should allow a change to a previous Board’s decision. Dennis and Dick also gave comments regarding their visits to the site, with similar observations (a road could be constructed up to and over the ledge) and blasting would probably be required but would be well away from any neighbors. Dennis thought the sight distance coming off a new curb cut would be better. Dick expressed concern over erosion, noting one particular spot (at a 45 degree angle) where he thought a road bed would be difficult to maintain.
The group discussed engineering plans for the driveway, noting they did not have the purview to require those within this type of application. They also discussed the
Original
James Gibbons said his primary concern was the concentration of headlights in front of his house; he was no longer concerned about blasting (as it would be away from his well.) Zoë said she felt the matter revolved around whether there was a good reason to support the driveway relocation. George M. said if the subdivision application had come in today, the Board would not have approved two driveways. Joe said if one curb cut were utilized, they would reclaim the area around and including the existing driveway.
Dennis said he supported the proposal. Tom asked about road engineering in general. Peter said any new road should a) not collect water off the hillside and concentrate it onto the Mainer's property and b) provide for turn-offs. Alex said typical road engineering provided a road profile (grades); a cross-section of the road (materials used); and information re: drainage infrastructure (ditches, culverts, etc.) The group discussed whether they should leave the hearing open and ask the applicant to develop/submit engineering plans. Joe said he would do that. Alex asked the group instead for general thoughts on whether they would approve the proposal – at least three members said they were leaning towards denying the application.
Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted:
Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Elizabeth and Brian Hathaway for Revision to a Site Plan, Conditional Use
Review (office building over 1000 sq. feet) and Sign Review at property located
on Village Heights Road. [Tax Map
#20-50-10.100]
Clem Stein and Brian Hathaway spoke on behalf of the project. They reviewed their proposal for a 2-story office/garage building, with a garage/storage area on the first level and a 2700 sq. ft. office area on the second level. Clem reviewed parking spaces, those already available (associated with the adjacent apartment complex) and the new spaces proposed (4 outside, with an additional 2 inside the garage. He said seven spaces are required for the building; they have at least 10 but actually intend to use only 5. Brian said he is very familiar with the traffic and parking situation on the lot as he plows in the winter. Addressing the requirement for landscaping, he said they would do this as best as they could, but did not wish to put plantings in the area used for snow piling. He indicated screening on the property and discussed in detail the ledge areas where the building was proposed, and also around the apartments.
George M. asked about stormwater plans. Clem said there were two flows of water, ending up in two different areas. They were considering putting gutters on the new building to slow and better direct water coming off the roof. They did not think additional storm drains were necessary. They also said they would not be using the garage to wash trucks or the general area for disposal of water from their trucks, that this was done at a location in Essex. They further described the businesses that would make use of the building - Nu-View Construction is a construction/remodeling company with no walk-in customers or showroom; The Stevens Group is a carpet cleaning and fire restoration company with no walk-in traffic; Black Magic does chimney relining. All three business are somewhat related and will utilize the same administrative services in the office space above.
Brian said several vehicles related to the businesses needed to be stored in a warm location, including a sanding truck used to maintain the apartment complex property. Clem said the responsibilities of these business and their services to the apartment complex (mainly property maintenance) will be detailed in a lease. Tom asked about the exterior of the office building, whether it would match the apartments. Clem said they would integrate it in appearance as much as possible, with the same siding (clapboards), the same windows, roofing, stain, etc. They discussed lighting plans, particularly how the building would provide lighting at a now dark end of the complex, making it more secure. Clem said there would be no additional storage buildings nor any equipment stored outside. He discussed sidewalks briefly, stating he had polled residents who said they did not want a sidewalk connection to their complex due to privacy concerns. Dick thought sidewalk access would be for their use (the tenants) as access to the main road, and not the other way around. Brian asked why a sidewalk would be required; Peter said he raised the issue due to new regulations encouraging connectivity in the village district. Brian said the sidewalk would be hard to keep from icing over in the winter.
Andrea Morgante asked about the grassy area now used by tenants recreationally. Brian said they would move the playground equipment there to another area they would clear. Andrea also asked about screening, noting she did not wish to see any clearing on the hillside adjacent to her property. Clem and Brian agreed there would be no clearing or selective cutting of trees (specifically noting the pine trees) in that ledge area.
Peter asked the applicants to address specific requirements in the new regulations, suggesting they integrate what was required in the site plan into a new site plan. Zoë asked about design standards related to the look of the building. Alex said the Board had the flexibility to waive specific design standards, especially those standards whose intent had to do with a desired streetscape appearance. Peter agreed the road on which the building was proposed did not meet the definition of a street or streetscape. Members of the group agreed to go look at the property on their own rather than conduct a group site visit.
Tom MOVED to continue the public hearing to the November 17th meeting. Greg SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
Voted:
Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
Other Business
Dowd-Harter appeal
Alex said he had received correspondence today from the Dowd attorney and also from the Vermont Environmental Court:
- The VT Court document stated
their appeal of the Hart state wastewater permit had been withdrawn, and the
appeal dismissed with prejudice. (Note, the Hinesburg
- The letter from the attorney stated their appeal of the Hart zoning permit had been withdrawn, and the appeal dismissed with prejudice.
The Board agreed to enter the
following statement into official record:
“The Hinesburg
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to review the Ruben/Maurer and Champlain Oil applications. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.
The meeting ended at
approximately 11:00 pm. The next
Respectfully Submitted:
Recording Secretary