Development Review Board

DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 April 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; C. Ruggerio, B. Currier, A. Blair, S. Daniels, P. Allison, J. & B. Goldberg, R. & M. Todd, S. Blair, E. Ameigh, J. Ruggerio 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-25-04 of Autumn Hill Meadows, LLC, to subdivide an existing 13.5 acre lot developed with a private road, 2 barns, a single family home and accessory shed into a 0.79 acre lot PAGE 1  containing the 2 barns (Lot #1) and a 12.72 acre lot containing the private road, existing single family home, and shed, 197 Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Currier said the plan is similar to the one seen at sketch plan review. It is a simple 2-lot subdivision. Lot 1 is in the northwest corner of the property and is the one with the 2 barns. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Given the limited permitted size of Lot #1, and the significant development potential of Lot #2, the Board should require a clear statement of the short & long term goals for both lots and an explanation as to why the applicants proposes a subdivision now. The applicant should also explain why they propose a subdivision which requires modifications to wetland standards when they could have a subdivision that doesn’t impact the wetland and still provides the same buildable area: Mr. Currier said they are showing a layout of 36 units and a 4-plex which shows they can meet the development potential. He stressed they are showing this just to show what they could do. Ms. Mann asked why they are subdividing at this time. Mr. Ruggerio said they would like to develop that lot. Ms. Mann asked why they do not have a development plan at this time. Mr. Currier said this is the path the applicant chooses to take. He said there is also the possibility of a housing use for the 2 barns. Mr. Gillies said they may be handicapping themselves as there is more involved with housing in barns. Mr. Currier said one barn may come down, and the other could be a triplex, or it could be sold to an abutter. They are just trying to make these things possible. #2. The Board should have the applicant clarify whether the 6.04 acres of “buildable area” is just Lot #2 or the whole parcel. The applicant should also provide a “buildable area” figure for the existing lot and the 2 proposed lots and show how they arrived at those figures: Mr. Currier said they had combined them, but they are now separated. He showed a plan with the building areas separated, 5.1 acres for Lot #2 and half an acre for lot #1. #3. The Board should require the applicant to modify the illustrative plan to incorporate access to the existing home on Autumn Hill Rd. prior to closing the hearing: Mr. Currier said the plan is meant to be conceptual. Autumn Hill Road would be connected to the new road in the future. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2025 PAGE 2  #4. The Board should require the applicant to modify the illustrative plan to show the required 10% civic space: Mr. Currier showed a hatched are in the center. It had previously been a 4-plex there. He stressed this is conceptual. #5. The Board should require the applicant to modify the illustrative plan area reserved for stormwater treatment so it is at least 5% of the buildable area and is in an appropriate location prior to closing the hearing: Mr. Currier said the treatment area is split on both sides of the wetland. He showed this on the plan and said the totality is 5%. #6 If the applicant continues to seek approval under 15.A.08.G(3)(b), the Board should require that any proposal for development of Lot #2 that doesn’t conform with the illustrative plan be required to provide an alternative illustrative plan prior to approval: The applicant was OK with this condition. #7. The Board should require the applicant to clarify whether there are any archaeological or historic sites or structures, including the barns: Mr. Currier said no archaeological sites have been identified. There were no historical references to the barns. Act 250 defines “historical” as over 50 years. The barns meet that criteria, but they do not appear in the historic registry. #8. Addressed above. #9. Under 15.A.09.B(2)(a), as it pertains to resource areas, staff recommends the Board grant a modification of this standard: Board members were OK with this. #10. The Board should require the applicant to explain access to Lot #1: Mr. Currier said there are 2 curb cuts on Dorset Street now. They expect one will be closed. They are assuming access will be from Dorset Street. #11. The Board should discuss whether the proposed subdivision constitutes the creation of a “block” and what the dimensions of that block would be: Mr. Currier did not think a “block” was created. He said it is a driveway curb cut. Ms. Keene read the definition of “block” from the LDRs. She noted there is a limit on the size of blocks to they remain walkable. The question here is whether this is a block. She noted the area on the plan. Mr. Currier said redundant wetland crossings are very hard to get permitted, so this would be an issue with the State wetland people. Staff asked if the “block” potential exacerbated by the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2025 PAGE 3 proposed subdivision and whether the subdivision affects the development of the remaining land. Mr. Currier said that even without the subdivision a different configuration would be required. To get the density requirement, they have to get the road frontage. #12. Regarding the orientation of building lots, staff recommends the Board grant modification of that criterion: Board members were OK with this. #13. Staff does not consider the configuration of unit types to constitute a “mix.” The Board should discuss what they need to see to determine compliance: Mr. Currier said they have the existing single family home and a 4-plex. They can have some triplexes for more of a mix. #14. The Board should require the applicant to meet the standard for reference monuments: The applicant was OK with the condition. #15. Staff asked about the location of the birdhouses. Mr. Currier showed the plan and indicated the location behind the barns. He added it makes sense to follow the property lines. Mr. Gillies said Article 12 allows existing structures, etc., to remain in the buffer. #16. The applicant was asked to discuss the maintenance of a portion of the Class 2 wetland: Mr. Currier showed the buffer line and buildable are. Mr. Gillies was not sure of the historical mowing pattern. Ms. Mann asked if there has been mowing behind the buildings. Mr. Currier said everything has been mowed. Mr. Ruggerio said at one time, the neighbor was haying on both sides of the water feature. Mr. Moscatelli said it looks like all of Lot 1 has been maintained as lawn. Members agreed. Mr. Moscatelli asked if Windswept will be the new road. Mr. Currier said it will. There was a right-of-way left over from Windswept that would allow for that connection. He added that this subdivision does not authorize that to happen. Anything to the west that is on Autumn Hill Road would be eliminated, and the 3 houses on Autumn Hill Road would come off the new road. Ms. Mann noted land that is zoned NRP would now become landlocked. Mr. Currier showed where there could be a single family lot and the driveway would be an opportunity for access. There is also an access easement on Summerfield that the Jewetts got. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2025 PAGE 4 Mr. Johnston asked about access to the city-owned lot east of this development. Mr. Currier said they have been talking with the city regarding a boundary line adjustment to make that lot less irregular so the eastern side of the lot could be dedicated to the city. There are a lot of legal hurdles involved. There is no direct access to the city lot from the applicant’s lot. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Todd: A Windswept resident near where the right-of-way goes across. He asked to keep Autumn Hill Road as it is and have 2 exits onto Dorset Street. Mr. Behr said that when Windswept was approved, the intent was to consolidate the roadways and not have 2 curb cuts on Dorset Street because their closeness creates a safety issue. Ms. Goldberg: A windswept resident, noted how difficult it was to do their development. There was an agreement, under duress, that development would happen on Windswept. The property north of them was then only allowed 15 or 16 units. The minimum now is 36 units. Conditions have changed. The Bolduc unit being built south of them has caused havoc in the neighborhood for months. She urged the Board to take into account the adverse affects on existing development. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to close SD-25-04. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Minutes of 18 March 2025: Ms. Keene said the Minutes of 18 March were inadvertently left out of the meeting packet. 7. Other Business: Ms. Keene advised that the Board will address the Ethics update at its 6 May meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:35 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on April 15, 2025 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2025 PAGE 5