DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Date: Thursday,
August 24, 2017
Time: 7:00
p.m.
Place: Municipal
Building Community Room
Address: 43
Bombardier Road Milton, VT 05468
Contact: (802) 893-1186
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair
called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. ATTENDANCE
Members
Present: Bruce Jenkins, Chair, Henry Bonges, Vice
Chair; Julie Rutz, Clerk; Robert Brisson;
Members
Absent: Karen
Trombley, Alternate
Staff Present:
Jeff Castle, Town Planner
Public Present: Jacob Hemmerick, Victor Sinadinoski,
Michael McCormick, David Vaillancourt, Heidi Vaillancourt, Bonnie Pease, Dean
Benjamin, Teresa Benjamin
3. AGENDA REVIEW
None.
4. PUBLIC FORUM
Jacob
Hemmerick introduced the new Town Planner, Victor Sinadinoski.
5. OLD HEARINGS/BUSINESS
None.
6. NEW HEARINGS/BUSINESS
6 (A) Hubert McCormick, Owner/Applicant requests Conditional
Use, Site Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment approval located at 414 Route 7
South. The proposal is for a new Repair
Service use in an existing 1, 800 square foot accessory storage building and
additional parking. The property is
described as SPAN 12282, Tax Map 7, Parcel 15.
The property contains a total of 1.86 acres and is located within the
“Checkerberry Commercial” (M4-C) Zoning District, Town Core Planning Area, and
Checkerberry Sub-Area.
The
Chair administered the Oath to Interested Persons.
Michael
McCormick introduced himself to the Board and explained that he was
representing his father, the Applicant.
McCormick then introduced David and Heidi Vaillancourt.
David
Vaillancourt addressed the Board and explained that he was the party interested
in operating the automobile repair facility. Vaillancourt stated that he would
like to have two vehicle lifts within the facility. The name of the garage
would be Dave’s Garage.
The
Chair read the following summary to open the hearing:
1. All conditions of prior DRB approvals and
subsequent amendments are in full force and effect except as amended therein
and further amended herein.
McCormick
agreed.
Jenkins
referred to 1 (b) and asked McCormick if he was also planning on changing the
parking lot in the front of the building.
McCormick
stated that they may and he was anticipating some type of modification, but
would get approval from the Board before making any changes.
2. At least 7 trees must be planted or preserved
within the front yard setback.
McCormick
asked the Board to waive this requirement at this time.
3. The proposed Vehicle Repair Service must
operate in accordance with the standards of UDR3108.A.
McCormick
agreed to the requirement.
4. The Development Review Board must determine
if the applicant is proposing a “best fix” that conforms with the requirement
location of parking to the maximum extent feasible given the physical
characteristics of the lot and the existing development.
Rutz
asked if there was any change in the plan based on the parking lot being in the
front setback.
McCormick
stated there was no change and that this issue will have to be addressed when
the slip lane comes in.
Castle
noted that the Regulations state that any major site plan including a change to
the amount or location of parking is to meet these standards. However, if the
DRB feels that what is proposed is due to existing development, then it doesn’t
need to meet such standards.
Jenkins
stated that it doesn’t have any impact or change to that.
5. Final plans shall indicate the location of 3
bicycle parking spaces in conformance with UDR3203.A.
McCormick
agreed to the requirement.
6. The Applicant shall provide street trees
along the Route 7 frontage in accordance with the street tree standards of
UDR3204.E.
The
Board and McCormick agreed to a one year delay.
7. The Development Review Board must determine
if the applicant is proposing a “best fix” that conforms with the provisions of
the parking lot landscaping to the maximum extent feasible given the physical characteristics
of the lot and the existing development.
8. The final plans shall show screening between
the proposed Vehicle Repair Service use and the adjacent single family home.
McCormick
stated that there is already natural growth.
Jenkins
stated that the final plans show the existing screening.
9. Landscaped screening shall be provided to
screen the additional parking from the adjacent residence.
McCormick
stated that the building screens the additional parking from the adjacent residence.
10. A revised landscaping plan prepared by a
licensed landscape architect, certified horticulturalist or certified arborist
shall be included with the final plans.
McCormick
asked for waiver as he was not proposing any landscaping changes at this time.
Bongas
stated that the Board did not have to make a decision at this time.
11. Landscaping required under this section or as
a condition of approval must be maintained in healthy condition. Dead or dying plants must be replaced within
1 growing season with a comparable plant (in terms of type, form, size at
maturity, etc.) of at least the minimum size requirements specified in Figure
3-03.
McCormick
agreed.
12. The Development Review Board may place
specific limits on noise levels and hours of operation as deemed necessary to
protect the character of the area.
Vaillancourt
agreed to 8 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday, and 8 am to 1pm on Saturday. All bays face away from the residences.
13. Final plans shall show a dumpster enclosure
in conformance with 3209.D(3).
McCormick
agreed.
14. The Development Review Board may place
conditions on any approval as deemed necessary to further the purposes of these
regulations and ensure conformance with all applicable provisions of these
regulations.
McCormick
agreed.
15. The Applicant shall provide a landscaping
surety to guarantee the completion of the approved landscaping. The Applicant must submit a written cost
estimate for the proposed trees from the landscape contractor, and a performance
bond shall guarantee their survival for three years from installation. The surety must be established prior to the
issuance of a Zoning Permit.
McCormick
asked for a delay in this requirement.
16. The Applicant shall submit two (2) full-sized
(to scale) and two (2) reduced (11 x 17) complete final plan sets depicting the
requested changes. The revised plans
must be deemed Final by the Town Planner prior to being eligible for a Zoning
Permit from the Zoning Administrator.
The Applicant is advised to submit ONE plan set for staff review prior
to submitting all the copies of the Final Plan sets.
McCormick
agreed.
17. A Zoning Permit is required prior to
construction/use and an associated Certificate of Compliance is required after
construction is complete (and prior to occupation/use).
McCormick
agreed.
Jenkins
closed the hearing at 7:41 pm.
6(B) Town of Milton,
Owner/Applicant,
requests Site Plan Amendment
approval for the addition of a trail and viewing platform in the Town Forest to
be located at 599 Westford Road. The property is described as SPAN 14724
and SPAN 10401, Tax Map 16, Parcel 38-1 and 44-2, contains approximately 49.5
acres, and is located in the Agricultural/Rural Residential (R5) Zoning
District and the East Milton Planning Area.
The
Chair administered the Oath to Interested Persons.
The
Chair read the following summary to open the hearing:
1. The DRB shall determine if this is a minor or
major amendment per Section 801.
Dean
Benjamin addressed the Board regarding whether it was a minor or major amendment. Benjamin stated that it was not a minor
amendment but in fact a major amendment.
Benjamin expressed concern that the construction is being done within
inches of his property line and a 200-year-old stone wall and mature maple
trees.
Hemmerick
stated that the Town had no objection to the application being reviewed as a
major site plan amendment.
Castle
stated that the staff report prepared by the Zoning Administrator was prepared
as a major site plan. All criteria that
is looked at as a major site plan has been included in the report.
2. Applicant shall confirm no changes are proposed
to existing stone wall.
Hemmerick
stated that the Town has no objection to adding a condition to this approval
guaranteeing that the stone wall between the Benjamins’ property and the Town
property remain undisturbed. It was
further stated that the condition could be added to the contracting documents.
Brisson
asked if the soil being extracted would remain on site.
Hemmerick
stated that he had not seen any specification from the engineer addressing that
question.
Teresa
Benjamin submitted a picture of the property for the Board’s review.
Benjamin
asked the Board to move the trail closer to the parking lot and further away
from his property line. Benjamin
expressed concern regarding construction that would damage the roots of several
mature maple trees on his property next to the stone wall.
3. The Applicant shall state the suitability of
the site for the proposed scope of development, including due regarding for the
preservation of existing natural and historical resources. Specifically, address the natural resources
of the wetlands and the stone wall and the very old maples.
Hemmerick
stated that the wetlands are Class II across the panhandle and are unavoidable. The Town has no option but to impact if they
are going to maintain an access trail to the Town Forrest that will not going
to erode away. Hemmerick stated that he
was in agreement with the Benjamins and that the stone wall was an asset and
should be protected and the Town should respect the law of trees. Hemmerick further stated that the Town can
accomplish the project without impacting those trees and perhaps improving the
conditions in areas where erosion is at its worst.
Benjamin
asked that they go straight up from the kiosk.
Jenkins
said the Board must go by what is proposed in the site plan.
Benjamin
asked the Board to deny the existing zoning permit as it is.
4. The DRB shall determine if the applicant’s
proposal is suitable for the scope of development.
Hemmerick
stated that it was a discretionary call for the Board.
5. The Applicant shall obtain a Project Review
Sheet from the Permit Specialist in the District 4 Regional Office of the
Agency of Natural Resources, provide a copy to the Town, and obtain all
required State permits and approvals prior to construction.
Hemmerick
stated this has been done.
6. The Applicant shall submit two (2) full-sized
(to scale) and two (2) reduced (11 x 17) complete final plan sets depicting the
requested changes. The revised plans
must be deemed Final by the Town Planner prior to being eligible for a Zoning
Permit from Zoning Administrator. The
Applicant is advised to submit ONE plan set for staff review prior to
submitting all the copies of the Final Plan sets.
Hemmerick
agreed.
The
Chair closed the hearing at 8:35 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
7(A) Bylaw Review:
The
DRB last reviewed their Bylaws in 2016.
The DRB has agreed that an annual review to keep the Bylaws up-to-date
is best practice.
Action: Review Bylaw Revisions. Approve.
MOTION to approve the Bylaws as
amended by Rutz. SECOND by Bonges. APPROVED.
7(B) Planning Staff Report
None.
8. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
8(A)
Minutes of August 10, 2017
MOTION to
approve Minutes of August 10, 2017 by Rutz.
SECOND by Bonges. APPROVED.
9. ADJOURNED
MOTION to
ADJOURN at 8:40 p.m. by Brisson. SECOND
by Rutz. APPROVED.
