 Hi, and welcome to the South Early to Development Review Board meeting for Tuesday, September 4, 2019. I'm Matt Kota, I'm the chair of the South Early to Development Review Board. With me is Don Filbert, Frank Cokman, Jim Langdon, John Wilking, Mark Baer, and Brian Sullivan. Mark is joining us by phone, and also with me is staff Marla Keene and Delilah Hall. Thank you for those that are in attendance or are watching at home or in your office. Anyone who wishes to participate in this hearing should fill out the sign-in sheet to provide their contact information, which is in the back, in order to be considered a participant. You can fill out the sign-in sheet, speak in public, comment portion of the hearing or submit comments and writing. You should do one of these things if you want to obtain party status, should you decide in the future to appeal the decision that the DRV makes. We'll begin with item number one on the agenda, which is directions. In case there's an emergency, there are four exits. Two exits there, two exits here, in case there's an emergency. Are there any additions, deletions, changes, in the order of agenda items from the board or staff? Seeing none, is there any comments or questions from the public that's not related to the agenda? Seeing none, agenda item number four is announcements. I have two announcements to make. The first is that last session, I was voted in as chair, thank you very much for your confidence of being, and now I'm here to tell you that I will not be here for the next two hearings. I have a professional obligation on Tuesday, September 16th, and September 17th, and on Tuesday, October 1st, which takes me out of town, way on business, which is unavoidable, I apologize to all of you, to the staff, to Brian, who's the vice chair, who will be taking over, and for any applicant or interested party, because there has to have been some schedule juggling, so thank you, Carla, for accommodating that. And the second announcement that I wanted to make, there was a robust discussion during our last hearing about the proposed minimum parking standards. We are going to continue that discussion for those that are interested in other business, so that's agenda item number 10, not number nine, which follows the minutes. So if you're interested in that conversation, we will be discussing that at that time. Are there any other announcements from the board or staff at this point? Okay, then we'll move on to site plan application, SP 1930 of Champlain Water District to amend a previously approved plan unit development for two 500,000 gallon water storage tanks, the amendment consists of modifying the landscaping plan by removing 38 mature trees at 21 Harbor Ridge Road, who's here for the applicant. I guess you have you at that table there, thank you. Good evening. Good evening, this is site plan application. Could I have you raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth on our final new project? Yes, I do. Could you state your name for the rest? Joe Duncan, general manager, Champlain Water District. Hi Joe, and you? Nate Pion. Hi Joe, hi Nate. Tell us a little bit about what you wanna do with your landscaping plan. So the landscaping plan we submitted to the city of South Burlington is for the removal of 38 trees at the South Burlington West Tanks, which is located on Harbor Ridge Road. These trees are located within the fence limit of our tank and they have become a danger or a hazard to the tank. Many of them are dying or showing deterioration and there's concerns with the impact that they may have if they fall and damage the infrastructure that services the residents of South Burlington. So we have that shown on the site plans and then also we submitted a revised landscaping plan showing 37 new cedar hedges along the South and West side within the fence limits. And the object there is to provide pedestrian screening on the West and South sides along Harbor Ridge Road to replace some of the trees that we are taking down and to maintain the height of those to be 10 feet so that they don't become a nuisance in the future to the tank infrastructure. Joe and Nate, have you read the staff comments that were prepared for that? Yes. So we could skip ahead to the first one. Staff comments to the board that we consider the adequacy of the proposed hedge and the planning to remain when making the determination of this application. Took a lot, can you talk a little bit about the screening that you have with the hedge? Yep, so we have, as I mentioned, 37 new cedar hedges or cedar trees that we're installing. There is 20 that will go on the West side which is the side along Harbor Ridge Road along the roadway and then there's 17 new cedar trees that will go on the South side to provide that pedestrian screening. As I mentioned, it's pedestrian screening. That's what the objective of those trees were and we've got them adjacent to the fence line so that they don't have any close proximity to the tank. The only other addition to the proposed landscaping plan is we did add a pollinator mix up on the East side, up on the hill to provide a habitat, I guess, for bees, other insects that may be in the area. In the comment here that you didn't feel that the screening was needed in the North because it's a wooded parcel with no plans for development. Yes, that is correct. Yeah, the existing property to the North we're not aware of any development plans. The northernmost tank that you see on the screen predates most, before we even inherited it, which was the early 70s when that tank went in so it predates all the development within that area. Does the board feel comfortable with the adequacy of the screening as presented? We have not had any conversations with the property owners. We have not. I know one of them was a rental. We haven't spoken with them, so no, don't know. What street are they supposed to be? It would be the ones to the west. I'm sure this is a green drop, correct, if I'm wrong. Yes, the tanks that you see on the west are higher than the lower floor, the first floor on the west side. So the tanks that are on the east side of the road. Yeah. Do you put it on the beta, yeah, between? Correct. Because you're starting, like, really on the beta? Five feet. And you're already five feet up off the, there's about a five foot grade difference between the sidewalk and the area where we're planting them. It's for pedestrian purposes. You're never going to cover the entire tank. The tank is 40 feet tall. May I ask the staff, were the owners of those parcels notified of this hearing? All adjacent property owners were notified? Yes. There's a wooded section between the backside of the fence and the edge of our property that is fairly dense screening on that side. Trees to the east, but. There's still. The plan never moved that close to replace them because of the. That's good. That area there is wooded. They're still within our property line. So we don't have any plans to touch those trees outside of the fence limit to the east. This is important public infrastructure. The imposition, if that's what it is, is minimal to non-existent. We ought to just close the application. Well, we're not there yet. It's comment number two, the reason why we have to have a site plan application because we're removing the trees, if I understand that correctly. And the staff recommends the board discuss whether the applicant's proposed tree replacement scheme meets the purpose of landscaping and screening requirements. So anyone disagree with that? Well, I'm really sorry to see that that number of trees to the east disappearing. I understand they're uphill and could cause problems. I'd like to see why you think that. We brought the city arborist in to take a look at the health of the trees. We were noticing the base of the trees were rotting, as well as a lot of the upper limbs were already rotting. So we brought the city arborist in to make a determination as to whether or not they were healthy and had longevity. And his answer was, no, we actually had some other trees that we thought were in close proximity that may be of concern, but were healthy. And he indicated that there should be those that we have. Well, 100% of those trees are dying. You vexed out, I think, every tree to the east. Yes, there's a lot of large. So when the tank was built in 2004, those trees were healthy. And a lot of the smaller brush was cleared out and only the large trees were left. And that's where we are today, is with those large trees in the condition that they are. That's the status of that site. This would be the tank to the south was installed in 2004. OK. Any other questions from the board? Are there any questions or comments from the public regarding this application? Can I bring up one more thing? Sure. Is our fellow from the Natural Resources here? Dave Crawford. Dave Crawford. They sent me a letter saying they're in a meeting right now. He doesn't have the full committee's way and they don't anticipate any problems. And generally thinks that the plan they presented is good. I will read the exact language the second I find it. From my discussions with several NRC members, I do not expect any issues to be raised. CWD plan addresses the loss of trees concerned the NRC members had. We appreciate the CWD's being proactive in addressing these concerns. OK. OK. Well, if there's no other comments then I would make a motion that we close site plan application SB 1930 of Champlain Water District. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Standing. OK. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Gentlemen, Dave. Appreciate it. Good to you, Dave. You too. OK, now agenda number six, sketch plan application SD 1923 of Tyler Maynard to subdivide approximately 69 acre parcel into four lots of 66.1 acres, lot one, 0.8 acres, lot two, 0.8 acres, lot three, and 1.1 acres, lot four for the purpose of constructing a single family home on each of lots one, two, and three, conserving the unbuilt portion of lot one and constructing a private access road on lot four at 47, Chiefs Factory Road. Who is here for the applicant? Hazem Maynard. I'm sorry, your first name? Tyler. Tyler, how are you? Not too bad of yourself. Good. Tyler, this is just a sketch plan, and so I'm going to talk about what a sketch plan is for a second. We don't swear you in for this. A sketch plan is a high level review and discussion where an applicant receives feedback from the board on the major elements of the project before it is fully designed. During the meeting, the board may provide oral guidance to the applicant, which constitutes the board's determination that the applicant meets the purposes of a land development regulations. These comments are here to help guide the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of the comprehensive plan. This is not a formal hearing and does not result in a binding decision. We may continue it to a later date. If we have any other questions that need to be examined, the future date will be announced prior to concluding this item in the evening. Upon conclusion of the sketch plan meeting, an applicant who wishes to move forward with the project will have to submit a complete application. The next level of review includes additional public notices and a formal public hearing. Tyler, tell us a little bit about what you want to do. We are looking to subdivide the 66-acre parcel into three livable lots, basically minimizing the footprint as small as possible, while still maintaining water and septic inside the individual lots. And then the fourth lot is simply an access road to for a single dwelling so he can access his property. OK, have you read the chance to read the staff comments? I did. OK, let's go through that a little bit. First is we're talking about the conservation of 60-plus acres of the property. Staff recommends that we, the board, ask the applicant to provide a written conservation plan for review and approval at the next stage of review. Do you understand what we're trying to say? Absolutely. What's on the 60-plus acres? Tell us a little bit about that property. Clearly just a couple of small wooded sections. There's some significant wetlands on the property, and the rest is basically just hayland, casterland. Staff comment number two, the roadway to the access to the three homes is allowed as a private road as it serves five or fewer dwelling units. But staff recommends that we discuss with the applicant the need to configure the road such that it meets one of the allowable street end alternatives in 1512J. Staff considers whichever end treatment results and the least amount of disturbance is the preferred alternative. The dimension standards of table 15-1 must also be met. So when I design the road, keep that in mind. Yep, that won't be a problem. Staff comment number three, staff recommends the board discuss whether allowing alternative access to the parcel to the south is consistent with the conservation purposes of the district the staff has provided in the packet for the board a plan showing the approved access for the parcel to the south. Staff notes that the access proposed as part of this application eliminates approximately 550 feet of private roadway, including wetland crossing, but results in construction approximately 920 feet of new private roadway, therefore resulting in greater land impacts than the approved impact. OK, that's a lot there. I know not everyone here on the board tonight was here when we reviewed SD 1904, which was the healing application for 133-2 sector lane. But at that time, there was a lot of discussion about how access was going to be provided to those new lots. In the end, there was a road approved through the Ewing Land off of the end of cheese factory lane. And this proposal in front of me today proposes to replace that approved private road with a different private road directly off of cheese factory road. So instead of being off a small local road, it would be off with the main collective roadway. But it's longer. It would be longer. Is this, as I'm recalling discussion about the Ewing property, the access to the conserved land? Is this roadway effect that in any way? This would go to any place. Do you want to add that up? So this is the Ewing approved plan. And this property line. Where's cheese factory road? Cheese factory road is way up the page at the top. So if we zoom in on, well, it's even in this locust map. It's way up to the road to the top. This is the edge of the parcel we're talking about today. And it's sort of in this area. So the new road that's being proposed today would come in here. And so everything sort of left at that point would go away from here to there. And then instead, it would be accessed through here. I'm confused. So that's what we're looking at is what's approved as part of the Ewing. Right. So in today's application, this is the parcel. And can you zoom in on this top right here? Or yeah. I've got the controls, so just do that. Yeah, just go and slow. There we go. So this diamond shape and then this triangle shape are the two South Burlington Ewing parcels. This is the application in front of you today. This application today is proposing an access road along the left side here, which would tee with the approved Ewing road through here. So we're not doing a new curb cut on the cheese factory road. It would be a new curb cut off. And it would be a new. An additional curb cut. Yes. Is the curb cut that you're proposing up above the, there's a hump over there? It's not. It's not. So it's after the hump. But it's a little ways after the hump. That's a tough spot. But it's closer to Hinesburg Road than it is. But I know what he's talking about. The hump is there. So if you're pulling off that road, it's that driveway. The hump would be there. So. Yeah. I'm trying to visualize. I mean, the hump would be there potentially creating a hazard. The hump would be to your right coming off that. Yeah, you wouldn't be at the top of the hump. You'd be closer to the bottom of the hump. So you've got a visibility problem. I'm fully aware. This was an addition to the three lots. So this. And you couldn't have put your curb cut further. There's some drainage issues on. And that's why we picked that specific site is because there's a drainage ditch, basically cutting that little section of land off from this. Made sense. I've got it. Tyler, are there also some wetlands over on the left-hand side of this parcel? Yep. Wetlands sort of. And those have since been delineated. So we have a better idea of where those are. So where it's drawn in misses that buffer of the wetland. So you can see the Topo and Chiefs Factory Road here. It's steep. And then it's right at the top of the steep section of the road. Let me understand. This access road is for all three of the lots. It would be for two lots. Two lots, but including the conservation lot? Yes. So this access road is in addition to the one for the subdivision east for both. It's for the mother of the block, not for the new three lots. If you, if there's multiple. No, it's not for my lots. That's for the Ewing lot. Right. So I can explain. I think you know how to eat Ewing. And I'm going to tell you outside the applicant here. No, if you want to come up, Pete, are you part of this application? I've been. Well, I haven't talked to Tyler recently, but yeah. As far as the access road, I can speak to it. OK. Could you raise your right hand? Oh, no, sorry. There's a sketch. Sorry. Could you say your name for the record? Peter Ewing. Peter, thank you for being here again. Yeah. There's actually where the existing cheese factory lane is has a really bad knoll. There's a much lighter knoll where the new proposed road would be. I don't think it has bad site existence at all, considering the fact that I grew up on cheese factory lane. If you've ever seen that, I mean, it's like a, I don't know, a 10 foot drop. So that you can you can see like a ski rack on top of a car coming up the cheese factory lane. This is nowhere near like that. So it's much improved. So and also just quickly on fire, it's just this is a shorter route for fire and emergency vehicles, and it takes away any 90 degree turns. So the road basically comes down from the north, and then it makes an angle, but not a sharp angle. And then another angle, but not a sharp angle. And it's right into the total of five houses. We, as a result of very quickly, as a result of our desire and everybody would have wanted to see it remain a private road, we were limited by South Brunton road requirements. And so we had five potential lots. And as a result of saying on cheese factory lane, we lost one lot because the will upon bed and breakfast counts as one, which is my mother's bed and breakfast, now owned by my brother and his wife. So that caused us to lose a house on lot one. This would get us a house back on lot one. In addition to that, and I'll try to keep it short and let you ask any questions you have, but as you recall, this, our project had two large conservation parcels. One was the Nature Conservancy parcel, which was sold very quickly after the DRB hearings concluded in April, May, March, April. So the TNC piece has been sold. 48 acres were sold to the Nature Conservancy. That's closed. The 45-acre farm parcel in Shelburne, the TNC parcel was partly in Shelburne and partly in South Brunton. In Shelburne, that parcel fell through because of the house limit on the private road. Typically, the VLT deals come with a house right. But there were, as you know here, we had access issues. And so we could never get a good access. We would have liked that deal to go through, but the buyer couldn't get access for that house rights. So that caused that deal to fall through. At the moment, we hope to revive it, but at the moment, the person sale agreements have expired. We're hoping to get that going again. Being able to get this access road would help us very much to move in that direction to close on that 45-acre farm parcel. And hopefully, depending on how things work out, get Brandon Bless into the lot number five. So and Brandon's here, so maybe he can talk to this, because they were having it appraised, not me. But in talking about recombining lot five, which is subdivided in Shelburne to the 45-acre farm parcel that's originally was going to be purchased by Red and Butter Farm, very complicated, all this. Dealing with two towns. For the purpose of what we're doing, here's my understanding about the limit of my understanding from what you said, is that this road is needed not so much for the benefit of the property that's seeking the subdivision, but to benefit your property. It doesn't have any benefit to my property. And at this moment, the entire parcel on which this road would exist belongs to the applicant who's before us and not to you, correct? Correct. So what we're talking about is a plan to enter a two-step process, pursuant to which you would acquire private rights over their private road, correct? Exxon, yeah. Which you don't now have. Correct. You have no interest in the parcels that are in front of us at this moment, no legal interests. You have a conceptual interest, but you have no legal interest in the parcels that we're concerned with right now. Is that right? I think so. Well, you're not an applicant, right? You have no ownership of the land that's involved here. Yeah. I've given my little piece. Unless Marla thinks there's something more I could add, I would just step back and let Tyler handle this. And you have no contract? Do you have a contract to acquire an easement if they get this or something? Yeah. We have a verbal agreement with Brandon. A verbal agreement for land. So you have no contract. Thank you for that answer. Well, we wouldn't do that until we have got to see if we can get some support from the board. I think it is. That's why it's sketched right. I understand. I'd be remiss if I didn't make a note that Jim Langdon has recused himself on this one. I forgot to make that announcement. I should have done that at the beginning. OK, thank you, Peter. Thank you. OK, I'm not sure where we are on the road in terms of giving Tyler some guidance. So there's another comment about the road in comment number five as well. Right now, we're talking about the road as a road. The road as a lot is a separate issue. The SEQNRP standards, this district, the National Resource Protection District, all read with this sort of spirit of conservation. So I would just encourage the board to think about this road in the spirit of conservation and would approving this road result in more or less conserved land. And I think that I honestly think that I've heard arguments in both directions and don't really have a strong leaning at this point. Is there a conservation arrangement for the farm? If your contract came through, is it permanently a farm and not potentially a multi-family project? So the Ewing project required a conservation agreement for the Ewing land in South Burlington. In South Burlington. Right. OK. Yeah, and I don't know the answer to that. Could you ask that question again? Asking about the Shelburne land, the contract that fell through, was there some type of conservation arrangement on that as well? Does it stay farmland? It was a Vermont land trust, and Brandon bless. It's in current use farming right now managed by myself. Well, it's access is going to be limited anyway, because we're only in a lot of so many houses off that. Strange. I'm sorry, and is subject to a conservation easement granted to Vermont land trust? If the deal goes through, there's no conservation easement protection on it at all right now. It's privately owned by my family. And again, it fell through, because it doesn't make any sense. Given the distance of the private road that we're putting in, again, the BLT deals usually come with a house right. And so with no approval to do this from your board, then the only way that Brandon could get a house out there would be to build a half mile road, directly parallel to the road that we were building at great expense, and more impervious or much more weapon impacts. So I mean, as you know with every project that you work on, it just makes good sense when you have more uses funneling through a single access. And so that's where it is. So that deal, unless there's just not a way to make this work for Brandon. I mean, Brandon, I'll have to talk to him. He's right here, but just kind of speak in terms for a second. It just didn't work for him. I mean, he can't make use of that house right because of the limitation by South Bronson, which is not totally understand it. And this is the solution. Is there a reason why we're subdividing the roadway lot four? That could also be an easement if that would make things easier. I have no issues with that. Well, we would have to, I mean, skipping ahead to comment five, I want to go back to four. Yeah, we would have to issue a waiver for four lots. Right, I understand. And so I'm working either way. And if I'm understate following this Shelburne South Burlington land issue, the fourth lot, or the easement, is to access the Shelburne property? Do I have that right? Well, all the houses on, as part of our subdivision, keeping in mind our subdivision spans two towns, which has made it a whole thing a nightmare. So this new road, proposed road, would get lots one and two, or in South Bronson. Lot one was the one that had a house get dropped because of the five-house count on the private road. And the bed and breakfast counting is one by switching to the new proposed road. The bed and breakfast remains on cheese factory lane where its current driveway is. And it's not on this new road, so then we get one house back. And that would allow us to put a house on lot one. And then, once again, we hope to get Brandon into lot five, adjacent to the 45-acre farmhouse. So let's just go ahead. Let me see if I can summarize where we're at. We, for the purpose of this subdivision, we could suggest to the applicant that they get rid of lot four, think in terms of an easement. Three lots in an easement. And what we're considering is a three-lot subdivision with the possibility of an easement that you'd have to justify in some fashion when you came in here to do something with the three lots. So is that coming in? I think that's right. I think that's right. Yeah. Is that coherent to you? Totally understand, yep. Anything you can't work with in that construct? If we could go back to four, because I don't want to forget it, common number four, which says Land Development Regulations 906B3 requires the applicant to provide a plan for ongoing management of open spaces, international areas, staff recommends that we request the applicant provide such a plan at the next stage of review. So at preliminary plot, you will. It's a conservation plan and all that. You'll have that? Yes. Good. Five we just dealt with. Five we dealt with. We prefer three in an easement. I think is the temperature of the board, although we're not making a formal vote here. Item number six, this is about how the structures are placed. Staff has exerted that the applicant's reasoning for requesting this waiver before recommends the board provide feedback for the applicant on whether they would consider granting this waiver. You want the houses in a line for septic issues. Is that correct? Yeah, the only usable septic land is basically in a line because it's a good steep section. Creates smaller mounds. When I dug test pits on the flatter section, the soils are worse, which would lead to a lot longer mounds, which would lead to either easements or bigger properties or, however, it would work out. And this way, this land is a lot steeper, a lot less agricultural, and there's also a good strong wooded section that would be able to block all three residences along that stretch. Good use for the hillside. That is very steep. And yeah, I mean, it's 14% to 16% slopes. I mean, that's hard to farm. And plus, there's natural little clusters of trees that would help block the housing as well. There's no waiver that we'd have to approve to allow it to be in a line rather than a cul-de-sac, or there is a stop. So the standard says structures must be located no more than 100 feet from any other structure. So if you have three structures, they all have to be within the line. It would have to be in a triangle or a cul-de-sac style formation. And that would work for the septic. Because the two are the two on the other, or the, yeah. Got it. So because of septic purposes and because of the ledge, if I did a triangle formation, the one house would be up front. And they'd still have to ease back onto the septic, onto the conservation land. So that land still wouldn't be usable. And plus, they'd be building on a ledge. And they'd be a lot closer to the road. You'd lose that natural wooden shielding. Not that it makes much difference. It doesn't change what the LDRs say. But do you understand, Marla, what the reasoning is for this? Same question. What I understand from talking with Paul is that the intention was to cluster the homes, rather than have it as a line of homes. In other words, it's just the opposite of what he wants to do. Right. But Tyler just made the point that a triangular configuration would result in the same amount or more land being used. It would ultimately end up with a lot more easements involved. It's more land, and you'd have to face the cross in order to get to the septic. The visual impact would be less. You'd see it more from the cheese factory road. Practical impact would be. And what is our authority to waive this dimension? It's PUD. So we got it. Mark, how do you feel about a line of houses, rather than triangle or circular cluster? You know, they don't automate so much because the question of the amount of land is going to be conserved in perpetuity. It's just back from the road behind that natural vegetation line. I mean, that could be pulled back slightly further just to prevent any of that from being cut down to get the private road in. But I think that the impact is going to be minimal. And I do agree that there's a way to ease the consorias to flow. And the septic has been up to the hindings of houses. Any reconfiguration is going to result in almost more of an impact. And it would be a far different story as a conversation if we were talking about more three houses. We were talking about five or six in a line. Yeah, you definitely want to start with the clustering though, but three is almost a cluster. If you were talking about six, seven, or eight, you probably have three in a row and then wrap them around. I think it's a minimal type of impact. And any type of reconfiguration would result in much different. Thanks for that, Mark. Yep. Any other questions or comments from the board? That was the last staff comment. Anyone in the audience like to speak about this sketch plan application? Go ahead and approach. You state your name for the record. I'm Andrew Slover. I'm in a butter at 10 Gs factory lane. Hi, Andrew. How are you? Good. And so I would just like to put it on the record that I would be opposed to a lot four or an easement for the road or anything that breaks up the large grassland that's shared between the existing lots. Because it's grassland? It's a continuous grassland right now. And there's views from Chiefs Factory Road and from the existing lots. And I think that a road there, one, it would cause water problems. There's already a lot of water in that area. And it breaks up the expansive grassland more than it needs to. Everything's, you can see that everything gets mowed together from that lot into the lots to the west. And so what would you suggest as the alternative? There's an existing right of way already approved on Chiefs Factory Lane. I don't see any reason to change that. Thank you, Andrew. Appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else in the audience that would have a comment about the sketch plan application? Go ahead. Come on up, Peter. Just one additional piece of information. We have been in touch with Tina Heath, the state wetlands ecologist, and have done a sidewalk with her. We hired Fitzgerald Environmental Engineering to do the wetlands delineation. And that's all done. And there are basically the gist of it is. And this is actually a pretty good map here. You can see it pretty well. So that's the Auclair. The blue line is the Western boundary, the Auclair parcel that we propose to purchase. So we've had the full map done. And the gist of it is, is a little bit of wetlands directly adjacent to Chiefs Factory Road are impacted and a little bit directly adjacent to our existing property. So basically, it's about 1,000 foot long proposed road. And so there's wetlands at both tips. And in between, it's pretty clear. And you can see that.