DP 10 – 25, Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Rd ...F506B13C... · been done. There is a lack of...

Town of Williston Development Review Board Minutes of March 9, 2010

TOWN OF WILLISTON

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD March 9, 2010, 7:30 PM

Town Hall Meeting Chamber

Minutes approved as written March 23, 2010, with the inclusion of documents (Memorandum to Ken Belliveau; parking calculations; proposed lighting plan; documents for RSD traffic impact study; suggested motions, and memo to DPW/Bruce

Hoar) submitted to the DRB by Essex Alliance Church at the meeting on March 9, 2010. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Digitally Recorded Minutes are available in the Williston Planning and Zoning Offices, 7878 Williston Road, or the Town Clerk’s Offices located at 7900 Williston Road. DRB Members Present: Kevin McDermott, Brian Jennings, Scott Rieley, Richard Asch, Philip Martin and Cathy O’Brien. Members Absent: John Bendzunas Staff: Matthew Boulanger, Ken Belliveau and Carol Daigle Others: Aaron Vincelette, Harland Stockwell, Lance Llewellyn, Rich Bryant; Joe Segale; Liz Jordan-Shook; Todd Phillippi; Jeff Kolok; Gary Malle; Marty Courcelle; Tim Simard; Debra Bell; Tom Munn; Elaine Boudah; Michael Boudah; Robert Gaffney; Liam Murphy; Bill Niquette; Nathan Patnode; Scott Slocum; John Stetson; Eric Hillmuth; Mike Richburg; R. Payson; and Dave Marshall. I. Public Forum II. Public Hearings III. Minutes

IV. Communications or Other Business

V. Adjournment ___________________________________________________________________________ I. Public Forum II. Public Hearings

DP 10 – 25, Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Rd, Colchester, for Eco Car Wash, Wentworth Drive, request for Pre-Application review for a drive-through style car wash in the Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN). DP 10 – 26, Catamount Brownell, LLC for Sports & Fitness Edge, 115 Wellness Drive, for a Discretionary Permit review to convert 12,000 s.f. of the existing 26,400 s.f. field house to daycare for an additional 80 children in the Industrial Zoning District West (IZDW). (This application was rescheduled at the last minute to April 13, 2010.)


DP 09 - 21, Essex Alliance Church, 37 Old Stage Road, Essex, VT, a Discretionary Permit application review to construct a church and related facilities off Route 2-A in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD). This hearing is continued from the January 26, 2010 meeting. DP 10 – 22, M & E Boudah Enterprises, LLC, 135 Talcott Road, requests a Discretionary Permit review for a 2-lot commercial subdivision in the Mixed Use Residential Zoning District (MURZD). DP 10 - 27, Infill Realty Advisors, LLC, 87 Lyman Avenue, Burlington, requests a Pre-Application review for converting an existing three-unit apartment dwelling at 8031 Williston Road to office spaces, removing two sheds, and erecting three single family dwellings in the Village Zoning District (VZD).

I. Minutes from February 9, 2010

II. Other Business and Correspondence

a. Certificate of Appropriateness: HP10- 03, Elizabeth Jordan- Shook, application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an addition to an existing house and construct a new addition to create a new master bedroom and an accessory dwelling unit; also to add solar hot water heating panels to the roof of the existing house.

___________________________________________________________________________

DP 10 – 25, Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Rd, Colchester, for Eco Car Wash, Wentworth Drive, request for Pre-Application review for a drive-through style car wash in the Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN).

Representing the applicant were Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Road, Colchester and Rick Bryant, Tetra Tech, 20 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington. Mr. Boulanger briefly reviewed his staff notes for the board and audience. This Pre-

Application for a car wash is an allowed use in the Gateway Zoning District North and has been reviewed by the Conservation Committee, Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works. Their comments are attached. Also attached is correspondence with the Zoning Administrator in regards to traffic impact fees and schedule for payment. Staff has reviewed the plans concerning parking, lighting, landscaping and buffers, signs and traffic impact. WDB 13.6 talks about drive-throughs being allowed and the board will have to make a finding at the discretionary permit review determining if this constitutes a drive-through as described in WDB 13.6. He introduced a letter written by Ms. Beverly Cloutier, expressing concerns about the traffic, stacking of traffic, inability to turn left, traffic lights, etc. She lives at 256 Morgan Parkway and has experienced many of the problems drivers encounter in that area.

Mr. Vincelette spoke explaining he currently owns the car wash in Milton, wishes to expand into Williston, and is also looking for a Colchester site. With the design of this building, everything will be under the roof so no drying, cleaning, vacuuming, or trash removal will happen outside. At the front of the building will be a teller-like machine where clients will pay by monthly passes, credit,


debit, or cash. Cars will enter a 150’ tunnel for the wash and dry. If they desire additional detailing such as a wax and polish, cleaning etc., they will drive out of the first tunnel and enter the second tunnel where the detailing will be done. A team of people will do this while drivers are in a lounge area at the end, with facilities, and a computer wired area. He also owns Vermont Eco Cottage and he plans to have seven or eight sheds for displays only as these are purchased in kits. All the material and work to create these kits happens in Vermont. He is no longer planning the lubrication business shown as the blue square behind the car wash on the plans. The sheds would be located between the car wash and Agway.

Mr. Gary Malle, an abutter who owns the storage units at 71 Wentworth Drive, asked questions about the layout being shown, the blue ‘pool’ and the lubricating place. He has a retention pond on his property and wondered if this one would be next to his units.

Mr. Vincelette explained he has redesigned the roof to collect water for use in the car wash. The roof of the car wash will also save light energy during the day. The green area is being left open for a series of solar panels from NRG. He’s starting out with one paned due to the cost, with the potential of 11 panels. They will be located in the back, near the corner of the lot. The sun-seeking panels will be approximately 10’ x 15’ made of 2’ x 3’ sections. He offered a number of different models. The parking will be for employees only as no parking is required for customers, and will be located near the sheds.

Mr. Rieley asked what made this project eco friendly. Mr. Vincelette explained biodegradable soap/detergent would be used; the roof collector;

using less water for each wash; solar panels; capturing gray water, as little as 30% to as high as 100% returned to recycled water. It will take 24 gallons of water per wash. They will have a large tank for their water supply and the recycled water will be in a different tank.

Mr. Malle spoke from the audience again, asking about the orientation of the solar panels. Would they block the view of his storage units from passers by? He had concerns about security because views to the units would be blocked and the underwater tanks. He talked about the business park association he, the owners of the two empty lots being considered in this application, and the remaining members belong to as well as the requirements of sewer and water in this association. He commented the association president didn’t have any issues about the underwater tanks. He also expressed concern about the traffic and his customers being able to make the left hand turn.

Mr. McDermott explained a traffic survey, by a traffic engineer, would be required for the Discretionary Permit level.

Mr. Vincelette has met with the association president and discussed the application with him. Mr. Rick Bryant, from Tetra Tech, a traffic engineer, talked about the impact fees that may be

prohibitive. He talked about the green construction elements in the project and explained car washes historically rely on passing by traffic. The lower the impact fees the quicker more solar panels can be added to the site to save more energy. Ken Belliveau explained how the impact fees were calculated and the Selectboard making the decision on the fees. Only a couple of studies done in New Jersey about traffic for car washes have been done. There is a lack of similarities between New Jersey and Vermont traffic.

Discussion continued about the issues of traffic, the time sitting waiting to make a left hand turn, the request by the MPO for a third lane for turning, and the possibility of donating land to create a lane for turning or selling land to the state for the lane. Questions and comments were made about landscaping and street trees, the use of native plants and shrubs, a clear demarcation of where sheds would be located, and details showing the flow of traffic going into the car wash and detailing area. The proposed storm water pond and the existing storm water pond for the association were discussed. Permits for the pond would come from the state. Currently, the lot slopes toward Agway.

___________________________________________________________________________

Williston Conservation Commission


Transmittal of Findings to the Development Review Board, February 23, 2010 DRB Review Stage: Pre-Application

Application No: DP 10-25 Name: Eco Car Wash Property Address: Wentworth Dr Tax Parcel # 03:110:002 & 03:110:004

Zoning District: GZDN Existing Lot Size: 2.2 acres total (both lots are 1.1 acres)

After review of this application for development, the Conservation Commission finds that the subject property is affected by the Town of Williston Open Space Plan in the following categories: X Alternative Transportation Paths __ Visual Assessment __ Primitive Paths __ 150 ft Named Stream Buffer __ Country Parks __ 50 ft Stream/Wetland Buffer __ Community Parks __ Open Space Development __ Neighborhood Parks __ Other: __ Conservation Areas

Project Summary: This is a Pre-Application for a car wash, detail, and cleaning center, with an adjacent display of sheds and cottages, and expansion potential for a three-bay Express Lube facility located off Wentworth Drive in the Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN).

Discussion:

Overall the WCC supports the proposal and commends the applicant’s goal to provide a business model that is sensitive to natural resources but feels there are additional opportunities to conserve water and energy resources. The WCC encourages the applicant to consider rain water harvesting technologies and solar power opportunities. An alternative transportation path easement should be acquired as this parcel provides an important link to the future Route 2A bike path.

Findings:

1. Property lies along the alternative transportation path corridor on the west side of 2A. 2. The facility will utilize municipal sewer and water. All stormwater runoff will be directed to

a stormwater pond. Dirt, salt, grease, etc generated from the car washing operation will be collected in pits and cleaned regularly. The reject water will be captured and saved to clean the car’s wheels and underbelly. The gray water will then be sent to the waste water treatment plant.

3. The facility will consume energy in the conventional way, however the applicant proposes to use energy efficient T-5 lighting fixtures and install a translucent polycarbonate roof made out of recycled plastics to minimize the need for internal lighting during the day.

Recommendations:

1. With input from the Public Works Department a north-south floating 20’ alternative transportation path easement should be established. The exact easement location should be determined when links are established at the existing Shell Gas Station to the south and the Agway to the north.

2. Water should be recycled/reclaimed wherever possible. The applicant should consider installing a rain water harvesting cistern to collect and store roof runoff. The reclaimed rain


water could be used to flush toilets and/or wash cars and/or irrigate the lawn. Snow storage areas and stormwater infiltration techniques, such as rain gardens, should be incorporated into the landscape design wherever possible and presented in a Landscaping Plan prior to Discretionary Permit approval.

3. The applicant should explore the use of solar power to entirely or partially run the proposed operation. Establishing a Power Purchase agreement with NRG should be considered. The use of a solar hot water heating system should also be explored.

Submitted by Jessica Andreoletti Date: 2/5/10 Approved by the Williston Conservation Commission Date: 2/10/10 ____________________________________________________________________


Williston Development Review Board – March 9, 2010 Staff Notes

DP 10 – 25 Eco Car Wash

Application No: DP 10-25 Name: Eco Car Wash Tax Parcel #: 03:110:002 and 03:110:004 Property Address: Corner Essex Road &

Wentworth Drive Zoning District: GZDN (Gateway Zoning District North)

Total Acres: 2.2 acres total (both lots are 1.1 acres)

Overview: This is a request for Pre-Application review of a proposal to construct a car wash in the Gateway Zoning District North. Project History:

This proposal has not been reviewed by the DRB before. Review by other Departments and Committees:

This pre-application was reviewed by the Williston Conservation Commission, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Police Department. Their comments are attached. In addition the applicant has been in communication with the Zoning Administrator in regards to traffic impact fees that may have to be paid prior to the issuance of any permits to construct the car wash. That correspondence is also attached to this staff report.

Staff Recommendation: The proposed uses are allowed uses in the GZDN, and it appears that a car wash as proposed could be constructed within the various requirements of the Williston Development Bylaw as follows:

Parking: The applicant’s proposal will have to comply with the parking requirements of WDB 14, including Parking lot landscaping, ADA parking spaces, end-of trip facilities, and all other applicable standards of the chapter.

Lighting: All outdoor lighting must comply with the requirements of the WDB.

Landscaped Buffers: Landscaped buffers must be proposed as part of the Discretionary permit application in compliance with WDB 23.

Signs: All signs on the site should be located and proposed as a part of the Discretionary permit application, in compliance with WDB 25.

Traffic Impact: (required for Discretionary Permit level) Drive-Through Service: Drive-through Service is generally prohibited in the town of Williston by WDB 13.6:

13.6 Drive-Throughs. Consistent with the Town Plan vision of pedestrian-friendly development, Williston permits drive-through service only for bulky, heavy objects (feed, lumber) and financial institutions, where drive-though service preserves privacy and where a prohibition would result in several nonconforming uses.


The DRB will need to make a finding at the discretionary permit review level that a car wash does not constitute drive-through service as described in 13.6. This finding is supportable in that the nature of a car wash is that a vehicle needs to be driven into it in order for the service to be provided. Recommendations:

1. An application for a Discretionary Permit for this project should address all comments and recommendations of Williston planning staff in this report as well as attached comments by Police, Fire, public Works and the Williston Conservation Commission.

2. The application for a Discretionary Permit must incorporate a narrative explaining how the proposal meets all of the comments referenced above in recommendation #1.

3. The applicant must clearly indicate outside storage/display and solar panels on the plans submitted at Discretionary Application.

MOTION:

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Brian Jennings, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 9, 2010, accept the recommendations proposed by staff for DP 10-25 and authorize the project to proceed with Discretionary permit application and review.

SECONDED by: Richard Asch VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES Gary Malle, 71 Wentworth Drive, was the only person speaking from the audience. 8:13 P.M. Hearing for DP 10-25 was closed. _________________________________________________________________________________ 8:14 P.M IV. Communications or Other Business.

a. Certificate of Appropriateness: HP10 - 03, Elizabeth Jordan-Shook, application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an earlier addition to an existing house and construct a new addition to create a new master bedroom and an accessory dwelling unit; also to add solar hot water heating panels to the roof of the existing house.

Ms. Liz Jordan-Shook, 89 North Williston Road, spoke for her application.

Mr. Boulanger reviewed his staff notes for the board and the audience. This proposal was first reviewed on November 24, 2009, and the board requested more information about the solar panels, impact on views from the road and the historic area. The applicant has submitted additional information and example photographs of solar collectors like the one proposed. The state adopted rules about renewable resources such clothes lines and solar power. He read from Vermont House Bill 446, Sec. 15c. 24 V.S.A.§4413(g): Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a bylaw adopted under this chapter shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the installation of solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources. He continued to discuss the village


zoning district, which the dwelling is located within, and the Williston design code. It isn’t in the historic district.

Ms. Shook, when asked if the panels would tilt to follow the sun, she responded to say they would be tilted to get the maximum exposure, but the panels would not move to follow the sun.

Board members had additional questions about the section of the dwelling being requested to be demolished. A previously poorly constructed addition on the right side is pulling away from the house, (facing the dwelling this addition is on the right side) and will be demolished. This section will be rebuilt and will be a little larger. The first level of this addition will be a 13’ x 30’ accessory apartment.

__________________________________________________________________

Williston Development Review Board– March 9, 2010 Staff Notes- HP 10-03, AP 10-114 – 89 North Williston Road

Application No: HP 10-03, AP 10-0114 Name: Shook House Addition and Solar Collector Tax Parcel #: 14:013:008 Property Address: 89 North Williston Road

Zoning District: Village Zoning District (Outside National Register District and “Additional Review Area”)

Overview: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) for an addition to an existing house and the installation of solar hot water collectors on the roof of the same house. The house is located at 89 North Williston Road, which is in the Village Zoning District but is not in the National Register Historic District or in the “Additional Review Area” identified by the Town Plan. The structure is a mid-century raised-ranch and is not considered to be of historic value. Project History:

This proposal was first reviewed by the DRB at their 11/24/2009 meeting. At that time the DRB declined to take action on the request for a CoA. An excerpt of the minutes of that meeting follows:

“Mr. Boulanger explained to the board members changes Ms. Shook is proposing for her house. Pictures of potential choices of solar panels, photos of the existing house and drawings had been submitted for the members to review for their consideration. Drawings of the existing house and the addition added in the 1980’s were explained.

Board members discussed the type, size, location, and possible impact of the solar panels on the roof; the fact the dwelling is not a historic one, and asked questions to clarify the section be demolished and rebuilt. Ms. O’Brien had questions about the accessory apartment and the siding. Members agreed they wanted more information to give them a better idea of where the panels would be located and how they might look. They wanted to see pictures of the elevations.”

The applicant has submitted further information for consideration of this proposal, including the complete text of new provisions of state law adopted in June that limit the ability of municipalities to prohibit the construction and use of solar collectors. The applicant has also submitted example photographs of solar collectors like the one proposed.


Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the DRB approve a CoA for the addition and the solar collectors, with the following findings related to the solar collectors:

1. An accessory apartment is an allowed use in the VZD. 2. The DRB finds that the proposal for the addition of solar hot water panels to the house at 89

North Williston Road can be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness because: a. The panels will be marginally visible from properties within the National Register

Historic District and Additional Review Area. b. The panels are proposed to be constructed on a house which, while it is located in the

Village Zoning District, is not a historic structure. c. Given the characteristics of the site and structure, the applicant has chosen the

location and method of installation with the least impact on the Historic Village and cannot be completely prohibited from having solar collectors on the property pursuant to the provisions of 24 V.S.A. 4413 (g).

Conditions of Approval:

1. All materials are to be as proposed on application HP 10-03: a. Cement fiberboard siding. b. Composite trim c. Dark asphalt shingles to match the existing roof d. New windows to be wood sliding windows.

_________________________________________________________________________

MOTION: I, Scott Rieley, move that the Williston DRB approve Certificate of Appropriateness HP 10-03, Elizabeth Jordan-Shook application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an addition to an existing house and construct a new addition to create a new master bedroom and an accessory dwelling unit; also to add solar hot water heating panels to the roof of the existing house.

SECONDED by Richard Asch VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES No one from the audience spoke on this application. 8:28 P.M. Closed hearing for HP 10-03. _________________________________________________________________________________ 8:28 P.M. Opened hearing for DP 09-21 DP 09 - 21, Essex Alliance Church, 37 Old Stage Road, Essex, VT, a Discretionary Permit application review to construct a church and related facilities off Route 2-A in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD). This hearing is continued from the January 26, 2010 meeting.

Representing the application are Jeff Kolok, 81 Foothills, Jericho, Martin Courcelle, Champlain Consulting Engineers, PO Box 453 Colchester, Scott Slocum, Essex Alliance Church, 37 Old Stage Road, Essex; Todd Phillippi, WPH Architects for Ministry, West Lincoln Highway, Penndel, PA; Joe Segale, RSG Consulting, 60 Lake Street, Suite 1, Burlington, and John Stetson, Engelberth Construction, Inc. 463 Mt. View Drive, Colchester,


Mr. Belliveau reviewed his staff notes for the board and the audience. He talked about the size and complexity of this application, and the number of details to be considered. A request was made for a schedule of all the various church uses and activities that will be taking place through the week and year. Another request was for a calculation for signage and this was provided. The site plan changes requested to show the location of the pedestrian path appears to have been added. Some additional minor details on the site plan will be corrected by Final Plans. He indicated there are two major items needed to be worked out.

The Department of Public Works sent plans out for an independent review of the engineering plans and also the traffic study was sent out for an independent review. Questions were raised about the methodology used in the study: 15 minute peak hour traffic vs. one hour peak hour traffic in estimating the amount of traffic. Questions were also raised as to the proposed traffic mitigation efforts with the proposal to have a turning lane and traffic control person on Sundays. The design solution has to be acceptable to the state. The state controls Route 2-A so they would have to approve this method of controlling traffic.

Mr. Belliveau talked about the parking calculations and the use of total square footage in the calculations; the applicant is proposing basically a request for shared parking. Not all areas of the church complex will be in use at the same time. Another issue is to determine the proposed height bonus. To earn the bonus an applicant has a choice of building either structured parking or affordable housing. To meet the bylaws they will need to build at least 4 units of housing, three of which would be perpetually affordable. The requirement is 75% being affordable. The applicant had proposed to build eight units, six of which would be affordable. They would need to build the six units affordable units before they could get their permit to build to the 52’ height request. The applicant is now asking to be able to build only three units.

He reported the earlier concerns the fire chief had about the circular stairs shown on the site plans that have not yet been replaced. It would be very difficult to take a patient down the stairs on a stretcher. The stairs are still showing on the plans. Chief Morton had listed earlier concerns on his memo submitted for the January meeting such as a proposed gravel drive. He felt this would not support the weight of the fire trucks and should be paved. Mr. Belliveau understood the applicants have a meeting with the fire chief in the next couple of days to work out these issues.

Mr. Jeff Kolok responded first by talking about the traffic and asked Mr. Segale to speak. Joe Segale, speaking for the applicant about the traffic survey, and who met with the state, responded to the question about a traffic officer. This wouldn’t be a volunteer or rent-a-cop; it would be a police officer. A condition, by the state, with a traffic signal installation or with their proposed left turning lane would include having a traffic control officer. In doing the traffic survey, they looked at the worst 15 minutes and made their adjustments with variations over the year, from those figures. The state recommends an hourly volume report. Another concern was the number of people who would drive through Chelsea Place, for traffic leaving church and heading south on 2-A. They figure about 40 cars would leave through Chelsea Place between 11:00 am and 12:00 pm. They didn’t really quantify the amount of traffic passing through there. Are 40 cars an hour a high number? One solution is to not make the connection. Another is to temporarily block traffic and a third is consideration of physical modification. He feels the design of Chelsea Place itself slows traffic with cars parked on both sides of the street. He discussed the amount of church generated traffic by conducting a survey at the existing church in Essex. With reference to traffic related to the sports and recreation fields, they have no organized plan in mind at this time.


Board members raised questions about traffic and weekly use of the fields/recreation areas by the church and possible the community. A suggestion was made about adding a ‘no right turn’ sign.

Is the layout of the church and parking or site generally designed to discourage traffic from using Chelsea Place? Mr. Segale feels it is generally geared to facing Route 2-A rather than Chelsea Place. The issue of signage was raised again.

Mr. Scott Slocum responded to a question from Mr. Rieley about the number of children, youth and adults at services and in church spaces with reference to the number of parking spaces and discussed the timing of the different services. Additional questions were raised about the number of people total at a Sunday service including choir members, ushers, adults, children, youth, administrative/support people (100 workers) vs. the number of parking spaces.

Marty Courcelle talked about the parking calculations. Ken Belliveau expressed concern about the calculations of people with a 1200 seat

auditorium, and the other rooms filled with children and youth, totaling 1600 to 1800 people, the calculation would equal 300 parking spaces.

Mr. McDermott felt they are 160 spaces short and asked how many cars they would have on a Sunday morning.

Mr. Jennings pointed out the applicant would have capacity to add more parking. Moving on, Mr. Kolok talked about the lighting, timers, zones (photo cells are

programmable), lights on at 4:00 pm and off at 10:00 pm during weekly uses. Not all night time uses are by church groups.

Mr. Kolok passed out sheets of additional information to the board members including a sheet listing the number of changes made in response to comments from the Department of Public Works and town staff. He talked about the requirement for a 6’ high chain link fence around the retention pond, described ‘safety benches’ now constructed in retention ponds. He mentioned Bruce Hoar, director of Public Works, is open to not everything being chain link. He talked about a request they connect to a high service water line going through Finney Crossing and the options of building a high service line or actually switching Chelsea Commons over to a high service line. He asked if Public Works could get them information for this service line and help eliminate work they would have to do in doing the Final Plans and ordering the pipe.

Mr. Belliveau outlined the waste water permits, sewer allocations and others Public Works would need to sign off before building could begin.

Mr. Kolok suggested alternative language on conditions #9, #10 and #14. On condition #9 they bring the rec/bicycle path to the top of the bank; #10 parking related to the use of space in the building; and #14 to build only four units before obtaining the Administrative Permit to construct any building over 36’ in height.


(The above suggestions for changes in conditions is one of five documents submitted by the applicant to the DRB members at the meeting on March 23, 2010.)


Mr. Belliveau asked what the board could do to make sure the church did what they said they would do if the church wanted the height bonus. To what extent or recourse does the town have if they back out of the agreement by doing four units with the three affordable, instead of the eight units with six affordable, to get the Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy?

________________________________________________________________

Staff Notes Williston Development Review Board – March 9, 2010

DP 09-21, Essex Alliance Church Tax Parcel # 08-102-028, 048

Rt. 2A and Beaudry Lane

Application No: DP 09-21 Name: Essex Alliance Church Tax Parcel #: 08:102:028, 048 Property Address: VT Route 2A and Beaudry

Lane Zoning District: Taft Corners Zoning District Total Acres: 54.1

Overview

This is a request for a Discretionary Permit for a church, including a youth ministry, administrative offices, and some outdoor recreation facilities on 54.1 acres in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD). The property is located on Beaudry Lane off of Route 2A and gains access to Rt. 2A via Beaudry Lane to the north and driveway to the south. This project was previously reviewed by the DRB under SUB 07-04 in March 2007. This application also includes a request for a master sign plan. The proposed church building would have approximately 119,122 sq. ft. comprised of approximately 69,215 sq. ft. worship center seating approximately 1,200 people, and space for a lobby, bookstore, and several other multi-use rooms. There would also be approximately 10,872 sq. ft. for administrative offices and youth ministry activities. Adjacent to the main building is proposed a two-story building with approximately 37,475 proposed for a children’s ministry. There are is also a baseball/softball field and a soccer field proposed near the southerly portion of the property. The applicant is also proposing eight dwelling units to be built on two proposed separate parcels one on either side of the northerly roadway accessing the site. A minimum of six of these dwelling units have been proposed to meet the town’s requirements for perpetual affordability for the purpose of gaining approval of the height bonus from a maximum of 36 ft. to a maximum of 52 ft. available under WDB 41.5.4. This request was initially heard by the DRB on January 26, 2010 but that hearing was recessed March 9, 2010 by mutual consent of the applicant and the DRB in order to provide the board with additional information for their consideration.

Planning Staff Comments

The project site is an undeveloped property bordered to the north and east by the Allen Brook stream, and by several existing developments to the south and west. The project site is within the town’s Growth Center and is immediately adjacent to and potentially could be connected to some of the higher density projects in the town (Finney Crossing). There are some existing primitive paths on the site, along with several areas of Class III wetlands, including one large area of


wetlands on the west side of the site. These environmentally sensitive areas will have to be protected in site planning and during any approved construction activities. Because the Allen Brook crosses and boarders the site, wetland and stream protection measures will be important and care must be taken to use optimum storm water management techniques and designs. Approximately 15.4% of the lot area is proposed to be impervious (~8.3 acres). The proposed southerly driveway shows that it would cross two separate areas of Class III Wetlands, 2,500 sq. ft. and 950 sq. ft. respectively. For these reasons, the applicant has been strongly encouraged to explore the use of pervious pavement, rain gardens and other innovative stormwater management techniques to the fullest extent possible. The proposed drive should avoid these wetlands if at all feasible, or appropriate permitting should be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Comments for the Conservation Commission and the Department of Public Works have included a number of recommended conditions to deal with these issues.

Because of the nature of the soils on the site and the high water table, the use of pervious pavement does not seem practicable. The applicant has proposed several rain gardens dispersed in the parking areas. Greater use of these should be explored, including the construction of a rain garden in a highly visible location on the site to help educate the public on their use and value in preserving water quality.

Architectural and Design Issues The proposed church buildings reflect a contemporary style of architecture and make use of a variety of material types including stone veneer, stucco and cementitious fiberboard on the front and side elevations, with stucco and cementitious fiberboard now proposed for the rear and portions of the side elevations rather than vinyl as originally submitted. The proposed buildings have an articulated front elevation as required for this zoning district, revealing a mixture of glass and stone façade, and feature a prominent entryway to the main portion of the building. The roof is pitched in most of the visible areas, and calls for asphalt shingles and standing seam metal. The main building reaches a maximum height of 50.33 ft. at the peak, the children’s ministry building has a proposed height of 48 ft. and the administrative building reaches a maximum height of 37.5 ft. All of these building heights assume that the church will meet the requirements for the height bonus possible in the TCZD of 52 ft.

The applicant has indicated several possible additional buildings on their site plan that may or may not be pursued at some point in the future. It should be emphasized that this review has only focused on those structures and uses that are currently being proposed. Any future development not being considered as part of this application but being considered for a later date will require additional review and approval by the DRB. And any future approvals will be predicated on the church being able to meet the town’s development standards in place at that time while still demonstrating that the project will meet any and all of the conditions of approval imposed as part of this permit.

HAAC Comments The proposed building design, elevations and building materials were reviewed by the Historic Architectural Advisory Committee (HAAC) on January 19, 2010. Their comments are listed below:

1. Regarding the dumpster enclosure situated at the rear of the building, the HAAC commented that it appeared that there would only be a single dumpster for the entire building and suggested that the applicant should be sure that the proposal includes a screened area adequate to hold any and all dumpsters that are necessary to serve the building.


2. Regarding the proposed Maintenance building at the rear of the building, the applicant should provide elevations showing the design of this building as a part of the final plans.

3. Regarding the rear doors to the building- these doors are not proposed to have airlocks- will their use be minimal, given the amount of parking that is situated behind the building?

4. Regarding the proposed list of plantings- Viburnum opulus is listed as “highly susceptible to Viburnum leaf beetle and Viburnum rhytidophylloides is considered moderately susceptible. Viburnums that are highly resistant to leaf beetle includeV. bodnantense, dawn viburnum V. carlesii, Koreanspice viburnum; V. davidii*, David viburnum; V. x juddii, Judd viburnum; V. plicatum, doublefile viburnum; V. plicatum var. tomentosum, doublefile viburnum; V. setigerum, tea viburnum; V. sieboldii, Siebold viburnum.

5. Regarding the site maintenance plan, HAAC recommends that notes on sheet L-5 include limitations on the use of pesticides and fertilizers in ongoing maintenance.

Parking

There are 649 total parking spaces proposed for this project proposed, including 29 handicapped accessible spaces. The worship center, which is the main driver of parking demand for this project, requires a minimum of 300 parking spaces (.25 spaces per seat). The applicant has also provided a parking table showing the various uses proposed along with the associated parking requirements of WDB Chapter 14 as requested by staff. When accounting for all of the proposed use spaces in the building, this projects a parking demand of 852 spaces vs. the 649 spaces proposed. The applicant is proposing, however, that the parking demand for the upper level of the administration building (19), the junior high school classes (105), the assembly room of the children’s ministry (46), and the upper level classrooms (51) totaling 220 parking spaces not be counted in calculating the overall demand for parking on the site because they will not be used simultaneously with the primary use of the church. If this method of calculating parking demand is acceptable to the DRB, this would lower the minimum number of required parking spaces to 632 which is consistent with the applicant’s proposal. The applicant has provided information about bicycle parking based on the floor area of the office space and support areas rather than the entire floor area of the entire project as suggested by staff and have proposed 24 bicycle parking spaces including one long term storage space. Landscaping

Proposed landscaping details have been provided. Both the Conservation Commission and the HAAC have made comments for the modification of the proposed landscaping and notating of the landscaping plans. These should be reviewed and incorporated into the final landscaping plan as appropriate. A dense planning of trees has been proposed along the southerly property line between the proposed soccer field and the Chelsea Commons residential community adjacent to the project site. Lighting

A lighting plan has been included in the application submittal. The lighting plan proposes lighting dispersed within the parking areas and roadways leading to and along side of the proposed buildings. The proposed lighting levels are in compliance with the maximum levels allowed under WDB 24.5.2 for both the total maximum light levels for the project and for specific points on the site. No lighting has been proposed in connection with the proposed athletic fields. Housing

Eight dwelling units of housing in four duplex buildings have been proposed near Beaudry Lane, and six of these units have been proposed to meet the standards for perpetual affordability as defined in WDB. These units are being proposed in order to meet the requirements to qualify for a height


bonus, allowing the maximum height of the church to reach 52 ft. rather than typical 36 ft. maximum height allowed in the TCZD. The applicants intend to apply for Residential Growth Management Allocation as specified under WDB Chapter 11 this coming March in order to construct these units. Staff has recommended and the applicants are proposing that these be subdivided from the site for the church buildings and uses as part of the Discretionary Permit process. The site development of the proposed two parcels containing the housing units has not been thoroughly reviewed as part of this application, but would take place during the review of the Discretionary Permit review for the housing units. Pedestrian and Bike Paths

Several pedestrian paths have been indicated on the site plan generally following the course of the Allen Brook. A 10 ft. wide paved multi use path has been proposed running north from the existing street at Chelsea Place, following around the southern and then western edge of the parking area and eventually crossing Beaudry Lane and headed towards the Allen Brook. This multi use path should be aligned with a proposed bridge crossing of the Allen Brook once this location has been determined by the Public Works Department. A connection to this paved path should also be made to Rt. 2A in a suitable location. The path as proposed would run along the northern side of the southernmost driveway accessing the site from Rt. 2A. This location would cross a section of Class III wetlands however, and an alternative location has been recommended by the Conservation Commission. The location of the paved path and pedestrian paths also must be labeled consistently on all of the appropriate plan sheets. Traffic

The applicants have submitted a traffic impact study as required by the DRB during pre-application review. The study evaluated the likely traffic impacts of the church along Rt. 2A from Mountain View Road to the north and the I-89 interchange to the south. The study evaluated possible traffic impacts during the week day afternoon peak hour of traffic (PM peak hour) as well as the estimated traffic occurring during the morning and early afternoon on Sundays. The study estimates that the proposed development would generate on average approximately 23 vehicles per hour for the combined office and residential uses during the weekday PM peak hour, 673 vehicles per hour on Sundays from 10-11:00AM, and 416 vehicles per hour on Sundays between 12-1:00PM. The traffic impact study recommended that a left run lane be provided on Rt. 2A heading southbound approaching the southern access to the project site (the proposed main entrance), and using a traffic control officer during Sunday service hours. The traffic impact study did not demonstrate that warrants for requiring a traffic signal at this intersection would be met by the combined traffic of the church and other local traffic traveling along Rt. 2A. There is some concern about traffic impacts to Chelsea Commons which borders the project site to the south and which will connect to the southerly end point of the church’s roadway system. Staff has discussed the possibility of the church blocking off traffic exiting the parking lot to drive through Chelsea Commons during church services as a means of minimizing high volumes of “cut through” traffic seeking an alternative means of exiting the parking lot during peak times. The Department of Public Works had an independent traffic consultant (Stantec) review the applicant’s traffic study. Their comments have been provided to the applicant for their review and are attached for consideration. Development Agreement

The applicant has submitted a draft development agreement for insuring that any required public or private improvements will be completed.


Master Sign Plan

This application also includes a request for the approval of a master sign plan. A master sign plan allows the DRB some flexibility is approving the both the number and size of the signage proposed. Because the overall size of the proposed development and the combination of uses proposed, a number of different sign types and locations have been proposed. These include a freestanding sign at the southerly access road on Rt. 2A, an additional freestanding sign midway along Beaudry Lane (northerly access road), several building wall signs and a mixture of directional and regulatory signs in the parking areas. The applicant has also proposed a 40 sq. foot banner to be used for specials events that might be held on the property. The events banner has a proposed location on the eastern side of the front elevation of the children’s ministry building. The proposed signs have a unified design theme. WDB Chapter 25 allows a total maximum sign area of no greater than 8% of the area of the street facing building elevation. The DRB may allow a greater number and size of signage under a master sign plan however. In the past the boards has taken a conservative approach in an attempt to keep the total area of signage for single development below that 8%. For the purposes of this proposal, staff estimated area of the street facing elevation by drawing a straight line parallel to the front elevation to determine the length of the elevation and used the standard maximum building height of 36 ft. allowed without a height bonus. Using this method, the front elevation is roughly 15,000 sq. ft., and 8% of the area is roughly 1,200 sq. ft. The total sign area proposed equally 651 sq. ft. using the maximum sign area of every sign type proposed. Since the DRB hearing of January 26, 2010, the applicant has provided some additional information on the area of the proposed signage as requested by staff that allows for a more precise calculation of the proposed sign area. In addition, the applicant has modified their request for the copy on the secondary hanging sign that would be part of the main entry sign form reading “café” to what would be used as a changeable text display for announcing special events. Conservation Commission Comments

Below is the report, findings and recommendations of the Conservation Commission (CC). The report notes several inconsistencies in some of the sheets in the plan set, and have made some recommendations concerning the identification and labeling vegetation and buffering. The CC has questioned the purpose and intent of the identification of two “conservation easements” on the plans. The CC has also recommended that the proposed roadways be moved to avoid the encroachments onto some of the Class III wetlands. They have also requested greater use of rain gardens for managing the anticipated storm water runoff from the parking and paved areas of the site and structural soils for landscaped areas.

________________________________________________________________________

Williston Conservation Commission

Transmittal of Findings to the Development Review Board DRB Review Stage: ____Discretionary Permit______

Application No: DP 09-21 Name: Essex Alliance Church Property Address: US Route 2A & Beaudry Lane

Tax Parcel # 08:102:028


Zoning District: TCZD Existing Lot Size: 8.39 acres (Lot 30: 4.39 acres; Lot 31: 4.00 acres)

After review of this application for development, the Conservation Commission finds that the subject property is affected by the Town of Williston Open Space Plan in the following categories: X Alternative Transportation Paths __ Visual Assessment X Primitive Paths X 150 ft Named Stream Buffer __ Country Parks __ 50 ft Stream/Wetland Buffer X Community Parks __ Open Space Development __ Neighborhood Parks X Other: 25 ft Class III Wetland Buffer __ Conservation Areas

Project Summary: This is a Discretionary Permit review for a campus of buildings and facilities for the Essex

Alliance Church located on Route 2A and Beaudry Lane on a 51.4 acre parcel in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD) and within Williston’s designated Growth Center. The project consists of two typologies of buildings: those associated with the church and the other, residential. The campus will consist of three interconnecting buildings, which total 119,122 sq ft. At Beaudry Lane, four residential duplex units will be constructed, three of which will be designated affordable. On-site parking will be provided for 665 vehicles. A softball diamond and soccer field will be constructed at the southern portion of the parcel.

Discussion:

The WCC notes that the site plan is generally complete, but is curious as to how and if the applicant plans to construct the project in phases. It appears that some significant aspects of the project, including the four duplex structures on Parcels B and C, some sections of the proposed bike path, and the parking areas, appear as faded lines on Plan Sheets C-2 through C-10. A written narrative from the applicant addressing and future build-out of the site would be helpful. The applicant has clearly made an effort to avoid wetlands in most places but the WCC would still like to see the access road from Chelsea Commons shifted in a way to avoid the existing Class III wetland and 25’ buffer.

The Pervious Pavement Suitability Report (the Report) provided by the applicant supports the Applicant’s position that this site is not suited for the use of pervious pavement and so therefore the WCC is not recommending that pervious pavement be utilized for this project. The Report concluded that the seasonal high water table ranged from approximately 6 inches to 15 inches. In siting pervious pavement, the water table should be at least 3 to 4 feet; therefore this site does not meet the required design criteria. Furthermore, as stated in the Report, the field investigation revealed that the soils have a relatively thin surface layer of moderately permeable soil and a dense to very dense clay soil below that, which results in a very limited infiltrative capacity. Suitable sites for pervious pavement generally require a minimum soil infiltration capacity of 7 mm/h (0.27 in/h), while 13 mm/h (0.5 in/h) is preferred. Since pervious pavement won’t be used here, the WCC would like to see an increase in the number of parking lot rain gardens in an effort to better manage the stormwater at its source.

Findings:

1. Two Conservation Easements appear on the Subdivision Plat. One is 3.76-acres along the eastern boundary and the other is 17.87-acres along the northern boundary. Conservation


easement documentation has not been provided and so therefore the intent of the protective measure is not clear.

2. The Subdivision Plat identifies two “Parcel C” parcels. This appears to be an error. 3. Several Class III wetlands are within the project site. All 25’ wetland protection buffers are

shown on the Plans. 4. Construction of the new roadway will result in 2500 sq ft of disturbance to the wetland in the

west and 950 sq ft of disturbance to the wetland in the south. 5. The Allen Brook runs through the northern portion of the subject parcel. Allen Brook is

designated by the State as impaired due to stormwater runoff and E.coli. The required 150’ buffer and floodplain boundaries are shown on the Plans.

6. A Landscaping Plan is provided on Plan Sheet L-2. Plant species selection is in compliance with the WDB Chapter 23: Landscaping. An enlarged landscaping plan is provided for the Worship Center on Plan Sheet L-3. A detailed Landscaping Plan for Parcels B and C have not been provided. Plant species were selected using the VT Urban and Community Forestry Program’s Recommended Trees for Vermont Communities and the UVM Extension’s Landscape Plants for Vermont.

7. Three proposed rain gardens are shown on Sheet L-2 of the plans. 8. An existing primitive path runs through the northern portion of the project area along the

Allen Brook. The applicant proposes to construct a bike path that connects the church and the existing primitive path to Chelsea Commons/Finney Crossing and Route 2A. The bike path connection to Chelsea Commons and the Route 2A appear as a faded lines on Plan Sheets C-2 to C-10.

9. Two Phase 1 temporary and one permanent snow storage areas are shown on Plan Sheet C-2. There is no snow storage plan for Parcels B and C.

10. The applicant has provided a Pervious Pavement Suitability Report which concluded that the presence of poorly draining soil and a high water table are not conducive to a pervious pavement application. Based on the well-known guidelines for pervious pavement design, staff agrees that this site is not ideal for pervious pavement.

Recommendations:

1. The Conservation easement designation is not clear. Conservation easement documentation identifying the third party holder must be provided or the language on the Subdivision Plat should be changed to read “Designated Open Space.”

2. Fix the error on the Subdivision Plat by including “Parcel B.” 3. The edge of the “new woodlands” should be extended and identified on Plan Sheet L-2 to

permanently demarcate the 150’ Allen Brook watershed protection buffer from the proposed duplexes to the proposed parking lot directly to the east.

4. No development, mowing, or removal of vegetation shall be allowed within the 25’ wetland buffers and the 150’ buffer and floodplain surrounding the Allen Brook.

5. The proposed access road connecting to Chelsea Commons should be arched or otherwise shifted away from the Class III wetland.

6. More rain gardens should be added to the proposed parking lots, especially since pervious pavement will not be used.

7. The proposed bike path should appear as a solid line on Plan Sheets C-2 to C-10 as they appear on Plan Sheet L-2. The bike Path should be extended to connect to Route 2A at an intersection with a signal. If no signal is proposed, then the bike path should be extended along Beaudry Lane. Extending the bike path on the northern side of the church’s main access road should be discouraged due to the presence of wetlands.

8. With guidance from the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall explore the practicality of extending the primitive path across the Allen Brook.


9. To increase the survivability of parking lot landscaping, the use of structural soil should be explored.

Submitted by Jessica Andreoletti Date: 1/19/10 Approved by the Williston Conservation Commission Date: 1/22/10 Public Works Comments The Public Works Department has submitted their own comments and the results of two independent technical reviews of engineering issues and the applicant’s traffic study. Fire Department Comments The Williston fire Department has submitted the following comments. These comments were received just before this report was finalized, and they have been forwarded to the applicants for their consideration. Since the January 26, 2010 DRB meeting, the Fire Department has submitted a brief memo stating that their original concerns have not been addressed satisfactorily.


(One of five documents given to board members by the applicant at the 3/9/2010 meeting.)


(One of five documents given to the board by the applicant at the 3/9/2010 meeting)


(Three additional submissions to the board by the applicant at the 3/9/2010 meeting)


Recommended Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for Project Approval Staff recommends that the DRB consider this project for approval and offers the following findings, conclusions, and conditions for consideration.

Findings of Fact

1. The proposed church and associated used are considered to be permitted used in the TCZD. 2. The Allen Brook crosses the subject property near the northern and northeastern property

lines of the subject property. The floodplain and the 150 stream setback line associated with the Allen Brook have been shown on the site plan.

3. No Class I or Class II Wetlands have been shown on the subject property. There are significant areas of Class III Wetlands located to the west of the proposed church building and parking areas.

4. Access to the site is proposed from Route 2A using via Beaudry Lane and the driveway adjacent to the Vermont State Employees Credit Union (private drives), with a connection to Chelsea Place.

5. Two adjacent buildings totaling 119,122 sq. ft. of floor area and a 1,560 sq. ft. workshop/accessory structure have been proposed. These buildings have a proposed maximum height of 50.33 feet.

6. There are 649 vehicular parking spaces including 29 handicapped accessible parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan.

7. Eight dwelling units are indicated on proposed Parcel C and Parcel C on the site. Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed development of the subject property can comply with the requirements of the Williston Development Bylaw (WDB) and the Town Plan if the following conditions of approval are met:

Conditions of Approval

1. The applicant shall file Final Plans meeting all of the conditions of approval within one year of Discretionary Permit Approval. Final Plans shall include all of the items listed on the Final Plans Checklist, and each of the sheets in the plan set for Final Plans shall include an approval signature block on each sheet as specified by WDB 12.3.2.

2. The applicant shall file a signed development agreement prior to the submittal of Final Plans. The applicant shall also post any required sureties, such as a letter of credit, bond or cash, required to insure completion of any required public or private improvements prior to the issuance of an Administrative Permit.

3. All public improvements and all private improvements required as part of the approval of this

development (including, but not limited to roads, sidewalks, water & sewer connections, storm water runoff detention and treatment facilities, landscaping) must be built in accordance with the Town's specifications.

4. The applicant shall obtain any necessary or required permits from any and all federal, state or

local government agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Vermont Act 250 District Environmental Board, the Williston Department of Public Works prior to beginning any work connected with this development proposal.


5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan in accordance with the requirements of WDB Chapter 18. This shall include a landscape buffer along the southern edge of the subject property and landscaping appropriately dispersed throughout the parking lot. All utility connections to the proposed building shall be screened with landscaping.

6. All proposed dumpsters shall be enclosed with wood fencing material and obscured from

view. screened with other than wood or vinyl screening.

7. A 25’ buffer will be required around all Class III wetlands, and no development, mowing, or removal of vegetation shall be allowed within the buffers. All wetland buffers shall be delineated with a planted shrub, hedge, or other permanent demarcation, especially along the wetlands to the west, where development will be the most prominent.

8. The applicant shall provide an educational rain garden in the general location of the southwesterly corner of the main parking area and to the north of the parking area for the ball fields with appropriate educational display information illustrating the use of rain gardens as a storm water management technique.

9. The applicant shall provide a 10 ft. wide bicycle path across the subject property connecting the Chelsea Place subdivision to the Forest Run and Meadow Run subdivisions and crossing the top of the south embankment of Allen Brook at a location to be determined by the scoping study currently being completed by the Department of Public Works and coordinated with the proposed residential units.

10. The applicant shall comply with the parking requirements contained in WDB Chapter 19,

including the requirements for handicapped accessible spaces, and bicycle parking facilities. A minimum of 649 vehicular parking spaces must be provided along with 24 bicycle parking spaces. No use of the upper level of the administration building, the junior high school classes, the assembly room of the children’s ministry, and the upper level classrooms shall be permitted during those times Use of the building when services are being held in the worship center shall comply with the parking Calculation chart submitted by the applicant.

11. The applicant shall provide for and arrange to have a duly authorized law enforcement officer

meeting the requirements of the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) to direct traffic on a state highway present during the hours of Sunday services to direct traffic entering and exiting the site project site at the southerly access drive and Rt. 2A. In the event that this traffic mitigation measure is determined to be unacceptable to VAOT, this permit shall be modified by means of an amendment to this permit with some alternative traffic mitigation measure to the satisfaction of VAOT and the DRB.

12. The applicant shall satisfy the concerns of the Williston Fire Department as detailed in their memo of January 21, 2010 prior to the signing of Final Plans


13. The applicant shall satisfy the concerns and meet the requirements of the Department of Public Works prior to the signing of Final Plans, excluding the comment concerning chain link fence where the DRB recommends other alternatives be explored.

14. In order to build to the proposed building height of 52 ft., the applicant shall comply with the provisions of WDB 41.5.4. Should the increased height incentive be pursued using the affordable housing option, the applicant shall have obtained Residential Growth Management Allocation, Discretionary Permit approval, and an Administrative Permit to construct a minimum of six of the proposed eight dwelling units prior to obtaining an Administrative Permit to construct any building greater than 36 ft. in height.

15. Only those signs approved as part of the Master Sign Plan by the DRB shall be allowed. No internal illumination of any signs is permitted. The changeable text area on the lower hanging sign (Sign 1, Location 1) shall be of a similar type, materials, and color as other signs in the Master Sign Plan.

16. This approval incorporates by reference all plans and drawings presented and all verbal representations by the applicant at Development Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other conditions or regulations.

17. All submittals received during the March 9, 2010 hearing shall be part of the official record.

MOTION

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Brian Jennings, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of January 26, 2010, and March 9, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by staff for the review of DP 09-21, and approve this Discretionary permit review. This approval authorizes the applicant to file Final Plans, obtain approval of those plans from the DRB, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based.

SECONDED by: Scott Rieley VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES No one spoke from the audience on this application. 9:38 P.M. Closed public hearing of DP 09-21 ________________________________________________________________________________ 9:39 P.M. Opened public hearing of DP 10 - 22


DP 10 – 22, M & E Boudah Enterprises, LLC, 135 Talcott Road, requests a Discretionary Permit review for a 2-lot commercial subdivision in the Mixed Use Residential Zoning District (MURZD). Debra Bell, Trudell Consulting Engineers, 378 Blair Park Road, represented the applicant.

Mr. Boulanger reviewed his staff notes for the board. This application was heard as a Pre-Application on January 12, 2010, for a two-lot commercial subdivision of 2.11 and 1.56 acre lots in the Mixed-Use Residential Zoning District (MURZD). No new buildings or uses are proposed at this time. This has been reviewed by the Williston Police, Fire and Public Works departments. Those comments are attached. They addressed issues of easement(s) to Talcott Road from the front lot on the Final Plat, utilities, inspections permits, alternative access onto Zephyr Road for future use from the rear lot, as well as separate water and sewer systems. He recommended a condition of approval that prior to the signature of Final Plans, the applicant shall present evidence that all concerns raised by Public Works, in their memoranda of 12/2/2009 and 2/26/2010 are addressed. He is also looking for the applicant to record all easements prior to applying for administrative approval for signing of the Final Plat.

Ms. Bell informed the board she had had a chance to review all the comments and staff notes, and she and her clients can adhere to all the comments in the reports.

Ms. O’Brien asked about the large spruce trees on the north side of the existing buildings and the fence with reference to any utility or construction work. Ms. Bell indicated all utility work proposed would be in the pavement cut area and should not affect the trees or fence.


Staff Notes – Williston Development Review Board – March 9, 2010 Discretionary Permit Application- M and E Boudah - Commercial Subdivision

Application No: DP 10-22 Name: M and E Boudah Enterprises Subdivision Tax Parcel #: 08:087:500 Property Address: 135 Talcott Road

Zoning District: MURZD Total Acres: 3.67

Overview: This is a request for a discretionary permit for a commercial subdivision off of Talcott Road in the Mixed-Use Residential Zoning District (MURZD). The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of 2 lots, one lot of approximately 2.11 acres and a second lot of 1.56 acres. No new buildings or uses are proposed as a part of this request for subdivision approval. Project History:

The DRB reviewed this project as a pre-application on January 12, 2010 and authorized it to proceed to discretionary permit review at that meeting.

Review by other Boards and Town Departments:

Williston’s Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments reviewed the project. Public Works provided comment at pre-application and has provided comment on this application as well. Public Works reiterates their comments from pre-application (attached to this report).

Findings of Fact:

1. The applicant, M and E Boudah Enterprises LLC, propose to subdivide 3.67 acres into a 2.11 acre and a 1.56 acre parcel.

2. The subject parcel is in the Town of Williston in the Mixed-Use Residential Zoning District (MURZD) and subject to the provisions of WDB 38, among other chapters.

3. The new proposed lot will have 399.9 feet of frontage on Zephyr Road. 4. No nonconforming structures will be created as a result of the proposed subdivision. 5. There is no minimum lot size requirement in the MURZD.

Conclusions of Law:

1. The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of two conforming lots in the MURZD. 2. The proposed subdivision will not create any nonconformity as to building setbacks, legal

access, landscaping and buffering, parking, or lighting. 3. The proposed subdivision may be approved under all of the standards of the Williston

Development Bylaw. Conditions of Approval:

1. Prior to the signature of final plans, the applicant shall present evidence that all concerns raised by Williston Public Works in their memoranda of 12/2/2009 and 2/26/2010 are addressed.

2. The applicant shall have one year from the date of the Notice of decision of this approval to file a complete application for the approval of Final Plans.

3. Final plans must reflect no substantial changes from the plans on which this approval is based.

4. If the wooden fence adjacent to the access road is disturbed or damaged during construction work, the fence shall be repaired.

5. No trees or shrubs shall be disturbed by this project.


MOTION

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Cathy O’Brien, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 9, 2010, accept the conditions 1 – 3 and findings proposed by staff for the review of DP 10-22, and add additional conditions #4 and #5 as follows, and approve this discretionary permit.

• Further, as permitted by WDB 6.9.3.1, the DRB delegates review of the Final plans for DP 10-22 to staff. This approval authorizes the applicant to file Final plans, obtain approval of those plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based.

SECONDED by: Philip Martin VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES No one spoke from the audience on this application. 9:45 P.M. Closed public hearing of DP 10-22. _________________________________________________________________________________ 9:46 P.M. Opened public hearing of DP 10-27

DP 10 - 27, Infill Realty Advisors, LLC, 87 Lyman Avenue, Burlington, requests a Pre-Application review for converting an existing three-unit apartment dwelling at 8031 Williston Road to office spaces, removing two sheds, and erecting three single family dwellings in the Village Zoning District (VZD).

Representing the application are Bill Niquette, Infill Realty Advisors LLC, 87 Lyman Avenue, Burlington and Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, 10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, Liam Murphy, Murphy/Sullivan/Kronk, 275 College Street, Burlington, VT.

Mr. Boulanger reviewed his staff notes for the board and the audience. With this Pre-

Application the applicant is proposing to construct three new dwelling units, garages, driveways and a sidewalk on 1.1 acres in the Village Zoning District and National Register Historic District. The three existing dwelling units in the existing structure would be moved to the three proposed single family dwellings units, and the structure remaining would be converted to professional offices. The applicant’s proposal is based in part on the premise the existing structural use as three apartments is a legal nonconforming use that can be transferred to the three proposed separate units.

The HAAC has reviewed this application (their comments are attached) and caution careful review of it as to design, massing, spaces between structures, orientation on site, materials compatibility, and the issuance of possible individual house design C of A.

Mr. Boulanger continued with his staff notes on nonconforming use on the parcel and proposed uses. He noted WDB 42.9.1 limiting the commercial use in the VZD to 4,lll square feet with no more than 2,500 square feet being on any one floor. The applicant would have to show at the Discretionary Permit stage how he would comply with this regulation. The current use of the parcel is


not in conformance with current zoning which allows no more than two dwelling units per acres. He pointed out the applicant asserts the three units have been existence prior to adoption of zoning bylaws or ordinances in Williston and are legally nonconforming. He informed the board they would have to find the nonconforming use meets the definition of legally nonconforming. The board has been given copies of letters and statements made to the applicant’s attorney showing three units by the current owner, tenant and Assessor’s records from 1984. For the project to be allowed to proceed to Discretionary Permit review without obtaining residential growth management allocation, the DRB will have to determine that what is proposed is not a “change in use, or the nature or extent of use”. Mr. Boulanger continued with comments about a ‘green belt’, landscaping, lighting, off street parking, the amount of parking needed, and recommended adopting the recommendations from HAAC and the Williston Conservation Committee, addressing the concerns outlined in Chief Ken Morton’s memo as well as the memo from Public Works.

Mr. Niquette, speaking for his application, will leave the technical details to Dave Marshall, his engineer, and the nonconformity issues to his lawyer, Liam Murphy. He commented in response to the memos from the Fire Department and HAAC. He has taken the advisory committee’s comments under advisement and is comfortable working with what fits. From his experience it’s unusual to attach the garages; however he can attach the garages to the dwellings, and he can move the garage nearest the road to be behind the dwelling so it would be out of view. He is willing to work on the orientation of the dwellings. He thought the proposed orientation would be more pleasing than squaring everything off as well as taking advantage of passive solar use with southern exposure. In reference to the issue of nonconformity, for their use, is about density not of use. It is not a nonconforming use (definition of nonconformity 24 VSA4293(15). They approached it by the measurement of the number of dwelling units per acre. Within the confines of the definitions provided in ordinance there is a clear unit of measure when there is a change and that measure is a dwelling unit. Three generations of the owner’s family have lived in it since the 60’s and has stated it’s been a three unit dwelling structure since the late 60’s. He felt the establishment of this use speaks for itself. He was confused by some of the staff notes with reference to compatibility and hoped it didn’t mean homogeneity. He would like a little guidance as to their being on the same page as staff and the board on the issue of density.

Mr. Dave Marshall, from Civil Engineering Associates, spoke about the wetland, drainage (stormwater management) and parking. They calculated they needed 10.3 spaces instead of 12 spaces so they can skinny up the parking spaces. They wanted to avoid a soldier look by squaring up the orientations of the dwellings and garages and a southern orientation would allow the use of passive solar energy. They hoped to marry the buildings and the orientation to the existing structure.

Mr. Niquette talked about the commercial use of the existing dwelling. All the changes would be interior only, there would be no additions. The shed on the northern end would be removed. He expects several tenants with shared common facility. It could be just one, but it’s expected to be more. They would probably go for 12 parking spaces, but they would be open to discussion about the 10.3 spaces.

Mr. Liam Murphy said to be technically correct this is not a preexisting nonconforming use. It is not a nonconforming structure. What it is is a nonconforming lot under WDB 46.6.5. There has been, since the 1950’s, three dwelling units on this lot. There is no change. He feels it’s very clear. They are just switching around what someone might do if they were to construct a less than 4,000 square foot commercial building on the lot.

Ms. O’Brien commented on the language of WDB 2.5.3 about change in use also talks about the change in the nature or the extent of the use under nonconforming uses.

Mr. Murphy replied WDB 2.5.3 does not apply in this situation because it is a conforming use, not a nonconforming use. Under 42A (VZD) the first use listed is residential. This is a residential use.

Ms. O’Brien pointed out Mr. Murphy’s letter where he stated his opinion was the three-family use of this building constitutes a non-conforming use.


Mr. Murphy apologized and stated he meant to say non-conforming lot as a result of density. The evidence the use is not non-conforming is what the board has been presented by way of statements, electric bills and Assessor’s listing.

Mr. McDermott asked where in state law it says you can transfer non-conforming uses to other buildings.

Mr. Murphy insisted the use is conforming; it is the lot that is non-conforming. There are currently three dwelling units and with the new dwellings there will be three dwelling units.

Mr. Rieley stated the board is tasked with a lot that is non-conforming and to make it conforming.

Discussion continued as to the definitions of the regulations, which regulations can be used with this application, conformity and non-conformity, extent of conformity or non-conformity, amount of commercial space allowed, scale, density, and transfer of dwelling units.

Mr. Belliveau spoke on three issues: 1) Are the three dwelling units legal non-conforming units? He would ask for more documentation

from the applicant, not just a letter from a lawyer stating it, and a photocopy of the Assessor’s listing card. This fact needs to be verified and if it cannot be it would mean the application would need to go before a Growth Management hearing.

2) The paragraph before the listings on Table 42.A reads: Uses that are not specifically permitted are prohibited. Listed uses are permitted only in compliance with all applicable requirements of this bylaw and with the purpose statement for this zoning district.

3) In his opinion, the standard for defining non-conforming lots is a lot that doesn’t meet some kind of dimensional standards, and changing the extent of use and the transfer of three apartments to three separate dwelling units plus adding a commercial use is a new use. This triggers a whole series of development standards. Also WDB 42.1.4.1 speaks to the character of the village and although the bylaws encourage a mix of uses, the general requirements speak to a modest scale. In his opinion this project doesn’t fit the definition of modest scale or character. It’s about redeveloping the whole lot.

Mr. Niquette took issue that seven weeks after submitting the application he would hear Mr.

Belliveau has changed his opinion about a change in use. He was frustrated to have felt the application was complete seven weeks ago and was hearing otherwise.

Mr. Belliveau explained a number of people had come to the Planning & Zoning offices to inquire about the property and they were informed of what was required to prove the three units were legally non-conforming, and this included Mr. Niquette.

What followed was a long discussion between the applicant, board members, and staff about definitions of conforming and non-conforming uses and lots, plus size, mass and character. The discussion then continued around the question if the application should be allowed to go forward to the Discretionary Permit level.

Ms. Liz Jordan-Shook, 89 North Williston Road, spoke from the audience to express concern for the size of the mass of three small houses w/garages and the large existing house. She is a member of HAAC and had been part of the review of this application. She wanted to remind the board the historic streetscape of Route 2 was mostly older, large colonial structures, not small houses behind large houses.

Mr. Eric Hillmuth, 64 Lambert Lane, expressed concern as well with the size and mass of the project. He asked how someone could double up on the use on the same lot. If someone had an acre lot did that mean they could have a commercial use on half an acre and a residential use on the second half.

Mr. Bob Gaffney, 7950 Williston Road, raised questions about ownership and who would own the property and is the lot being subdivided.

Mr. Niquette and Mr. Murphy both responded explaining the historic house would be own by a separate commercial business/person and the three dwellings would be privately owned. There would


be a four unit common interest entity, four taxpayers, but would technically remain a single lot. It was described as being halfway between a subdivision and condos. They would have common responsibility to maintain the grounds, the driveways, plowing, mowing, etc. It creates a common interest community with accessory dwellings with common responsibilities. Each unit would have undivided rights and some common areas. It keeps the lot intact, but allows some private ownership.

Mr. Hillsmuth asked about the advantages of setting it up that way. Mr. Gaffney asked for clarification of the issue. Was grandfathering allowing the applicant to still

have three dwelling units on the lots, but now have them in three separate dwellings while allowing a new use in the original structure. Would a variance be needed? He’s lived in Williston for many years and was aware of the additional accessory units in the existing dwelling.

Mr. Murphy pointed out that this admission was further proof the units have been there for a very long time and at least from the 80’s from the Assessor’s information.

Mr. Tom Munn, 67 Lambert Lane, called into question the three apartment units being the same thing as three separate dwelling units.

Ms. Shook spoke again asking the board to look at the evidence and ask for documentation. The documentation should settle the question.

The board discussed possible choices it had as it goes forward. The board decided to table the application until the April 13th DRB meeting.

______________________________________________________________________

Comment from other Departments and Advisory Boards: HAAC Recommendations:

Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee – March 1, 2010 Staff Notes- DP 10-27 – 8031 Williston Road

Application No: DP10-27 Name: “8031 Williston Planned Unit

Development” Tax Parcel #: 14:104:154:000 Property Address: 8031 Williston Road

Zoning District: Village Zoning District (VZD), National Register Historic District

Total Acres: 1.1

Overview: Infill Realty Advisors, LLC is proposing to construct three new dwelling units, garages, driveways and a sidewalk on a 1.1 acre parcel of land on Williston Road in the VZD and the National Register Historic District. The application currently before the Development Review Board (DRB) is a pre-application, but HAAC comment on such a project in the VZD will be a part of the DRB review, even at the preliminary stage of the process. Staff Recommendation: The DRB will issue recommendations to the applicant at the pre-application hearing, and any HAAC recommendations can be incorporated into the DRB action. This project will require further HAAC review when the applicant applies for a Discretionary Permit in the future. Recommendations:

1. New construction in the Village Zoning District must conform to the requirements of WDB 42 and the Village Design Guide.

2. New structures will be required to incorporate compatible materials. In practice, this has meant:

a. Walls: must be wood siding with an appropriate reveal. Hardi-Plank type products have been approved in some circumstances.

b. Windows: must be true divided-light and made of wood.


c. Porch and decking materials, railings: must be wood. 3. Materials and house design should be addressed with a concept design at the discretionary

permit review but individual new structures should each go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process.

4. Structure design, size, and orientation/arrangement should be consistent with existing historic structures and site layouts in the VZD.

a. Buildings should be oriented parallel or perpendicular to property lines, the street, and the existing structure on the site.

b. The applicant should consider attaching the garages to the houses. c. The applicant should consider moving the garage closest to Williston Road to the

other side of its associated house so that the garage is less visible. d. Attaching some of the residential structures could also help the site feel less

overloaded with structures. 5. Overall, the massing, closeness and number of structures on the lot needs to be compatible

with the development pattern in the Village. The applicant should show that the density of structures is similar to the way structures are arranged in the rest of the Village.

6. If access to the project could be provided off Lambert lane, some of the visual and possibly traffic impact of the project could be reduced. Access to Lambert Lane for bike/pedestrian traffic should be considered.

___________________________________________________ WCC Recommendations:

Williston Conservation Commission Transmittal of Findings to the Development Review Board, March 9, 2010

DRB Review Stage: Pre-Application

Application No: DP 10-27 Name: Infill Realty Property Address: 8031 Williston Rd Tax Parcel #

Zoning District: VZD Existing Lot Size: 1.1 acres

After review of this application for development, the Conservation Commission finds that the subject property is affected by the Town of Williston Open Space Plan in the following categories: __ Alternative Transportation Paths X Visual Assessment __ Primitive Paths __ 150 ft Named Stream Buffer __ Country Parks __ 50 ft Stream/Wetland Buffer __ Community Parks __ Open Space Development __ Neighborhood Parks X Other: Stormwater Runoff __ Conservation Areas

Project Summary: This is a Pre-Application review to convert an existing three-unit apartment dwelling located at 8031 Williston Road to office spaces, remove two sheds, and erect three single family dwellings in the Village Zoning District (VZD). Discussion: Despite the proposed increase in impervious cover, the WCC generally favors the proposal. The WCC is pleased that the applicant intends to treat stormwater runoff from buildings and the


parking area with stormwater disconnect and infiltration techniques such as rain gardens and vegetated swales. The applicant and WCC agree that pervious pavement should be considered if the existing soil type and water table elevation support the practice. The WCC recommends that the applicant should not only strive to produce a zero net increase in stormwater runoff but make every effort to decrease the volume of stormwater runoff that migrates from the site. In regards to site design, the WCC had no preference to attached or detached garages and no strong preference as to the paved or dirt/gravel option for the proposed street/driveway. A paved driveway would eliminate the migration of dirt/gravel onto Route 2 but a paved driveway may not complement the character of the historical village, since all existing driveways in the village are dirt/gravel. The WCC likes the proposed sidewalk leading from the office building to Route 2 but suggests that the sidewalk segment between the houses and the office be eliminated in an effort to decrease the amount of impervious surface. Lastly, the WCC would like the applicant to address the aging historic trees that grow along Route 2. A written recommendation from the county forester would best address this issue. Findings:

1. The site plan shows that an existing culvert located under Lambert Lane receives a majority of the stormwater runoff generated form the subject parcel.

2. A row of historic trees exist along Route 2 and some of them appear to be reaching the end of their life cycle. Some of the aging trees may pose a hazard to the existing house and Route 2 traffic.

3. A proposed sidewalk links the proposed houses and office to the existing sidewalk along Route 2.

4. The applicant proposes to incorporate stormwater disconnect and infiltration techniques into the site design to treat stormwater runoff from the proposed buildings and parking lot. The use of pervious pavement is reliant upon the existing soil type and water table elevation.

5. The applicant proposes energy efficient new houses using reduced building size, increased insulation, and energy efficient appliances.

Recommendations:

1. The applicant should obtain a written confirmation from Public Works to affirm that the culvert under Lambert Lane is sized appropriately to handle the peak volume of stormwater that the proposed development is estimated to generate.

2. The applicant should obtain a written opinion from County Forester Mike Snyder regarding how to manage and/or replace the aging historic trees. The resolution should be incorporated into a Landscaping Plan.

3. To decrease the amount of impervious surface on-site, the sidewalk segment between the proposed houses and the office should be removed, and pervious pavement/concrete should be considered for the proposed sidewalk segment from the office building to Route 2.

4. The applicant should provide an analysis of soil and water table elevation data for the project area toward applicability of pervious pavement for this project.

5. The applicant should incorporate a snow storage management plan into the Landscaping Plan.

6. The applicant should incorporate sizes and site locations of rain gardens and vegetated swales (if considered) into the Landscaping Plan.

7. The applicant should commit to Energy Star rated housing and office space. Submitted by Jessica Andreoletti Date: 3/2/10 Approved by the Williston Conservation Commission Date: 3/3/10


Public Works and Fire Recommendations


Williston Development Review Board – March 9, 2010

Staff Notes- DP 10-27 8031 Williston Road


Application No: DP 10-27 Name: “8031 Williston Planned Unit

Development” Tax Parcel #: 14:104:154:000 Property Address: 8031 Williston Road

Zoning District: Village Zoning District (VZD), National Register Historic District

Total Acres: 1.1

Overview: This is a request for pre-application review. Infill Realty Advisors, LLC is proposing to construct three new dwelling units, garages, driveways and a sidewalk on a 1.1 acre parcel of land on Williston Road in the VZD and the National Register Historic District. Three existing dwelling units in the existing structure on the site would be removed and the existing structure would be converted to office uses.

The applicant’s proposal is based in part on the premise that the three apartment units in the existing structure on the site are legal nonconforming uses that may be transferred to the new proposed dwellings, which could allow the project to proceed without being required to obtain growth management allocation.

Project History: This pre-application has not been reviewed by the DRB before. This pre-application has been reviewed by the Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee (HAAC) and the Williston Conservation Commission (WCC) and their comments are attached to this staff report. Williston Police, Fire, and Public Works comments are also attached and discussed below: Project Elements and Issues: Compatibility with the Village Zoning District and National Register Historic District:

1. HAAC comments and recommendations as attached address the compatibility of the proposed development with the Village Zone and the National Register Historic district. Generally, the HAAC recommended careful review and design of the massing of the structures, the spaces between them, and their orientation on the site to ensure compatibility.

2. HAAC recommendations also address the need for materials and individual house designs to be compatible with the Village and the existing structure on the site.

3. The HAAC recommends further and more detailed review at the discretionary permit process as well as possibly reviewing individual house design for individual Certificates of Appropriateness as permits are pursued at the administrative permit level.

Nonconforming Use on the Subject Parcel and Proposed Uses:

1. Proposed use: There is a proposed new use on the site. The applicant proposes to convert the existing building on the site to office use. This is an allowed use in the Village Zoning District, per WDB 42.A, but the scale of the use is limited per WDB 42.9.1: “42.9.1 Is there a maximum size for commercial uses in the VZD? Yes. No more than 4,000 SF on any lot may be devoted to permitted (see Table 42.A) commercial uses, with no more than 2,500 SF of that space being on any one floor.” An application for a discretionary permit for this project will have to show how it will comply with WDB 42.9.1.


2. The current use of the subject parcel (three individual dwelling units) is not in conformance with the current applicable zoning, which allows residential uses at no greater density than two dwelling units per acre. (WDB 42.4)

3. The applicant asserts that the three dwelling units in the existing structure on the site have been in existence since prior to the adoption of zoning bylaws or ordinances in Williston and that therefore the three dwelling units are a legal nonconforming use of the land. WDB 2.5.1 defines a nonconforming use as follows: “Per 24 V.S.A. § 4293(15), a nonconforming use is “a use of land that does not conform to the present bylaws, but did conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations prior to the enactment of the present bylaws, including a use improperly authorized as a result of error by the administrative officer.” To approve the project as proposed or allow it to proceed to discretionary permit review without residential growth management allocation, the DRB first has to find that the nonconforming use on the property (three dwelling units where only two may be legally allowed today) meets the above definition. The applicant has submitted a letter from his attorney stating that his research supports this claim, based on statements made to him by a current owner and former tenant of the building as well as assessor’s records from 1984 and Green Mountain Power electric meter records from the mid 1990’s

4. If the DRB can find that the current use of the existing structure is a nonconforming use under WDB 2.5.1, then the following standards for continuance, expansion, and change of that use apply, per WDB 2.5.2-4: 2.5.2 Can nonconforming uses continue? Yes, but only with the limitations described in WDB 2.5.3 and 2.5.4. 2.5.3 Can a nonconforming use be changed? No. Any change in use, or in the nature or extent of use, is subject to the requirements of this bylaw. 2.5.4 What happens if a nonconforming use ceases to operate? If a nonconforming use ceases operation for more than one year (twelve months) it may be replaced only with a conforming use. For the project to be allowed to proceed to discretionary permit review without obtaining residential growth management allocation, the DRB will have to determine that what is proposed is not a “change in use, or the nature or extent of use.” If the DRB makes a finding that the project as proposed changes the nature of extent of the nonconformity, then the project is subject to all standards of the WDB, including those pertaining to residential density and residential growth allocation.

General Site Design:

1. Landscaping and buffering, side and rear lot lines: as a proposed mixed-use project adjacent to residential uses, the project is required by the standards of WDB 23.A to provide landscaped buffers of the widths and specifications provided by that chapter, namely a 50 foot wide type I buffer, a 13 foot wide type II buffer, a 23 foot wide type III buffer, or a 27 foot wide Type IV buffer. All development on the site, including parking areas, sidewalks, and driveways, will be subject to these requirements.

2. Landscaping and buffering: Williston Village Greenbelt: all development must be out of the 50 foot setback from the right-of way of Williston Road per WDB 42.3.3.6. with the exception of crossings by driveways and utilities.

3. The applicant will have to submit a plan showing all outdoor lighting as a part of an application for a discretionary permit.

4. If the commercial portion of the project is to involve multiple tenants, the application for a discretionary permit for this project must include a Master Sign Plan.


5. Parking is required to meet the standards of WDB 14, but these requirements may be relaxed by the DRB if it better maintains the historic character of the Village, as described in WDB 42.9.2: “42.9.2 Do the off-street parking and loading requirements of this bylaw apply in the tight spaces of the VZD? The requirements of Chapter 14 do apply, but the DRB may permit the provision of less parking than is required by that chapter where doing so will better maintain the historic character of the village, while not creating parking conflicts with neighboring uses.”

Staff Recommendation:

Staff has prepared a set of recommendations for adoption below. Staff notes that the DRB will have to modify recommendations 4 and 5 to reflect the findings the DRB makes regarding the nonconforming status of the residential use on the property. The DRB can authorize the applicant to proceed to discretionary permit review only if it is able to: • Find that the existing use is a legal nonconforming use and • Find that the proposal is not for a change in the “nature or extent” of that nonconforming use. If the DRB makes both findings above, the project can be authorized to proceed out of pre-application review with three dwelling units as proposed.

Recommendations:

1. The DRB adopts recommendations 1-6 from the HAAC comments of 3/1/2010 as DRB recommendations for this proposal.

2. The DRB adopts recommendations 1-7 from the WCC transmittal approved 3/3/2010. 3. The current use of the subject parcel (three individual dwelling units) is not in conformance

with the current applicable zoning, which allows residential uses at no greater density than two dwelling units per acre.

4. The DRB recommends that it is able/not able to find that the current use of the property is a nonconforming use as defined by WDB 2.5.1.

5. The DRB recommends that it is able/not able to find that the project as proposed is not a change in the nature or extent of the nonconforming use as defined by WDB 2.5.3

6. Any application for a discretionary permit for this project should include plan changes that satisfy concerns raised in the memo to DRB staff from Kenneth Morton Jr., Fire Chief dated 2/24/2010. The submittal should also include a narrative explaining what was changed on the plans. The DRB also recommends that the applicant meet with the Fire Department to discuss the issues raised by the 2/24/2010 memo.

7. Any application for a discretionary permit should address the issues raised in the Williston public Works memo dated 2/26/2010, attached.

Recommended Motion:

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I _________________, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 9, 2010, accept the recommendations proposed by staff for DP 10-27 and authorize the project to proceed with discretionary permit application and review.

Speaking from the public were Liz Jordan-Shook, Tom Munn, Eric Hillmuth, and Bob Gaffney. 11:10 P.M. Tabled hearing of DP 10-27 until April 13, 2010 DRB meeting.


_________________________________________________________________________________

11:10 PM. Closed the public hearing for deliberations after a five minute break.

___________________________________________

11:50 P.M. Reopened the public hearing after deliberations.

____________________________________________ III. Minutes from the February 9, 2010 meeting.

Motion: I, Scott Rieley, make the motion to approve the minutes of February 9, 2010, as written.

Seconded by: Cathy O’Brien VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES

IV. Communications or Other Business

V. Adjournment MOTION: I, Philip Martin, make the motion to adjourn. SECONDED by: Scott Rieley VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES 11:55 P.M. The meeting was adjourned. For further information, please call the Planning and Zoning Department at 878-6704 or stop by the Town Hall Annex, 7878 Williston Road, where the information and an audio recording are on file.

DP 10 – 25, Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Rd ...F506B13C... · been done. There is a lack of...

Documents

Transcript of DP 10 – 25, Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Rd ...F506B13C... · been done. There is a lack of...