town of williston development review board august 10, …f506b13c... · dp 10-25, aaron vincelette,...

Town of Williston Development Review Board Minutes of August 10, 2010

Page

1

TOWN OF WILLISTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

August 10, 2010, 7:30 PM Town Hall Meeting Chamber

Minutes approved September 14, 2010, as written.

________________________________________________________________________________________ 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: Brian Jennings, Cathy O’Brien, Kevin McDermott, Philip Martin and Scott Rieley. Absent: John Bendzunas and Richard Asch Staff: Ken Belliveau, Matthew Boulanger, Jessica Andreoletti, and Carol Daigle Others: Rick Bryant; Bruce Hoar (DPW); Aaron Vincelette; Scott Gardner; and Andrew Bushnell. I. Public Forum II. Public Hearings III. Minutes from July 27, 2010

IV. Communications or Other Business

V. Adjournment ___________________________________________________________________________

Agenda

DP 10-25, Aaron Vincelette, Mill Boys LLC, 1643 Clay Point Road, Colchester, requests Discretionary Permit review for Eco Car Wash on Wentworth Drive (between James Brown Drive & Agway) in the Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN) (continued from the July 13th and July 27th hearings).

DP 10- 40, Kelly Lord, 124 Four Sisters Drive, South Burlington, request for Discretionary Permit review for a two-lot subdivision by Boundary Line Adjustment on Mountain View Road in the Agricultural Rural/residential Zone (ARZD) (continued from the July 13th and July 27th hearings).

Amendment to DP 08-24, (previously advertised as DP 10-45), K. Scott Gardner, 1570 South Brownell Road, requests Discretionary Permit review for a two-lot subdivision by Boundary Line Adjustment on previously subdivided Lot “B” and Lot “C” at 2971 South Road in the Agricultural Residential Zoning District (ARZD). ______________________________________________________________________________


Page

2

I Public Forum

II Public Hearing

7:35 P.M. Opened Public Hearing

_________________________________________________________________________________

7:35 P.M. Opened DP 10-25 DP 10-25, Aaron Vincelette, Mill Boys LLC, 1643 Clay Point Road, Colchester, requests Discretionary Permit review for Eco Car Wash on Wentworth Drive (between James Brown Drive & Agway) in the Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN) (continued from the July 13th and July 27th hearings).

Representing the application were Mr. Aaron Vincelette, 1643 Clay Point Road, Colchester, and Mr. Rick Bryant, Tetra Tech, 20 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington, VT.

Matthew Boulanger reviewed his revised staff notes with the board. He mentioned the change made by the applicant to the site plans for the July 27th meeting. As some members present were not at the July 27th meeting, he wanted everyone to have a copy of that site plan. This change involved separating the exit from the entrance and moving it further away from the junction of James Brown Drive and Rt. 2-A. The director of Public Works had asked the applicant to change the point of exiting the car wash to Wentworth Drive instead of the proposed James Brown Drive (JBD). He included wording in the recommendations for either decision. The discussion continued over the differences between the independent traffic report and the data being provided by the applicant’s consultant. Mr. Boulanger informed the board staff would be willing to look at the exit change as part of Final Plans should the board want to consider that possibility. The discussion continued about the review, traffic in and out of James Brown Drive, and queuing lines exiting the car wash and James Brown Drive. Mr. Belliveau introduced Mr. Bruce Hoar, Director of Public Works, to the board. This was the first time since his appointment to Public Works he had met before the board members. Rick Bryant, the applicant’s traffic consultant, recapped his findings (from the July 27th meeting) and more recent his traffic studies to the board and want to clarify what might be misconceptions. His first chart showed the difference between the seasonal traffic variations on Rt 2-A. His count showed a greater number of cars in June (over 18,000) to about 16,000 in December. He compared this to the projected visits to the car wash. The summer months show fewer visits to the carwash site and more frequent visit during the winter months. This is opposite the numbers for traffic on Rt 2-A. When traffic on 2-A is heavier, traffic at the car wash is lighter. He explained the different ways traffic was counted, turning left onto JBD, turning right onto JBD, turning left and turning right off JBD. The number of cars waiting in line to make a turn was counted as well as the amount of time drivers waited on JBD to turn onto Rt 2-A. (These charts and analysis are attached at the end of the minutes). He talked about the graph (Historic & Studied Volumes JBD) which showed the amount of traffic on Rt 2-A is less now than it was 10 years ago. He compared the number of vehicles using the car wash


Page

3

to other business uses such as a convenience store or an office building. The applicant’s car wash in Milton tapers off during the summer months with an average of 11 customers during the peak pm hours. His graph showing the cars queued for left turns from JBD showed 57% of the time no one was waiting. He felt the independent traffic consultant model was telling them to predict the numbers whereas he had sat and actually counted traffic. His numbers differed greatly from the report the DPW supported. He talked about the modifications that had been made already in moving the exit and felt this was a much better plan with allows 200’ and from 8 to 10 cars room on JBD to line up. He explained the changes made in traffic crossing patterns with moving the exit. He felt the problem with traffic crossing would be moved to Wentworth Drive and would involve clients from businesses on that road. Mr. Vincelette pointed out his traffic counts never reaches the peak numbers as high as the model the town is using. Mr. McDermott asked to hear from the director of Public Works. Mr. Hoar reported they sought an independent report when the applicant’s numbers differed so much from the first study submitted. A traffic engineer agreed with the independent consultant. The methodology used is valid and supports the request to have traffic exiting to Wentworth Drive instead of JBD. If the exit were moved to be opposite an existing drive on to Wentworth to prevent difficult traffic situations from happening, it would work well. He doesn’t see any reason to further impact the town any more on JBD when the applicant has access to Wentworth through the business association which this property will be part of. He talked about traffic avoiding a left hand turn from River Cove Road if drivers could travel from River Cove Road to Shirley (a private road in very poor shape) to JBD to a lighted intersection as is proposed for JBD. He felt what he was recommending was backed by the two traffic studies. Ms. O’Brien asked if the other traffic studies, the two the town hired, were part of the record as DRB members had not seen them. Mr. Boulanger explained all the communications that have happened between the parties is part of the record. Mr. Hoar wanted to make sure the person he hired to do the independent study used the same methodology. Mr. Jennings asked if the traffic problem was being traded from JBD to Wentworth Drive by moving the exit. Mr. McDermott asked if Wentworth Drive was stop controlled. Mr. Hoar said the town could ask for a stop sign. Wentworth Drive is currently a private road belonging to the business association. Mr. Bryant reported he thought it would be the Chittenden MPO that would be reviewing the study and they found out the town hadn’t used them. The applicant was not notified the town was not using the MPO, so they had sent their study to the MPO for review anticipating the MPO’s review for the ACT 250. When they had not received any response, they contacted the MPO. He discussed the


Page

4

traffic impact guidelines for Design Hour Volume (DHV) and claimed guidelines do not say use DHV when calculating queue lanes for turning at an intersection. Discussion continued concerning the numbers, the turning lanes, the possible exit, and queuing lanes. Mr. Bryant had counted 90 cars an hour exiting the gas station across the road from this site. He completed his presentation by restating his opinion the exit will work better where it is now being proposed and not connecting to Wentworth Drive. ________________________________________________________________________________

Staff Notes Williston Development Review Board –August 10, 2010

DP 10-25, Eco Car Wash Tax Parcel # 03:110:02, 03:110:04

Wentworth Drive Application No: DP 10-25 Name: Eco Car Wash

Tax Parcel #: 03:110:02, 03:110:04 Property Address: Wentworth Drive

Zoning District: Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN)

Total Acres: 2.2

Overview

This is a request for a Discretionary Permit to construct a car wash and to establish an outdoor display area at the corner of James Brown Drive and Route 2a. The subject parcels have addresses on Wentworth Drive to the west. Proposed site improvements include the car wash building itself, paving, grading, the installation of landscaping, solar panels, and the establishment of an outdoor goods display area for a business selling sheds.

Project History:

This proposal was reviewed as a Pre-application by the Development Review Board on March 9, 2010. At that time the DRB authorized the applicant to move forward with a Discretionary Permit application. The DRB asked that the applicant provide a traffic study along with that application.

This project was initially reviewed as a request for a Discretionary Permit on July 13, 2010, and again on July 27, 2010. At the July 27 hearing, the applicant showed a revised site plan that adjusted the access to the car wash by moving it further away from the intersection of James Brown Drive and Route 2a. A refined version of that plan has been included in the materials distributed to the DRB for this hearing (August 10). The applicant has continued to work with Williston Public Works to address their concerns related to stormwater treatment and vehicle queuing. Public Works has maintained that the exit from the site should be relocated from James brown Drive to Wentworth Drive. Condition of approval #5 will need to be re-drafted to reflect whether the DRB supports this recommendation.

Planning Staff Comments: Use:

The proposed uses on the property (a car wash and outdoor sales/storage area for sheds) are allowed uses in the GZDN. A portion of the shed sales/storage area is proposed within the


Page

5

50-foot setback to Route 2a. This is allowed by the Williston Development Bylaw (WDB) 33.7.1.2, as long as the area occupies less than 50% of the setback. The proposed area occupies far less than 50% of the setback.

Parking:

Per WDB 14.2.3, the adequacy of the number of vehicle parking spaces can be determined by the Zoning Administrator in cases where table 14.A does not address a particular use. Table 14.A does not address car washes. The applicant is proposing 15 parking spaces on the site, including one handicap-accessible space. The applicant proposes to have a total of 12 employees at the site. Most of the vehicles using the site will be “stacked” in the approach lanes to the east of the building, will be in the building, or will be in transit through the site, so little customer parking is required.

Assuming 15 parking spaces is adequate for the site, it follows in WDB 14 that 1 ADA space would be required, two short-term bicycle parking spaces would be required, one long-term bicycle space would be required, and 1 shower/change facility would be required. The DRB could permit an exemption to the long-term bicycle parking and shower/change facility requirement if it wishes to find that the likelihood of a person commuting to the site by bicycle is highly unlikely. At the July 13 meeting, the DRB expressed that it would not be likely to grant a waiver to the commuter end of trip facilities requirement.

Lighting:

The applicant is proposing a level of outdoor lighting that is within the standards of the WDB, in terms of overall brightness, maximum brightness, and downward shielding of the light fixtures.

Signs:

A single wall sign on the building is proposed. The sign can be allowed to be up to 24 square feet per WDB 25.A. Final plans should show the proposed dimensions of the sign.

Landscaping:

Landscaped buffers are proposed for the site, including a buffer that, while it will be on the applicant’s property, will meet the street tree requirements for buffers along Route 2a. The applicant is proposing some gaps in the required landscaped buffers to accommodate the location of solar panels. The Williston Conservation Commission (WCC) supports this in their transmittal to the DRB. Although solar panels are generally exempt from local review when they will be tied to the electric grid (as these are) staff does not find specific authorization in the WDB for the DRB to relax landscaping and buffering requirements for the location of solar panels.

Design Review:

This project is subject to the requirements of WDB 22, Design Review, and received review under that chapter by the Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee (HAAC) as noted below.

Public Works Department Comments:

Comments from Williston Public Works are attached. Of note, Public Works requested independent review of the traffic study submitted by the applicant. New documents (attached) reflect the results of that review and the applicant’s work to address the concerns raised by the review.


Page

6

HAAC Comments: The Williston HAAC met on July 7, 2010 to discuss this project as it relates to WDB 22. The HAAC voted to transmit two recommendations, which have been added to staff’s recommended conditions of approval:

1. The applicant should show on Final Plans how the top, gray, element to the tallest tower on the building can be reduced in height to reduce its prominence on the site. This could be accomplished through an actual reduction in the height of the element or by painting a portion of it darker to reduce its visibility.

2. The applicant should explore phasing the paving of the stacking lanes closest to Route 2a to reduce the visibility of the pavement and waiting cars from Route 2a, or should show how landscaping and screening can accomplish this.

WCC Comments:

The WCC reviewed this project. In addition to their comments regarding the landscaping and the solar panels, the WCC recommended that the applicant give a path easement 20 feet wide to the town and that the applicant construct a 10-foot wide path within that easement. The WCC comments are also attached to this staff report.

Recommendations: Findings of Fact

1. The applicant proposes to locate a car wash and an outdoor sale and display area for sheds on 2.2 acres of land in the GZDN.

2. Car washes and retail sales of sheds are allowed uses in the GZDN. 3. The applicant proposes 15 parking spaces, including 1 ADA parking space.

Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed uses can be permitted on this site in the GZDN. 2. The proposed vehicle parking is adequate for the use of the site. There is no bicycle parking

or long-term bicycle storage or changing facility currently proposed.

Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall file final plans consistent with all of the conditions of approval for this

permit and reflecting all conditions of approval within one year of the date that this approval becomes effective.

2. Prior to commencement of any work in conjunction with the proposed change in use, the applicant shall have final plans approved in accordance with this approval and shall have obtained an Administrative Permit consistent with those plans.

3. The applicant should explore phasing the paving of the stacking lanes closest to Route 2a to reduce the visibility of the pavement and waiting cars from Route 2a, or should show how landscaping and screening can accomplish this.

4. 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.

5. Final plans filed by the applicant must address all comments made by Williston Public Works in their memo of June 28, 2010, and subsequent correspondence, Including/with the exception of the comment or comments related to changing the site so exiting vehicles are routed to Wentworth Drive.


Page

7

6. Final plans must show bicycle commuter facilities that meet the requirements of the WDB, including end-of-trip facilities.

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 July 13, July 27, and August 10, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by staff for the review of DP 10-25, and approve this Discretionary Permit with the attached conditions.

• 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 Brian Jennings VOTE: 4 AYES, 1 NAY (Rieley) No one spoke from the audience concerning this application. 8:20 P.M. Closed public hearing for DP 10 – 25. * See attachments at the end of the minutes.

_________________________________________________________________________________

8:20 P.M. Revisited DP 10 – 40. The DRB had elected not to vote on this application at the July 13th or July 27th meeting. DP 10- 40, Kelly Lord, 124 Four Sisters Drive, South Burlington, request for Discretionary Permit review for a two-lot subdivision by Boundary Line Adjustment on Mountain View Road in the Agricultural Rural/residential Zone (ARZD) (continued from the July 13th and July 27th hearings).

The applicants were not present at the meeting. The public hearing had been closed. No review of the revised (7/27) staff notes was made. They are included in the minutes for the DRB to conclude they decision and vote.

__________________________________________________________

Staff Notes Williston Development Review Board – July 27, 2010

DP 10-40, Kelly Lord, Mark Harvie Tax Parcel # 9:159:002 and 9:012:081

Mountain View Road and 18 Ledgewood Drive


Page

8

Application No: DP 10-40 Name: Kelly Lord, Mark Harvie

Tax Parcel #: 9:159:002 and 9:012:081 Property Address: Mountain View Road and 18 Ledgewood Drive

Zoning District: Agricultural Rural Zoning District (ARZD)

Total Acres: 35.25 acres

Update and Procedure

This project received review at the July 13, 2010 DRB hearing, but a vote was not taken at that meeting. There have been no changes to the proposal in the intervening weeks, and this staff report is distributed with updated dates, but no other information has been changed.

Overview

This is a request for a boundary line adjustment between two parcels of land located on the north side of Mountain View Road between Ledgewood Drive to the west and Old Stage Road to the east in the Agricultural Rural Zoning District (ARZD). This request proposes to transfer 15.69 acres of land to an existing parcel (9:159:002) on the northeast corner of Ledgewood Drive and Mountain View Road. No new lots are proposed, only the movement on a boundary line between two parcels.

Planning Staff Comments

Boundary line adjustments involve the movement of property lines between two or more existing parcels of land that result in changing the size or shape of the parcels involved but do not increase or decrease the number of parcels. The Williston Unified Development Bylaw (WDB) allows boundary adjustments to be approved administratively under limited circumstances (see Chapter 10). However, when the total acreage to be transferred from parcel to anther is large enough to subdivide, WDB 10.1.3 specifies that it will be treated as a subdivision and thus is subject to the review and approval of a Discretionary Permit by the DRB.

The two parcels in question lie on the north side of Mountain View Road and currently share a property line of approximately 272.34 ft. running north to south. The applicants are proposing to eliminate this boundary line and draw a new line of approximately 1024.36 ft. running north to south roughly 612.29 ft. to the east of the existing property line separating the two parcels. Approximately 15.69 acres of land would be moved from one parcel to the other if this request is approved, an amount of land area that would be large enough to subdivide in the ARZD, and an amount of land area large enough to meet the minimum criteria for an open space subdivision in the ARZD as well. Tax Parcel 5:159:002 which would receive the additional acreage as proposed by this boundary adjustment is currently developed with a single family dwelling unit. The “donor” parcel (9:012:081) is currently undeveloped but has been issued a permit to construct house that is still current and may be acted upon. The net result is that both of these parcels will be greater than 10.5 acres in area, and thus any potential future subdivisions of either parcels will be subject to the open space requirements specified under WDB 31.7.1.

Recent History

One of the properties in this application had been part of a recent subdivision proposal (DP 10-34) that was withdrawn on the eve of a Pre-application review by the DRB.


Page

9

An Administrative Permit has been issued authorizing Ms. Lord to construct a single family Dwelling unit was issued in December 2008 on Tax Parcel 9:012:081, although the applicant has not yet started construction. This permit has a life of two years and may be renewed for one additional year upon request. A provision in the town’s bylaws allows the construction of one single family dwelling unit on lots created prior to the creation of the town’s residential growth management system in 1990 (WDB 11.2.3.1). Ms. Ezerman created a homestead parcel in 1968 by deed which essentially met the legal requirements of this provision even though a survey showing the two separate parcels was not recorded. Staff consulted with the town’s land use attorney and was advised that the creation of the homestead parcel was sufficient to meet the requirements of the bylaw, and thus a permit was issued. Staff recommends that such a survey be recorded prior to the signing of final plans.

Conservation Commission Comments

The Conservation Commission (CC) has noted that the Town Plan calls for an alternative transportation path along the north side of Mountain View Road, or along the southerly edge of both of the subject properties. The CC has recommended that the applicants agree to provide an easement across both of the subject properties for such a path should one be asked for in the future.

Recommendation

Staff proposes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval for the DRB to consider.

Finding of Fact

1. The two parcels of land are both located in the ARZD. 2. Tax Parcel 9:159:002 is currently developed with a single family dwelling unit and is

approximately 1.24 acres in size. 3. Tax Parcel 9:012:081 is approximately 35.25 acres in size and is currently undeveloped.

Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed boundary adjustment would not result in an increase or decrease in the number of existing lots or parcels.

2. The proposed boundary adjustment would not result in either of the two parcels involved becoming non-conforming in lot size or lot area.

Conditions of Approval

1. Prior to the recording of any plats or legal documents involving the sale or transfer of any land as proposed in this application for a Discretionary Permit, the applicant shall first obtain approval of Final Plans and shall satisfy all of the conditions of approval listed as part of this approval.

2. The applicant(s) shall have one year from the date of this approval to obtain approval of final Plans as specified under WDB 6.9 and WDB Chapter 12.

3. The applicant shall record a survey formalizing and memorializing the homestead site created for Ezerman from Tax Parcel 9:012:081 prior to submitting Final Plans for review and signature.

4. Final Plans shall correctly list the ownership status of all parcels subject to this request and approval.

5. Final Plans shall indicate the acreage of all of the lots that are part of this request as they currently exist and as they will exist after the recording of Final Plans.

6. The applicant shall amend their existing permit to construct a house on Tax Parcel 9:012:081 identifying either a new driveway access approved by the Williston Public Works


Page

10

Department and driveway or an easement across Tax Parcel 9-159-002 providing legal access to the proposed house on Tax Parcel 9:012:081 prior to the signing of Final Plans.

7. The approval of this boundary adjustment shall not result in the creation of any new lots or parcels, nor shall it be construed as granting approval or an entitlement to construct any new dwelling units on either of the lots in question beyond what has already been approved and authorized by the town.

8. Any potential future subdivisions of either or both of the parcels of land involved in this permit shall first require the review and approval of the Williston Development Review Board and shall be subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of any future requests.

9. No new development shall take place on either of the parcels that are part of this application without first obtaining any required permits from the Town of Williston including but not limited to any new proposed or expanded structures, points of access from public or private roads, or any new public or private utilities.

10. The applicants shall provide a 20 foot wide easement for a pedestrian path running parallel to and in proximity to Mountain View Road as determined by the Williston Public Works Department should one be requested at some point in time.

11. The applicant(s) shall first obtain any and all required permits and authorizations as required by either the State of Vermont or US Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing any work in association with this project.

12. 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.

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 July 27 13, 2010, accept the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of DP 10-40, and approve the proposed boundary adjustment. This approval authorizes the applicant(s) to submit Final Plans for review to staff and to seek approval of Final Plans from the Development Review Board as specified in WDB Chapter 12.

SECONDED by Scott Rieley VOTE: 4 AYES, 1 ABSTENSION (Ms. O’Brien ) 8:21 P.M. ended discussion of AP 10-40. _________________________________________________________________________________ 8:21 P.M. Opened public hearing for an Amendment to DP 08-24. Amendment to DP 08-24, (previously advertised as DP 10-45), K. Scott Gardner, 1570 South Brownell Road, requests Discretionary Permit review for a two-lot subdivision by Boundary Line Adjustment on previously subdivided Lot “B” and Lot “C” at 2971 South Road in the Agricultural Residential Zoning District (ARZD).

Representing the application was K. Scott Gardner, 1570 South Brownell Road, Williston.


Page

11

Mr. Belliveau explained to the board the changes made in the office filing system. He wanted to keep amendments to previously approved applications together instead of assigning them a new Discretionary Permit number. He felt this kept the changes to a project filed in one place. Jessica Andreoletti reviewed her staff notes for the board. This is a request to relocate a boundary line that will shift 3.7 +/- acres of land. He is just moving the line. The parent parcel is 75% open space, so this shift will not change any of the open space requirement for either lot. Mr. Gardner, in response to Mr. Rieley’s questions as to why was he requesting to change the boundary lines, replied much of the lot is taken up with the driveway and septic system. That this change would also allow access to the hilltop and the hiking trails that connect to a parcel on the Richmond side that is protected is a key reason. The lot would just work better if it were larger. The lower area at the base of the triangle (on the site plans) is a relatively level area. He still owns both lots, both are for sale, and he has had folks looking at both lots. He felt this would improve the lot size for Lot B. Mr. McDermott and other board members asked about the irregular shape of the new boundary lines and about the market for open land. Were people wanting more than 11 acres; we they looking for 15 acres? Mr. McDermott, feeling the irregularity is wrapping around Lot A, offered a suggestion of changing the boundary line on Lot A to help make it more regular. He also pointed out that Mr. Gardner couldn’t get a road up to that hilltop. Mr. Gardner responded he didn’t want to put a road up to the hill. He further explained the previous lines were drawn by suggestions from Williston’s former planner, Lee Nellis, and the boundary lines more or less respect the ridgelines. He reiterated he didn’t own Lot A thus he couldn’t square up or change the line as he now can with lots B and C. He reported the wood land on the property was nice and not too dense. He reported staff didn’t have any issues with the way the lines have been drawn. Ms. O’Brien didn’t feel the redrawn boundary lines were irregular; however she asked about the views and what restrictions on clearing were in place to protect the open space. Mr. McDermott reported the views from the hilltop were gorgeous. Ms. Andreoletti responded the bylaws covering the Agriculture/Residential Zoning District (WDB 31.9.6) included a formula on clearing up to a certain percentage based on the slope. She also repeated the open space can never be developed. Mr. McDermott felt that given the lot lines are irregular, but knowing it would be undevelopable, and knowing the ridgeline as well as he does, he isn’t as worried about the newly drawn boundary lines with this particular request. _________________________________________________________________________________

Williston Conservation Commission Transmittal of Findings to the Development Review Board

DRB Review Stage: Discretionary Permit Application No. DP 08-24 (Amendment to Final Plans)

Name: Gardner

Property Address: 2971 South Rd Zoning District: ARZD

Tax Parcel # Lot B: 24:028:030.002, Lot C: 24:028:030.000


Page

12

Existing Lot Size: Lot B: 11.59 acres Lot C: 91.41 acres

Proposed Lot Size: Lot B: 15.29 acres Lot C: 87.71 acres

% Open Space Existing: Lot B: 77.6 % Lot C: 75.1 %

% Open Space Proposed: Lot B: 83.1 % Lot C: 74.1 %

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 __ 150’ Name Stream Buffer __ Primitive Paths __ 50’ Tributary Buffer __ Country Parks __ 50’ Class II Wetland Buffer __ Community Parks __ Class III Wetland __ Neighborhood Parks X Open Space Development __Conservation Areas __ Significant Wildlife Habitat __ Visual Assessment __ Other:

Summary: This is a request to amend the Final Plans for DP 08-24. The nature of the request is to relocate a boundary line between two parcels of land located at 2971 South Road in the Agricultural Rural Zoning District (ARZD). This request proposes to transfer +/- 3.7 acres of designated open space land from Lot C (24:028:030.000) to Lot B (24:028:030.002). No new lots are proposed, only the movement on a boundary line between two parcels.

Discussion:

The WCC does not have any specific concerns regarding the proposed boundary line adjustment; however the group wants to remind the applicant and the Lot-B homeowner that all open space rules will apply to the reconfigured parcel.

Drafted by Jessica Andreoletti: July 26, 2010 Approved by the Williston Conservation Commission: July 28, 2010 ___________________________________________________________________________

STAFF NOTES Williston Development Review Board

July 13, 2010 Gardner

DP 08-24 (Amendment to Final Plans) Application No. DP 08-24 (Amendment to Final Plans)

Name: Gardner

Property Address: 2971 South Rd Zoning District: ARZD

Tax Parcel # Lot B: 24:028:030.002, Lot C: 24:028:030.000

Existing Lot Size: Lot B: 11.59 acres Lot C: 91.41 acres

Proposed Lot Size: Lot B: 15.29 acres Lot C: 87.71 acres


Page

13

% Open Space Existing: Lot B: 77.6 % Lot C: 75.1 %

% Open Space Proposed: Lot B: 83.1 % Lot C: 74.1 %

Overview:

This is a request to amend the Final Plans for DP 08-24. The nature of the request is to relocate a boundary line between two parcels of land located at 2971 South Road in the Agricultural Rural Zoning District (ARZD). This request proposes to transfer +/- 3.7 acres of designated open space land from Lot C (24:028:030.000) to Lot B (24:028:030.002). No new lots are proposed, only the movement on a boundary line between two parcels.

History:

Lots B and C are part of a three-lot subdivision (DP 08-24), which was approved by the DRB on October 16, 2008. This proposed boundary adjustment is an amendment to those approved Final Plans and is thereby assigned the same DP 08-24 identification number.

Planning Staff Comments:

Boundary line adjustments involve the movement of property lines between two or more existing parcels of land that result in changing the size or shape of the parcels involved but do not increase or decrease the number of parcels. The Williston Unified Development Bylaw (WDB) allows boundary adjustments to be approved administratively under limited circumstances (see Chapter 10). However, when the total acreage to be transferred from parcel to anther is large enough to subdivide, WDB 10.1.3 specifies that it will be treated as a subdivision and thus is subject to the review and approval of a Discretionary Permit by the DRB.

The original three-lot subdivision approved under DP 08-24 in 2008 was subject to the 75% open space rule. This proposal will not change the percentage or configuration of the open space approved in 2008 but it will transfer open space from one lot to another. The proposed boundary adjustment will shift +/- 3.7 acres of designated open space land from Lot C to Lot B. This adjustment will reduce the open space designation on Lot C from 75.1% to 74.1%. This does not affect the permissibility of this proposed boundary adjustment, however it does mean that if the Lot C landowner proposes to subdivide Lot C in the future, then the open space configuration on that lot will need to be adjusted to meet the 75% open space requirement.

Conservation Commission Comments:

The WCC does not have any specific concerns regarding the proposed boundary line adjustment; however the group wants to remind the applicant and the Lot-B homeowner that all open space rules will apply to the reconfigured parcel.

Recommendation:

Staff proposes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval for the DRB to consider.

Finding of Fact

1. The two parcels of land are both located in the ARZD. 2. DP 08-24 was approved by the DRB on October 16, 2008 with a required 75% open space

designation.


Page

14

3. Tax Parcel 24:028:030.002 (Lot B) is currently undeveloped, is approximately 11.59 acres in size, and 77.6 % of the parcel is designated as open space. This proposal will increase the lot size to 15.29 acres and 83.1 % of the parcel will be designated open space.

4. Tax Parcel 24:028:030.000 (Lot C) is currently undeveloped, is approximately 91.41 acres in size, and 75.1 % of the parcel is designated as open space. This proposal will decrease the lot size to 87.71 acres and 74.1 % of the parcel will be designated open space.

Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed boundary adjustment would not result in an increase or decrease in the number of existing lots or parcels.

2. The proposed boundary adjustment would not result in either of the two parcels involved becoming non-conforming in lot size or lot area.

3. This proposal will not decrease the amount of protected open space as approved under DP 08-24.

Conditions of Approval

1. Prior to the recording of any plats or legal documents involving the sale or transfer of any land as proposed in this application for a Discretionary Permit, the applicant shall first obtain approval of Final Plans and shall satisfy all of the conditions of approval listed as part of this approval.

2. The applicant(s) shall have one year from the date of this approval to obtain approval of Final Plans as specified under WDB 6.9 and WDB Chapter 12.

3. The applicant shall record a survey formalizing and memorializing the new boundary line prior to submitting Final Plans for review and signature.

4. Final Plans shall correctly list the ownership status of all parcels subject to this request and approval.

5. Final Plans shall indicate the acreage of all of the lots that are part of this request as they currently exist and as they will exist after the recording of Final Plans.

6. The applicant shall amend the following pages of the Final Plan set to reflect this boundary line adjustment: cover page, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5.

7. The approval of this boundary adjustment shall not result in the creation of any new lots or parcels, nor shall it be construed as granting approval or an entitlement to construct any new dwelling units on either of the lots in question beyond what has already been approved and authorized by the town.

8. Any potential future subdivisions of either or both of the parcels of land involved in this permit shall first require the review and approval of the Williston Development Review Board and shall be subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of any future requests.

9. No new development shall take place on either of the parcels that are part of this application without first obtaining any required permits from the Town of Williston including but not limited to any new proposed or expanded structures, points of access from public or private roads, or any new public or private utilities.

10. The applicant(s) shall first obtain any and all required permits and authorizations as required by either the State of Vermont or US Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing any work in association with this project.

11. 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


Page

15

subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other conditions or regulations.

MOTION:

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Philip Martin, 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 August 10, 2010, accept the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of the amendment to DP 08-24, with conditions 1-11. This approval authorizes the applicant(s) to submit Final Plans for review to staff and to seek approval of Final Plans from the staff as specified in WDB Chapter 12.

SECONDED by: Cathy O’Brien VOTE: 5 - 0 AYES Speaking from the audience was Mr. Andrew Bushnell, 8 Debra Drive, Essex Junction, VT. 8:40 P.M. Closed public hearing for the Amendment to DP 08-24. _________________________________________________________________________________ III. Minutes from July 27, 2010. MOTION:

I, Cathy O’Brien, make the motion to approve the minutes of July 27, with the revision on page 11, with line starting at 8:43 PM, to read “ended public testimony” instead of “closed public hearing” for DP 10-25.

SECONDED by: Scott Rieley VOTE: 5 – 0 AYES _________________________________________________________________________________ IV. Communications and Other Business _________________________________________________________________________________ 8: 40 P.M. Closed public hearing for deliberations.

9: 01 P.M. Reopened public hearing after deliberations.

_________________________________________________________________________________ V. Adjournment

MOTION:

I, Brian Jennings, make the motion to adjourn.

SECONDED by: Scott Rieley VOTE: 5 – 0 AYES 9:06 P.M. The meeting was adjourned.


Page

16

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. * Attachments for ECO Car Wash


Page

17


Page

18


Page

19


Page

20


Page

21


Page

22


Page

23


Page

24


Page

25


Page

26


Page

27

town of williston development review board august 10, …f506b13c... · dp 10-25, aaron vincelette,...

Documents