TOWN OF WILLISTONF506B13C-605B... · 2016. 7. 6. · March 2010. The applicant is proposing adding a single family dwelling out of the 15.3 acre lot to be subdivided of which 10.6

Town of Williston Development Review Board

Minutes of June 14, 2016

Page

1

TOWN OF WILLISTON

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

June 14, 2016, 7:30 PM

Town Hall Meeting Chamber

Minutes approved June 28, 2016 as written

Digitally Recorded Minutes are available in the Planning & Zoning Offices, 7878 Williston Road or the Town

Clerk’s Offices located at 7900 Williston Road. The minutes are also found on the Williston Town website.

Members in attendance: John Hemmelgarn; Peter Kelley, David Turner, Claire Forbes; John Bendzunas and

Scott Rieley.

Member absent: Brian Jennings

P & Z Staff: Carol Daigle, Melinda Scott, and Matthew Boulanger

Citizen’s sign-in book: Sheila McIntyre; Jane Stowell; Ray Martel; Sharon Gutwin; Larry Miles; Bob Bickford;

and Jeff Nick.

I. Public Forum

II. Public Hearings

III. Minutes

IV. Communications or Other Business

V. Adjournment

7:00 P.M. Public Hearing

I. Public Forum

II. Public Hearing

DP 16 – 23: Lake View Farm, 4520 Oak Hill Road, requests pre-application review for a

proposed two lot residential subdivision located at 4520 Oak Hill Road in the Agricultural/Rural

Residential Zoning District (ARZD).

DP 16 – 17: Property Management Associates, c/o Kari DuPrat, PO Box 1201, Williston, requests

discretionary permit review to add 6 parking spaces and upgrade parking areas and walkways at

Country Crossing condos, off Rt. 2A, an existing residential development at Hideaway Lane in

the Residential Zoning District (RZD). (Continued from April 12th

DRB meeting) (Now

continued to the July 12 DRB hearing.

III. Minutes from May 24, 2016 DRB meeting

IV. Communication, Final Plans and Other Business



Page

2

HP 15-03: Certificate of Appropriateness requested by Lawrence Miles to demolish an

existing outbuilding at 7786 Williston Road in the VZD (National Register Historic

District).

DP 16 – 09: Kismet Development (Sharon Gutwin), 338, Southfield Drive, and

People’s United Bank, 421 Blair Park, (850 Main Street, 5th

FL, Bridgeport, CT

06604-4913), requests final plans review to construct a 20,000 sq. ft. building, parking

and landscaping for Rehab Gym and other business offices at 421 Blair Park Road, in

the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD).

V. Adjournment

I. Public Forum

II. Public Hearing

7:05 P.M. Opened public forum

7:05 P.M. Opened public hearing for DP 16 – 23.

DP 16 – 23: Lake View Farm, 4520 Oak Hill Road, requests pre-application review for a proposed

two lot residential subdivision located at 4520 Oak Hill Road in the Agricultural/Rural Residential

Zoning District (ARZD).

Representing the application was Ms. Sheila McIntyre, Summit Engineering, Inc., 1233 Shelburne

Rd, C-2, South Burlington, VT 05403, Ms. Jane Stowell, 171 Martel Extension, St. George, VT,

and Mr. Ray Martel, 227 Martel Extension, St. George.

Ms. Scott reviewed her staff notes for the board and applicant. She passed memos to the board members

from the DPW and Conservation Committee. This is a pre-application for a 2-lot subdivision. It was

previously reviewed and approved as a pre-application in 2009; however was denied growth management in

March 2010. The applicant is proposing adding a single family dwelling out of the 15.3 acre lot to be

subdivided of which 10.6 acres is located in the town of Williston and 4.7 acres in St. George. The Lot #2

will be a 2.0 acre lot, all of which will be located in Williston. Lot #1 will then have 8.6 acres in Williston

and 4.7 acres in St. George. A review of the property showed there are no steep slopes; there are two man-

made ponds; 1.14 acres of wetlands and 9.46 acres are unconstrained. Since the lot is greater than 10.5

acres, 75% (7.95 acres) must be protected as permanent open space. She discussed the setbacks (front

setback of 50’ and side and rear setbacks of 15’) and ample buffers, building envelope, landscaping (WDB

chapter 23), private driveway, and the access permit. Lot #1 has plenty of room for the setbacks. The Lot 2

front and rear envelope lines /setbacks appear to be enough. The north and south sides appear to meet the

minimum dimensional requirement; however the 15’ setback is too narrow to accommodate the 50’

landscaping buffer. Staff was recommending the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 shift to the north to

allow for a 50’ buffer. On the north side of the proposed Lot 2 driveway the only existing buffer is a line of

trees and she recommended adding more trees. She didn’t feel Lot #1 needed any additional landscaping.



Page

3

The fire and police departments had no comments at this time. Public Works requested the utilities be

under ground and the applicant obtain an access permit. She discussed the recommendations from the

Conservation Committee and the class II or class III wetlands and buffers; a floating 20’ easement to the

town for trail(s), and questions about other buffers. She encouraged the applicant to contact the state

wetlands office concerning classifications.

Ms. Scott reviewed the CC recommendations with the board and applicant including a request for a written

confirmation regarding the wetland classification of the two man-made ponds. The CC recommendations

also included a floating 20’ alternative recreation path easement along Oak Hill Road; homes situated to

minimize the visual impact, and reconfiguration of the pond overflow outlet to avoid conflict with the

proposed driveway.

Ms. McIntyre spoke of the Martel’s desire to preserve the open space and maintain the land in a rural

character as the family has since the 1950’s. They had questions about the vegetation and how that would

play out. They are not interested in developing and wish to maintain the open space. If the constructed

pond is reclassified as a class III wetland they would like it to continue maintaining it as it has been. If it

remains undisturbed as suggested by the recommendations from the CC it would look like an open meadow

with pucker bushes. They are currently mowing and would like to continue maintaining it as a swimming

pond on Lot #1. She didn’t understand what was meant by the habitat value she heard mentioned. She

asked for a clearer explanation of the goals of the 50’ buffer zone. She understood the regulations defined a

buffer as ‘ample’ in this instance. What is being achieved by this zone? She also commented they are not at

the level of review for some of the detailed questions that were being raised. She would be back at the DP

level with landscaping and a more exact location for the driveway. They can change the building envelope

and possibly change a lot line.

Mr. Rieley asked about the site plan in front of the board which indicated a 15’ setback from the building

envelope. Without moving lot lines could the building envelope be tightened up?

Ms. Scott mentioned her thinking was instead of clearing the tree line, the driveway could be brought in

more to avoid tree cutting. There was also a discussion about the interpretation of the word “ample”.

Mr. Boulanger spoke briefly about the buffer and looking at different chapters for guidance. In looking at

WDB chapter 31 for guidance it will indicate checking with chapter 23 for guidance. Usually there would

be a 50’ buffer in the ARZD (Chap 23), but he didn’t feel it was a hard and fast rule, that there was some

flexibility.

Ms. McIntyre hadn’t seen the DPW memo; however she and the applicants had no issues with those Ms.

Scott mentioned such as the access permit and underground utilities. She asked for clarification for the long

term vision and objectives for this property as the Martel’s will have to consider this if they go forward with

the application.



Page

4

There were questions about clarifying the 50’ buffer zones; goals of the buffer zones; wildlife habitats,

unknown exact location of driveway to Lot #2; landscaping; tighten up the building envelope to obtain a

bigger setback and maybe cut few trees; possible change of lot line; growth management minimum of 30

points, and competition with larger developments.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Staff Notes – Williston Development Review Board – June 14, 2016

Pre- Application- Lakeview Farm Subdivision

Application No: DP 16-23 Name: Lake View Farm Subdivision

Tax Parcel #: 26:100:225 Property Address: 4520 Oak Hill Road

Zoning District: ARZD Total Acres: 10.6 (15.3 acres total, 4.7 acres in

St. George and 10.6 in Williston)

Overview:

This is a request for pre-application review for a residential subdivision on the west side of Oak Hill Road

in the Agricultural/Rural Residential Zoning District (ARZD). The proposed subdivision will result in the



Page

5

creation of 2 lots, one lot of approximately 2.0 acres, where a new dwelling would be constructed, and a

remainder lot of 8.6 acres that would cover the existing dwelling on the parcel.

The actual parcel of land extends into the town of St. George, and the portion of the parcel in St. George

would remain as a part of the 8.6 acre parcel in Williston with the existing house. For the purposes of

subdivision review in Williston, only the 10.6 acres in Williston are discussed.

Project History:

This project was previously reviewed by the DRB as a pre-application on November 24, 2009. At that time,

the DRB recommended that the applicant proceed to Growth Management Review. At the March 23, 2010

hearing the applicant requested but did not receive Growth Management Allocation.

Staff Comments:

Use:

The proposed subdivision will be for the purpose of adding 1 new dwelling unit to the parcel. Single and

two-family dwelling units are an allowed use in the ARZD.

Residential Density:

The applicant is proposing a subdivision which will result in two dwelling units on 15.3 acres of land,

where the maximum allowed residential density in the zone is one dwelling unit per 80,000 square feet

(1.84 acres). 10.6 acres of the parcel are in Williston and the remainder are in St. George. For the purposes

of calculating density and open space requirements, only the acreage in Williston is considered.

The Williston Development Bylaw (WDB) Chapter 19 Density does require that lands with wetlands,

wetland buffers, and slopes in excess of 30% be taken out of that density calculation, and that lands with

slopes between 15 and 29.9% be calculated at a reduced density of one dwelling unit per ten acres.

Staff has made an assessment of these constraints and has determined that the subject parcel is constrained as

follows:

Constraint Acres Allowable density/Acre Allowable

Dwelling Units

wetlands 1.14 0 Dwelling units/Acre 0

slopes 30% and greater 0 0 Dwelling units/Acre 0

slopes 15-29.9% .003 ARZD: 1 Dwelling unit/10 acres 0

unconstrained 9.46 ARZD: 1 Dwelling unit/ 1.83 acres 5.16

Totals 10.6 n/a 5

Because WDB 1919.1.3.3 requires rounding down to the nearest whole number when determining residential

potential, the maximum number of dwellings allowed on the parent parcel is five. The applicant has proposed 2

units (1 existing, 1 new).

Open Space:

As a subdivision of a parcel of land 10.5 acres or greater, this project will be required by the Williston

Development Bylaw (WDB) to set aside a minimum of 75% of the area of the parent parcel as permanently-

protected open space. This open space must include steep slopes, wetland areas and associated buffers, and

any other resources required to be protected under WDB 27. The applicant has shown a proposed

contiguous open space protection area on the concept plan. Staff has included some recommendations



Page

6

regarding the reconfiguration of open space on the proposed Lot 2 to accommodate recommended

landscape buffers, as detailed in the following section.

Landscaping and Setbacks:

WDB Chapter 31 establishes minimum property line setbacks in the ARZD as follows:

WDB Chapter 23 states that open space residential developments in the ARZD “must provide ample

buffers,” but does not specify minimum buffer widths. In the ARZD landscaped buffers typically consist of

existing vegetation in the open space. WDB 23.3 allows the DRB considerable discretion in determining

what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context. Staff has summarized the proposed

setback distances and landscaping buffers for Lots 1 and 2 in the tables below.

Lot 1 Homesite

Direction Facing Proposed Setback Distance Proposed Vegetation

East side (front) +/- 200ft existing mowed field with clump of trees in

front of existing house

West side (rear) +/- 150ft existing open meadow

North side +/- 300ft existing mowed field with scattered trees

South side +/- 250ft existing mowed field with scattered trees

Lot 2 Homesite

The proposed driveway for Lot 2 is located just north of the tree line, leaving roughly a 25-30ft setback to

the northern property boundary. The proposed Lot 2 building envelope leaves a 15ft setback to the northern

and southern property boundaries. Staff recommends that the northern boundary for Lot 2 and the southern

line of the Lot 2 building envelop be shifted 35 feet to the north to allow for 50ft landscape buffers along

the sides of the lot (north and south of the proposed home site). Staff further recommends that the existing

line of trees on the northern side of the Lot 2 driveway be enhanced by additional informal plantings, i.e.

Type III landscape buffer.

Given that surrounding properties are predominately open fields, it seems appropriate to maintain the open

character of the proposed Lot 1. Therefore, staff is not recommending any additional landscape buffers for

Lot 1 beyond the existing vegetation.

Access:

The applicant has proposed a private driveway to access the home site on Lot 2. The applicant will need to

obtain an access permit from the Williston Department of Public Works and the driveway will need to meet

Front setback from ROW (Town highway) 50 feet

Side setback See Chapter 23, if N/A 15 feet

Rear setback See Chapter 23, if N/A 15 feet

Direction Facing Proposed Setback Distance Proposed Vegetation

East side (front) +/- 250ft existing forested vegetation

West side (rear) variable +/- 15 to 75ft existing forested vegetation

North side +/- 15ft line of existing trees spaced roughly 50ft apart

South side +/- 15ft existing forested vegetation



Page

7

WDB Chapter 13 Access-Connectivity Traffic Studies design standards, including perpendicular alignment,

grade, sight distance, and clearance from existing driveways and intersections.

Traffic:

Permits for new single family homes will have to be accompanied by impact fees including traffic impact

fees. Pre-application is also the stage of review where the DRB may ask for a traffic impact study if they so

desire. Staff notes that in Williston, one single family unit would produce just over 1 PM peak hour trip-

ends. Staff does not recommend that the DRB request a traffic study for this project.

Growth Management:

If so authorized, the applicant will proceed with a residential growth management allocation request for one

additional dwelling unit.

Review by other Boards and Town Departments:

Williston’s Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments reviewed the project. Police and Fire had no

comments at this time, and Public Works comments stating the requirement for an access permit and

placement of utility lines underground are included in the attached memo dated 5/17/2016.

The Williston Conservation Commission also reviewed this project and their findings are attached. The

Conservation Commission recommended that:

1. The applicant needs to set aside a minimum of 7.95 acres, or 75% of the 10.6 acres in Williston, as contiguous open space, as required by WDB 31.7. The open space must include all lands within watershed protection buffers and all slopes of 30% or more.

2. The applicant should contact the State wetlands office for written confirmation that the constructed

ponds on the site are not Class 2 wetlands. If determined to be Class 2 wetlands, then a wetland

delineation completed by a professional wetlands scientist will be required. A 25ft buffer for the

Class 3 wetland should be provided on the plans. All building envelopes should be outside of the

delineated wetlands and associated buffers, and existing vegetation within these buffers should

remain undisturbed.

3. Draft documentation for a floating 20’ alternative recreation path easement along Oak Hill Road

should be provided prior to Discretionary Permit approval. The boundary of the easement should be

shown on the plans. A floating easement will allow the landowner and the town flexibility in the

placement of the path if and when the path is established in the future.

4. The homes should be situated in a way that minimizes the visual impact from Oak Hill Rd.

5. The applicant should propose a reconfiguration of the pond overflow outlet to avoid a conflict with

the proposed driveway. This may consist of a culvert or outlet pipe extension to allow passage

under the proposed driveway.

Recommendations:

Staff recommends that this subdivision be authorized to proceed to growth management review with the

following recommendations:

1. The applicant shall file an application for a Discretionary Permit within one year of the date of

Residential Growth Management approval meeting the requirements of the Discretionary Permit

Application Checklist.

2. Provide evidence of any required dedication of lands or easements as required as conditions of

approval.

3. Demonstrate that it meets the requirements for an open space subdivision in the ARZD.



Page

8

4. Provide a water and wastewater plan prepared by a licensed designer.

5. Provide a wetlands delineation meeting the requirements of the State of Vermont completed within

the last five years, for all wetlands on the parent parcel. 6. All proposed findings made by the Williston Conservation Commission at their 6/2/2016 meeting

shall also be adopted as pre-application recommendations.

7. All comments made by the Department of Public Works and stated in their memo dated 5/17/2016

shall also be adopted as pre-application recommendations.

8. The board recommends the southern boundary of the building envelope for Lot #2 be a minimum

of 50’ from the boundary line.

MOTION:

As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, John Hemmelgarn, 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 June 14, 2016, accept the

recommendations proposed by staff for the review of DP 16-23, and authorize the applicant

to proceed to Growth Management Review.

Added recommendation #8: The board recommends the southern boundary of the building

envelope for Lot #2 be a minimum of 50’ from the boundary line.

SECONDED by: Claire Forbes VOTE: 6 AYES - 0

No one spoke from the audience.

7:35 P.M. Closed public hearing for DP 16 - 23.

_______________________________________________________________________________

III. Minutes of May 24, 2016.

MOTION:

I, Peter Kelley, make the motion to approve the minutes of May 24, 2016, as

written.

SECONDED by: John Hemmelgarn VOTE: 6 AYES – 0 NAYS

_______________________________________________________________________________

IV. Communications and Other Business

7:35 P.M. Opened public hearing for HP 15 - 03.

HP 15-03 Certificate of Appropriateness requested by Lawrence Miles to demolish an existing

outbuilding at 7786 Williston Road in the VZD (National Register Historic District).



Page

9

Representing the application was Mr. Lawrence Miles, 54 Woodrose Lane, Colchester, VT.

Mr. Lawrence Miles is the owner of this property and his uncle, Ed (Ed’s Bike Shop), has the bicycle/small

engine business at 7786 Williston Road, just a few doors down from the Annex (P&Z offices), that has

been there forever. The shed building is proposed to be torn down and there would be no replacement

structure or further storage. His uncle is 83 (will be 84 in December) years old, he is legally blind, is doing

less and less, and he fell twice this winter injuring himself. Mr. Miles is setting his mother’s garage up so

his uncle can continue to work on and repair bicycles. He said the shed is currently packed and he felt the

contents were holding up the building. He felt the side wall boards were bowing and buckling. He further

explained everything would be gone and the ground would be seeded with grass seed. He commented he

has talked to the neighbors about what they would like to see. When asked if the neighbors have expressed

concern they were told “no” they didn’t have any concerns.

Board members questioned the engineer’s report apparently made from just peeking in between cracks in

the building (it was locked) as to whether it could be saved or not. The engineer stated he “didn’t go in and

it appeared” it could not be salvaged (building is packed w/bicycles and parts). There was a brief

discussion about the importance of trying to save the structure and consideration of a condition prohibiting

future outdoor storage.

_______________________________________________________________________

Williston Development Review Board – June 14, 2016

Staff Notes- HP 15-03

Application No: HP 15-03 Name: Miles Barn Demolition

Tax Parcel #: 14:104:141.000 Property Address: 7786 Williston Road

Zoning District: Village Zoning District (VZD;

National Register Historic District

Overview: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing outbuilding.

Action Requested:

Because this project is in the National Register Historic District, a Certificate of Appropriateness

from the Williston Development Review Board (DRB) is required. The DRB originally rejected

this proposal and asked for a letter from a structural engineer related to the

The owner of the property is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing

outbuilding. The owner’s uncle, Ed Miles, has operated a bicycle and small-engine repair and sales

business at the location since the mid-1940’s, prior to the establishment of any zoning in Williston.

It is the intent of the owner to demolish the existing outbuilding on the property, which is subsiding

significantly into the ground and is visibly structurally unsound. In concert with this, the owner is

proposing to scale back the outdoor storage of bicycles on the site and to limit future operations to

bicycles only.



Page

10

Demolition:

The existing house on the property was likely built in the 1840’s and the adjacent barn/shed

proposed for demolition was constructed approximately 20 years after the house, according to oral

accounts by the owner. The shed/barn is full to the rafters on the first floor with bicycle parts and

tools, and the owner has stated that it is very likely that the material inside the structure is

supporting the structure at this point. The applicant proposed to demolish the structure and remove

most if not all of the material stored inside. Given the highly-visible subsidence and deterioration of

the structure, the HAAC did not recommend requiring any further expert opinions or research into

the possibility of saving the structure. The DRB however, did require this and a letter from an

engineer has been submitted (see attached).

HAAC Adopted Recommended Conditions of Approval

The HAAC recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition and replacement as

described by the applicant to the Development Review Board, with the following conditions of approval (as

adopted at their meeting of May 4, 2015).

1. The new shed must meet all applicable setbacks.

2. Outdoor storage and display shall not be expanded and shall be reduced as a part of the proposed

demolition and replacement of the structures on the property.

3. Color of the new shed as proposed.

4. Applicant shall plant additional landscaping as proposed.

MOTION:

As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, 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 meeting of June 14, 2016, approve a Certificate of

Appropriateness HP 14-07.

Conditions #1 and #3 were eliminated.

SECONDED by: Peter Kelley VOTE: 6 AYES - 0

7:47 P.M. Closed HP 15 – 03

_____________________________________________________

7:48 P.M. Final Plans for DP 16 – 09 Kismet Development

*Mr. Hemmelgarn recused himself from this discussion.

DP 16 – 09: Kismet Development (Sharon Gutwin), 338, Southfield Drive, and People’s United Bank,

421 Blair Park, (850 Main Street, 5th

FL, Bridgeport, CT 06604-4913), requests final plans review to

construct a 20,000 sq. ft. building, parking and landscaping for Rehab Gym and other business

offices at 421 Blair Park Road, in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD).



Page

11

Representing the application was Ms. Sharon Gutwin, RG – Kismet, 30 Hawthorne, Williston, and

Mr. Bob Bickford, Wright & Morrissey, Inc., PO Box 421, Burlington 05402.

Mr. Boulanger reviewed the submission of the Final Plans and some material that still needed to submitted

for review. DPW had not yet completed its review of the submissions and could not provide comment in

time for the hearing. Including in some of the conditions of approval are a formal agreement of an

easement with People’s Bank for shared parking and the development agreement. Condition #17 was about

the project relating to design review and the presence on the street (Rt 2A). Some board members were of

the opinion the façade facing Rt 2A looked like the back of the building and regulations required a street

presence of buildings along 2A. The applicant has proposed adding an awning over a door facing Rt 2A.

The board, the applicant and Mr. Bickford went back and forth about what the street presence might look

like and why did it need a presence. Board members compared it to Lot 30 building (Panera Bread, Aspen

Dental, Sleepy Mattress, etc.); front and back doors; doors being locked; security issues of having two

‘front’ doors; interior space changes with second ‘street’ presence; walkway access from 2A; nearby bus

stop; by comparison Maple Tree Place having lots of blank walls, big box with no windows; use of awning;

running a business with more than one entrance; landscaping; walking around the building; trying to

facilitate slow changes including the ‘presence of buildings” on routes such as 2A; thoughts of landscaping

softening the appearance; not many people would be using the 2A access; the board members not wanting

to design the project for the applicant. They were not ready to sign off on the Final Plans.

*Mr. Hemmelgarn returned to the hearing for deliberations.

________________________________________________________________________________

8:29 P.M. Closed hearings for deliberations.

_______________________________________

9:40 P.M. Opened hearing after deliberations

________________________________________

V. Adjournment

MOTION:

John Bendzunas made the motion to adjourn the meeting.

SECONDED by: John Hemmelgarn VOTE: 7 – 0 AYES

9:48 P.M. The meeting was adjourned.

For further information, please call the Planning & Zoning offices at 878-6704 or visit the offices in the

Annex at 7878 Williston Road.

See attachments for: DP 16 – 23 Lake View Farm and DP 16 – 09 People’s United Bank / Kismet Rehab



Page

12



Page

13



Page

14



Page

15

Documents

TOWN OF WILLISTONF506B13C-605B... · 2016. 7. 6. · March 2010. The applicant is proposing adding a single family dwelling out of the 15.3 acre lot to be subdivided of which 10.6