The development review board heard from applicants regarding matters of subdivision, landscaping and planned unit development review on April 2.

268 Market St.

Snyder-Braverman Development Co. LLC. has a sketch plan application and conditional use application for a property at 268 Market Street located in the Form Based Code District. Typically, applications in this district are handled administratively, but some items, such as subdivisions, still come before the development review board.

Sketch plan requested the board permission to subdivide an existing 4.1-acre lot into three lots of 3.26 acres (Lot B1), 0.38 acres (Lot B2), and 0.45 acres (Lot B3) for the purpose of constructing a project on Lots B2 and B3 which will be reviewed under separate site plan application. The conditional use application proposes to extend the regulations of the Form-Based Code Transect 4 zoning district up to 50-feet into the Form-Based Code Transect 5 zoning district to allow construction of a driveway access nearer than currently permitted to Market Street.

The board did not review the applications in detail, as the applicant requested a continuance to May 7, 2019, which the board granted.

1519 and 1525 Shelburne Rd., 5 Bartlett Bay Rd.

The first application of the night for full review was preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-09 of Antonio B. Pomerleau, LLC and Blue Dragon, LLC to re-subdivide three lots at 1519 and 1525 Shelburne Rd. and 5 Barlett Bay Rd. This application came before the board a year ago and is regarding three properties under the same ownership. They were previously part of a planned unit development (PUD) but were then the board removed the PUD designation for these three lots in 2011 and subdivided them into their current configurations. The review board did issue final plat approval for subdivision of these lots on March 21, 2018, but since final plat was not recorded within 180 days of approval, the approval had become null and void.

The applicants came before the board for a subdivision and boundary line adjustment request; with no major issues raised, the board moved to close the application.

1680 Shelburne Rd.

Next up was SeaComm Federal Credit Union, which presented a preliminary and final plat application (#SD-19-08) to the board to amend a previously approved PUD for a four-story 63-unit multi-family dwelling. The amendment consisted of constructing a one-story, 3,500 square- foot financial institution with three drive-through lanes and 20 parking spaces on one acre at 1680 Shelburne Rd.

The board reviewed the sketch plan for this project at the end of January earlier this year. In 2015, the property was subdivided from the property containing Bartlett Bay Apartments in 2015 and is included in the PUD approved as part of that subdivision, according to staff notes. The property is in the Transit Overlay District, the Traffic Overlay District Zone 3, and the Urban Design Overlay District.

Since the application was previously-approved and the applicant is looking to make an amendment, the applicant needed to demonstrate how the PUD standards, including compatibility with adjoining uses, are met, according to staff. It was also subject to site plan review, the first site plan application for the property.

Jeff Olesky, representing the applicant, reviewed a series of requirements, such as glazing requirements, rooftop elements, erosion control requirements, screening the parking area from Shelburne Road, addressing fire chief concerns, stormwater requirements, tree protection, and bike storage (four short-term and two long-term bike storage facilities are required).

With no major issues indicated, the board closed the application.

435 Dorset St.

The last application of the evening was a continued site plan application of Champlain Housing Trust. The previously-approved site plan was for a 104-unit multi-building residential complex at 435 Dorset St., the Dorset Commons development, and the amendment requests the board to grant a revised application to help remove trees. There are many trees that are close to existing buildings and not in their best health. There are 1,200 trees on the site.

The over-landscaping of the project was previously discussed at the board’s March 5 hearing. The applicant, represented by Chip Patullo – construction manager for Champlain Housing Trust – returned with proof that all abutters were properly notified, and he submitted two plans: one showing the existing tree cover and another showing the proposed tree cover after removing 109 trees.

Board members agreed that this was an aesthetic and health issue. Board member John Wilking quipped that it was also a human health issue since it is unlikely enough sunlight is reaching the homes.

The applicant addressed a few non-conformities that staff identified, such as screening around utility cabinets, a non-compliant light fixture and bike storage. The applicant provided solutions for all of these.

David Crawford, chair of the Natural Resources Committee, asked if there was a landscape management or replacement plan in place. While recognized as a proactive idea, such plans are not reviewable for site plans; they are recognized for planned unit developments.

With the consensus met on this project, the board moved to close this hearing.

The board rounded the evening out by voting to adopt that amendments to the Development Review Board’s Rules of Procedure remove the Conflict of Interest policy and refer instead to the City-wide Conflict of Interest Policy, which was adopted by the city council on Dec. 3, 2018.

The board will meet next on Tuesday, April 16 at 7 p.m. at city hall.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.