Chittenden County, Vermont City of Winooski, 21 Jul 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Winooski Development Review Board - 7/21/2022

Description

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.winooskivt.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07212022-972?html%3Dtrue&sa=D&source=calendar&ust=1658869637406463&usg=AOvVaw0LmoJgn6uPjwLIUbmAoUmT

00:00:00 Call to Order/Changes to the Agenda
00:00:04 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:02:35 Public Comment
00:03:58 262 North Street Minor Subdivision – Sketch Plan Review
00:22:08 Election of Officers
00:22:48 City Updates

This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

A

I will call to order: do we have any changes to the agenda? I believe not.

B

A

uh Is tradition? We usually approve the previous meetings minutes which I did review earlier today. I had no substantive changes, but you said david might have had a couple comments.

C

Yeah david uh provided one comment to the uh to art to item five: the public hearing. Basically just some clarification in the language. It was nothing substantive, just more of a um a minor issue to uh to just better better represent what was said. Okay,.

A

Should we wait and see what that is.

C

um I can it basically, let's see what.

C

It was sorry, let me bring up the existing minutes, so I can tell you.

C

I just heard him, I think, oh, that was you. Oh sorry, uh let's see.

C

There we are sorry, so the minutes previously stated.

C

Where am I here?

C

The minutes previously, mr corcell provided an overview of the applicant's position to staff comments regarding the standards for subdivision, as outlined in section 6.2 david suggested. Having that read, mr corcell provided clarification in regards to staff comments on the standards for subdivisions, as outlined in section. 6.2 sounds reasonable, so otherwise there were no specific comments offered I'll.

A

Entertain a motion to approve last meetings minutes with the changes provided by eric.

B

I'll, second, that.

A

That's a motion actually right, emotion,.

C

Yes, okay, motion.

A

Somebody else seconds.

C

And it looks like actually, we lost david, so caitlyn you're. Our third now.

C

Was that a second caitlyn yeah? Okay? Thank you.

A

Excellent, all in favor hi, that's all of us motion carries thank you. So we approved the minutes. Okay. um Public comment. Do we need to offer that we.

C

Do yes, a couple.

A

C

The office, so we have the applicant here um so public comment is a time for folks to provide comments on items not on the agenda. um So if you're here for an item, that's not on the agenda, you can make comments now. Otherwise you will have an opportunity to provide any comments during the agenda item uh and it looks like david is actually on his way here so okay, so he will be showing up in person here before long.

A

Perfect, um I know we just started, but should we wait a couple minutes for him to show up or do you want to keep moving.

C

I think we can I'll leave that up to you. If you would prefer to wait, we can I mean he lives, two minutes up the road so he's uh he just pulled in. Actually, I think so so.

B

If you would, if.

C

You want to wait. Let me just double check.

A

We're going to pause for two minutes while he comes in. Thank you very much for your patience.

C

As he's walking in the door right now,.

A

Hey welcome. I apologize made.

B

A

In time we are about to begin the sketch plan review for 262 north street a minor subdivision. We have someone on behalf of the applicant here to present their ideas.

C

Yeah, so I'll do a quick overview here tonight we have uh gail henderson king from white and burke, who is representing the property owner and applicant uh she'll, provide a more detailed overview here about what's going on, but just to set the stage here. uh This is a sketch plan review tonight for a proposed two lot subdivision. All subdivisions in the city first come before the drb as a sketch plan.

C

This is not a formal hearing, but after this meeting we will provide comments back to the applicant in advance of their formal submission for a preliminary plan. uh One of the items we'll be discussing tonight is whether or not that submission comes forward as a preliminary final as a combined plan or comes back as a preliminary and then later as a final plan.

C

uh The applicants also has included a request for a waiver which we can provide comment on uh as well and and what what information we might have regarding the the waiver that's being proposed.

C

So the comments that are sent from the development review board are non-binding, they're advisory and then, like I said, the a formal submission will come in as a preliminary plan that will be a public hearing again with notification to the adjacent property owners this time by formal certified mail. This last mailing was just regular mail because again it's not a formal hearing, so uh just to give you a little table setting about what is happening tonight uh and with that I will eric.

D

With the waiver get voted on with the actual submission.

C

Correct that's correct! Yes, the waiver would go with the submission. The intent of the of the discussion for the sketch plan purposes is whether or not there would be support with the waiver as it's presented or any modifications that might be made so that we can provide feedback to the applicant on whether or not that may be supported going forward, because it may impact the overall design of this. uh The design layout of the subdivision, and they may need to make changes on that in that regard.

A

Elsie reminded me that we should swear everyone in.

C

uh Actually for this we don't have to because it's not a hearing, so we don't need to swear folks in tonight. um Again we don't need to do the formality of those items. Okay, not a public hearing. She looks trustworthy.

D

C

So with that, I will unless sorry, if there's any questions about what what's happening tonight, what your role is no.

A

Please introduce yourself and uh take it away.

E

Sure I'm gail henderson king with white and burke, and I'm representing my clients, brick house properties, into noses regarding property at 242 north street, we're proposing a two lot subdivision and just some quick background.

E

This had been proposed as a subdivision, two lot subdivision, uh four or five years ago of 2016. I believe and it started the process, and maybe some of you were on the board. Then I remember it, but there was some conflicting boundary lines and uh barns that existed kind of on two properties, so that got cleaned up um so that everything is now on. Just this proposed lot. Actually the budding property owner took down the other structure so or somebody took down the other structure.

E

So anyway, it's now clean, simple in terms of the existing property and as I mentioned, we're proposing a two lot subdivision: there's an existing uh multi-family residence. That's on the property, that's grandfathered in under the zoning due to its being there for a number of years, so.

B

We're proposing the.

E

Second lot, both lots will meet the proposed uh minimum district minimum zoning district requirements. This is in the ra zoning district, so it meets those requirements for each lot. We've shown the proposed of building envelope and again, a substantial residence can be constructed there at this time, we're not proposing any residents on the property we're just proposing with subdivision.

E

So at that point, when a residence is proposed, then everything regarding storm water and connections to the water waste water system would all be, and the driveway access would all be taken care of at that time, since we don't have anything to show we're, not proposing anything we're just proposing the subdivision we are requesting, because this is just a pretty straightforward two lot subdivision.

E

We would like to request coming in for a preliminary final combined hearing, rather than a preliminary and a final hearing separate, we feel that that would be acceptable and then under modifications and waivers uh there's um the existing parking lot, which originally was on both the abutting property and this property is now it goes to the property line. It has an existing fence that surrounds the property we'd like a waiver to to be able to leave that parking lot there, as well as there's an existing porch. That's on.

E

um The south side of the property that actually um is in the setback, uh the things the proposed setback that we would like a waiver that that entrance is not used uh for the tenants in the building. At this time.

A

Eric would you mind, sharing your screen and not.

C

At all yeah I was just I was just about to do that so first, I am going to share uh just to do a little kind of orientation.

C

First, I want to share. So this is the property in question here. This is 262 north street adjacent to landry park. Myers memorial pool the tiger industrial park up here as well. So it's it's not super far up north street, but it's far enough. It's into where it transitions to the to the residential, a zoning district.

C

And here is the existing conditions with the proposed lot boundary, and here is the proposed subdivision with building envelope shown. Let me pull.

C

So the area in question for the waiver is: is this porch? Oh geez, this porch here on the on the existing property in this in this 15 foot setback the other area for the parking is along this northern boundary?

C

I don't know if that actually requires a waiver, because it's still it's, I believe it's five feet from the property boundary. Is that correct, gail.

E

C

Yeah, so our regulations allow for driveways to be in the setback up to five feet to the property boundary and we do allow parking in the driveways.

C

So I don't think this actually needs a waiver, because it's within five feet and it's consistent with how we treat other other residences is that we allow for driveways and we allow for parking and we have in the past, I believe, allowed for parking in areas like this. uh In addition, I believe the size of the waiver that's being requested for this would not.

C

It would actually have to go through a variance process and wouldn't most likely wouldn't meet the five standards for a variance, because the most relief you're allowed to grant to a setback is is 50 so, but I don't think this needs a waiver, um that's something I'm still looking into, but again based on past precedent.

C

I don't believe we need a waiver for that for this setback, but the porch here, because it's a structure, would need a waiver, it's with it's a five-foot waiver, so it would still have a 10-foot setback on that property, which would be something that you all could grant.

D

So can you talk about the reason the the lines are laid out? This way? Does the the two new lots just barely meet the area requirements? What's the reason not to move that line down five feet to the south and then not need a waiver for the porch.

E

It just starts to make that front part of the lot narrow and that's kind of the largest of the proposed lot. That's kind of the largest part of the lot, and that most likely would be where the residents would potentially go. So that's you know just we'd like to be able to leave it like that and again, because it's not being used by the tenants for access. We thought that it, it wasn't a you know. It's not.

E

We thought it would be a reasonable request.

C

So yeah david to your question, uh the the the minimum lot size for this zoning district is 10 000 square feet. The existing property is almost an acre. It's just over 38 000 square feet, so this would result in the the current lot a or the remainder of the lot a would be about 19 500 square feet and lot b. The new lot would be just over 18 and a half thousand square feet. That's.

D

What I remembered from the submission is that they weren't they were, they were substantially over the minimum correct that was required. So it's more an issue of the desirability of the lot for sale is what it sounds like and for for development.

D

Would you say that that moving that down would be a deal killer for this division like if we ask you to do that? Does that make it a no-go.

E

I don't think it's a deal killer. I just think it just gets it again. Just gets it tight on the coast lot and unfortunately we can't pick up and move the existing residents if we could. That would make it a lot easier.

E

But we can, we can look at that and see if we can make that adjustment.

B

Because it might not really even go ahead, it.

D

Might not well, I guess it's going to limit the building envelope a little bit, because the driveway could probably stay. What did we just say eric it's five, five.

C

Feet: yeah five feet from the from uh adjacent property boundary unless it's a multi, unless it's serving multiple uh dwellings and then it can actually be, it can cross the property boundary.

A

uh No, I was going to see caitlyn any questions from online.

E

No, I don't have any questions right now.

D

Where's, the fence that you uh talked about.

E

There's an existing fence along the northern property line of the existing residence, which is, I believe, it's right on the property line or pretty close both on the north side and on the west side. There's also a fence on the back of the property.

C

Not sure if it shows up on this yeah, it's it is listed on this. I wouldn't.

E

I think it's on the existing conditions. Yes, yep.

C

Here it mentions a wooden fence.

A

uh Remind me what the um where the dispute was in the past or the the thing that was in question.

E

The property to that there was the property along the northern property line. There were actually two lots there, so the lot that was on the north west side had part of the existing garage and that garage had been there for years. I guess so, and there was some land on the west side of the lot.

E

That was um the boundary line. Adjustment adjusted there in in exchange for uh dealing with the barn and getting.

A

E

Taking that down, yeah.

A

D

Other questions from the board, so when you said that the the original building was grandfathered in it doesn't seem like there's any um violations, you just mean that it was existing. It's.

E

Just existing and in the zoning district you're only allowed two residential units on a lot, and this is a I believe, there's five units in this building. So that's pre-existing.

D

Five apartments in there- yes,.

C

That's correct.

D

So if we make a new lot with that on it does that require some sort of variance or waiver. It.

C

It does not because it's a pre-existing non-conforming use, so the use can remain as.

D

B

Long as the lot.

C

Itself is uh in this case. The lot is what would need to meet the minimum standards and come into con conformance with our current regulations. Now, if they were proposing changes to the building as well, then we would need to look at whether or not it would. It would meet any thresholds to come into conformance.

C

We do allow for pre-existing non-conformities to to exist and to make changes and alterations within some certain parameters um so that they can continue.

A

C

Request waivers, uh they.

A

C

They can do that as well.

A

Even if it's non-conforming.

C

I believe so, yes, because again, because they're not proposing any changes to the structure itself right, just creating a new lot in order to in order to make the the structure conforming to the minimum dimensional standards.

B

So, hypothetically, I don't know if this is something that's of interest but to tear down that porch. That is, over the encroachment.

B

Which would put this into compliance with that then put that structure.

C

I don't believe so because the degree of non-conformity is not being is not increasing.

B

A

D

Where are the entrances to the five apartments? Is it all on the driveway side, or is that porch actually an entrance to one of the.

E

I don't believe that porch is used as an entrance. uh The the entrance on the west side of the house is used the porch area on the north side, as well as there's an entrance that got put on the north east side. I believe that that was this. You know the entrances, I don't know, I don't know the configuration inside of how they work, but those are the um entrances that are used.

D

There's various doors yeah, okay,.

C

It's possible that may also be required as a means of egress, because it is a five unit building, so there may need to be something there anyway, even if they were to remove the porch they might. You still need to have some.

B

Stair or something.

C

A

I have no further questions.

A

E

Sure thank you. I really appreciate you holding the meeting tonight. I realize that we're the only ones here. Thank you.

A

That's all right.

E

In terms of the um requests for the waivers and the request for this going to preliminary final as one hearing is that something that you will decide tonight or is that something that we hear from so.

C

E

A

Yes, so there it is we'll deliberate on and then eric will write up a decision. Okay, yeah.

C

I believe that the requirement is that, within 15 days of the sketch plan meeting a letter needs to be sent to the applicant super.

E

And not being familiar with your process, do you deliberate tonight, or do you deliberate at another meeting, we'll.

D

Probably deliberate tonight generally well, if it's not too complicated and we're not too tired. Okay,.

E

Super thank you.

A

I see we also have a member of the public. Do you wish to speak? I'm.

E

Sorry, I couldn't hear a lot, so I'm a I'm one of the neighbors and this was.

C

A

Okay, do you have any comments or concerns you want to share with us.

C

This is uh miss carol, chapman she's, the neighbor to the direct west. This is her property here on the behind behind the uh the proposal.

A

Okay, excellent well, thank you very much. Thank you for both of you coming now. um Our next order of business will be the election of officers.

C

A

C

We can postpone this item to the next meeting until we have more members here. I would like to that's that's. I think that would be appropriate. You want to be king for life because technically right now, the three of you are the only ones that could be well. I guess you could nominate somebody who's not here, but uh caitlyn is not eligible to be an uh an officer since she's an alternate, um but I I would.

C

I would recommend that since there's only three of you here tonight that we postpone the the election of officers to a future meeting, I.

A

Think that's an excellent idea. I think that's a good.

B

C

Any city updates- um I don't have anything specific unless there's anything you all want to to learn about or or know about, or have questions about.

A

No, I don't think so. Okay, um okay, uh do we need a motion to close the meeting.

C

We should, I think we should have emotional.

A

Entertain a motion to close the meeting so motion.

B

A

B

A

The meeting is adjourned great. Thank you. Walter.