Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. So, we are going to call the November 20th Development Review Board meeting to order. It is 4:39. Um 6:39 that is two hours behind. Just blindly trusted that it is 6:39. Thank you, Michael. Um yeah. And then can I run through the and then keep going? Yeah. And then next would be uh asking for addition. Are there any additions or amendments to the agenda?

Yes. Uh I am going to omit agenda item 3B which is approval of the November 6th minutes. We um proactively warned uh a joint meeting with the planning commission and city council um who looked at a uh a project together. Um there was some interest among development review board members in attending that meeting but quorum was not reached. So there are no minutes for the board to approve. So omission of agenda item 3B and that's it.

Okay. And then next we are going to do public to be heard. So I believe that is anyone that has anything that is not on the agenda that they wanted to discuss. Hearing nothing. All right. So, moving on to section three, minutes for approval. So, we are looking at the September 18th, 2025 minutes. Do I have to open anything or do I are there any comments or changes?

Uh, I do have a few corrections to be made all around uh people's names. Uh Sharon Willie Padnos and Steven Willie Padnos's names were spelled incorrectly and I'll amend that. Uh Mr. Freyy's name was misspelled at the bottom of page two and middle of page three. And I think there was a misattribution of first names between Guy Hunter and John Workman. So I will get those fixed as well.

Okay. Any other comments on the minutes? Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes as amended by Michael? I move that we approve the minutes as amended. Second. All in favor? I

I motion passes. Thanks, gang. All right. I think we need Should you have already read it? Yeah, I'll go ahead and read our script. All right, so the meeting of the Essex Junction Development Review Board has come to order. This meeting is a hybrid meeting, which means that some or all of the public body is meeting remotely and some are meeting physically at two Lincoln Street in Essex Junction, where the public may attend to observe, listen, and participate contemporaneously. One member of this public body or other staff is present at two Lincoln Street to ensure the public can participate if desired. Please note that while we will strive to provide a means for those attending remotely to participate during the public comment period, there may be technical difficulties or reasons that otherwise prevent or interrupt remote public participation. Therefore, it is important to note that the open meeting law only ensures the public's right to participate and comment at a public meeting by attending at the designated physical location as posted in the notice and agenda. If a member of the public or public body has technical difficulties accessing this meeting remotely, please alert me by using the chat feature on Zoom or by emailing me at mg uexjunction.org. And in the event of a technical difficulty that cannot be resolved, we may continue the meeting if necessary to Thursday, December 18th at 6:30 p.m. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. As required by open meeting law, let's start by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating tonight and having those uh starting with those attending remotely by identifying themselves by name to ensure they can hear and be heard throughout the meeting. We'll start with Luke.

Luke Brockmire, Dylan Zookie. Great. Uh I will next swear in interested parties and anyone presenting on a topic tonight. So, for our two guests presenting on the 67 Lincoln Street agenda item, if you would raise your right hand and take this the following oath. I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Thank you.

Thanks. You're welcome. All right. So, it looks like we have conceptual and final site plans. So, yep. So, procedurally, um you'll start by opening the conceptual as if it was uh a separate agenda item. Okay. All right. Do I motion that or just uh you as the as the vice chair would uh just state that you are opening the public hearing and you would do so by reading word for word the agenda item posting. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to open the the public meeting. Public meeting.

Okay. for the conceptual site plan application for the addition of two apartments and one commercial space within the existing mixeduse building with three existing apartments and one commercial space at 67 Lincoln Street in the MFMU2 district by Lincoln Street Station LLC owner. Great. You typically start by asking the applicant or applicants agents to give a preview of the project. You guys mind coming up and previewing the project? into the microphone, please. And then will you state your name before?

Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Nick Daly. I'm one of the members of Lincoln Street Station LLC. My name is Jeff Motto and the the other member of Lincoln Street Station LLC. Yeah. So just a overview description.

Sure. So the the proposed uh renovations to 67 Lincoln Street are to renovate the existing space which is currently made up of three residential apartments and a large commercial space that's currently unused. Uh to renovate that existing empty space into two additional residential apartments. Um and then splitting the remaining commercial space into two separate commercial units for a total of five residential apartments, two commercial spaces upon one commercial space upon completion. All right. So, next up, you would typically uh ask for um any written information um that's been presented as a part of this. And I do have written comments from John Alden uh chair of development review board who could not attend tonight. Um so, I'll read his comments word for word and then turn it back over to you where you'll typically uh you and other board members ask questions of the applicants. After that concludes, you turn to the public comment period. All right. So, John Alden writes, uh, I've gone through the original packet info. All looks good to me. Uh, my thoughts, please share with the board as appropriate at the meeting. Uh, item one, uh, the outstanding shed violation at the bottom of page three. I think we have a regulation about not allowing any processing or approval of new applications if there are outstanding violations on the books. I agree that this shed can be included on this application and therefore be brought into compliance with the approval of this current application. Item two, lighting. Yes, they need a plan and to submit cut sheets to be approved as compliant. This can be done by staff. Item three, dumpster needs to be

resolved. Staff can take care of that. Item number four, landscaping. I am okay with the notion that existing buildings can have a toned down landscaping investment, but we should possibly apply the cost of the renovations as the dollar amount to use for the percent of project cost spent on new landscaping. I feel that they must show a plan of some kind with designated plantings prior to board approval. If they have to swap some things out later because of availability or something, this is fine with an amend with an amendment acceptable to staff, but they need to have something on paper now that we can react to. Uh, kicking the can down the road is the first step to not doing anything. John then also writes, "I have also reviewed the supplemental supplemental material just sent. I am okay with that and the updated recommended motions. I would like to pin down the extent of the requested waiver. We usually grant only the smallest amount necessary to satisfy the plan. So if they need 67.7%, we are allowing a waiver above the allowed of 2.7%, not up to 80%. Frankly, if they already have existing at 67.7, we are not really granting anything but acknowledging that is it is an existing non-conforming lot at this lot coverage. I would prefer to simply acknowledge that than grant a waiver. Up to you and your desired recordeping.

All right. All right. Um Luke Dylan, did you have any comments or questions? Yeah. I'm just curious if staff has um feedback or thoughts on John's comments.

Yes. So, I'll start with the uh the I'll start with the let's start with the big picture view of procedurally uh what happened here. So, um at the time your packet was delivered last Friday on November 14th, um my written staff report to you all recommended approving their proposed plan for conceptual approval. but uh to continue the final approval at a later date due to some outstanding staff comments and you were able to read that in my staff report. However, between last Friday and the hearing and the meeting tonight, um the applicants have presented site plan changes. Um so that came between the time that your packet was delivered and tonight's meeting. I presented those updates to you in summary form in a memorandum and showed you their updated site plan. Uh, and I also posted that to the city's website so that anyone um interested in tonight's meeting could view that. Um, based on the updates provided and I'm happy to go through each one individually if that would be helpful. Um, staff find that the outstanding comments that we had on this project have have been completely addressed and thus I updated my uh recommended motions to approve this project for both conceptual and final during tonight's meeting. Uh next I'll move on to the the waiver request. So as it currently exists uh 67 Lincoln Street has lot existing lot coverage of 67.7% lot coverage. Uh that's above the district allowed maximum of 65%. So this is considered an existing nonconformity. totally fine. Um until the applicant goes to expand the square footage um of the lot coverage. When this application was originally brought to us, there was no proposed increase in lot coverage. As they stated, it's primarily interior work. They're adding some walls to uh make some apartment space. However, in

this most recent site plan update, in order to bring that shed that appeared to be on the property boundary into compliance, they're now moving that fully onto their property. And that of course increases lot coverage by the square footage of the shed which is 230 square feet. In this most recent site plan update, they've also proposed a new walkway um which is 126 square ft uh drawn in light gray on the uh site plan on your screen. So what I would propose and I have drafted a uh recommended conditional of approval for this if the board finds these changes to be amendable um would be to grant the applicants their requested waiver increasing the proposed lot coverage to 70.04% and the recommended condition of approval would be applicant shall revise their zoning permit application to reflect the increase in proposed lot coverage to 70.04% 04% for the proposed walkway and shed relocation prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. So from a technical perspective, this would satisfy John Alden's comment uh that the board typically should be granting waiverss just to the smallest increase necessary to satisfy the plan, which this would do. And by specifically naming the walkway and shed in that condition of approval, uh this would only allow the applicants to add square footage for those two exact things and not say amend their application after board approval.

And we could grant conditional approval this evening and they would just need to resubmit their permit application to you and then that would not need to come before the full board before they they get a sign off. That's right. So you would Yeah. basically from a a procedural perspective be agreeing to the increase in square footage from the shed and the walkway. We would ask the uh applicant to just write that on their permit application and would proceed with with just what you're seeing tonight. Just moving the shed onto the property and the the the walkway and the other site plan features as drawn.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Did the uh tree advisory gang weigh in at all?

I did get some comments in an earlier version of this site plan from Nick Meyer with the tree advisory committee um earlier on in this uh project's um life life. we had um less specificity in terms of the number of shrubs and plantings on the property which the applicants have since uh drawn on their site plan. Um Nick also did mention that the the Norway maple which is drawn on their site plans to be readded um used to be on the property but has since been removed and the applicant is uh proposing on planting that back in. And uh Nick did not note any overhead utility conflicts or anything that would otherwise uh conflict with this plan. Yeah, and I would say that I'm I'm generally in agreement with John. Uh I think that making sure that they file a lighting plan with staff. Um, I guess I'm not 100. What? So, we we have a landscaping plan of putting in mulched beds, right? And adding the one tree.

Yes, that's correct.

If it's helpful also to note, Mike, is that the along with that The intention is to return some of the overgrowth that's currently on the property to so that it that to make it more line up with exactly what's on that picture, which is kind of bringing those trees that were standalone trees, you know, back to the forefront, so to speak. Um because there's some overgrowth that needs to be addressed really. Uh which is just kind of cleanup type stuff. But I think once that's done, it'll it'll match those trees that are already that are there are kind of covered up a little bit by the overgrowth currently. Um especially near that that new walkway. And I'll comment on light lighting since you brought it up. Um, in my staff report, I drafted a condition of approval that says, um, applicant shall submit manufacturers cut sheets or similar technical specifications of proposed light fixtures, uh, to city staff to ensure compliance with section 704 of the LDC prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. So, um, that way we'll be able to verify that they're downshielded and dark sky compliant, just as all uh, city lighting must be. Yeah. And that satisfies me.

Okay. So, you can continue with board questions or turn it over for the public comment period whenever you're ready. All right. I think board questions seem to be satisfied. So, is there any public comment? Okay. So then we're in

at this point you can um entertain a motion to close the public meeting and continue to deliberate as a development review board. Um and then make a motion um which I've got the recommended motions in your memo or staff report. Um and this would just be for conceptual um we would move on to final as a separate agenda item. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Public or public meeting. Thank you. I'd move that we close the public hearing.

Public meeting. Second public meeting. All in favor? I I I.

All right. So we now are going to vote on the conceptual with the So can I get a motion with the I would move that we approve the conceptual site plan with the caveat that the applicant submits. revised their zoning permit to reflect the 70.4% lot coverage prior to the issuance of the zoning permit.

Would you also include other conditions as uh written in the staff report? Yes. And I would I would propose that we also include other conditions as included in the staff report.

I'll second. All in favor? I I Okay, so motion passes. So we had closed the public meeting. Do we go straight into the And yeah, now you as vice chair would open the public hearing for final site plan approval. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm going to open the public hearing for the final site plan application for the addition of two apartments and one commercial space within the existing mixeduse building with three existing apartments and one commercial space at 67 Lincoln Street in the MFMU district by Lincoln Street Station LLC owner.

And so then we repeat the whole process unlikely that new information will be presented. Um, so you are are welcome to make the motions as we just did um at your discretion. Do you have any additional materials you'd like to present in this new public hearing? No. No, ma'am. All right. Are there any additional questions from board members? Not familiar. I don't see any public on here, but are there any public comments or questions? None other than the written correspondence uh added during the conceptual site plan period from John Alden.

I thought you were about to read a whole new got a bonus. You held back. No further public comments. Okay. Um, so then I guess a motion to close the public hearing. Is that where we're at, Michael? I would move that we close [snorts] the public hearing. I second. All in favor? I

Okay, motion carries. So now the DRB deliberates, which I think staffing Okay. Has once again given us the motion and I think we just want to add in that same 70. Yep. So 7%. Yep. So you could read the uh you could read the um recommended motion in your memo and add the caveat as discussed at the end of it. Um and that condition of approval reflecting the lot coverage increed in the minutes and added to the findings effect. So you would just read it verbatim and say as discussed.

I don't know that I can make the motions guys.

Yeah. Yeah. I move that the DRB approve the final site plan for the addition of two apartments and commercial space within the existing mixeduse building at 67 Lincoln Street in the MFMU2 District by Lincoln Street Station LLC owners with the following conditions. All staff comments shall be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. Applicant shall submit the manufacturer's cut sheets or similar technical specifications of the proposed light fixture replacements to city staff to ensure compliance with section 704 of the LDC prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. All new landscaping materials shall meet the tree selection guide from the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Program as specified in section 719F of the LDC. Applicant shall submit a sewer allocation request form and pay all applicable sewer allocation fees prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. And the waiver shall be granted up to 70.4% lot coverage as discussed. as discussed.

Is there something that any like landscaping changes be like brought back or like we are notified or the Yeah. Uh section five of the LDC um specifies how big of a change triggers board approval. Um I can pull that up if desired, but it distinguishes between a major site plan approval and minor site plan approval. Small changes in terms of like the exact placement of bushes and trees are typically administratively approval, but okay. Large changes to the overall concept of a landscape landscaping plan uh typically need to come back to the board for approval. Administrative approval was kind of what I was hoping for. So, okay.

And then we would need a second on Luke's motion. I would second that. All in favor? I I did Dylan speak and I shouldn't hear. I Sorry. Thanks, Dylan. All right. [laughter] Motion carries. Thank you both so much for coming tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right. So, moving on. Is there any other development review board items to be discussed? Uh, we do need to reschedule our March meeting, but I'm going to, um, correspond via email to take care of that. Um, I would have you check your calendar for Wednesday, March 18th or Thursday, March 26th, um, as a preview, but I'll send a follow-up email about that tomorrow. Other than that, I don't have anything else. Okay. So, journment. Really don't like that word. Uh, do I need a motion to

You do. Can I get a motion to close the meeting? I move that we adjourn. I do. You need a motion to close the public hearing or to adjurnn? Uh, we just need a second, Luke. Second. All in favor? I I All right, we're all set with a quick one. Thanks, gang. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for calling in. Have a good night. You, too. Okay, so it's

open the public meeting. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat.