epa community relations plan woolson block 31-41 main street … · 2019-01-02 · vermont. contact...

EPACommunityRelationsPlanWoolsonBlock

31-41MainStreetSpringfield,Vermont

December21,2018

Preparedby:SpringfieldHousingUnlimited

c/oHousingVermont100BankStreet,Suite400Burlington,Vermont05401

SpringfieldHousingAuthority

80MainStreetSpringfield,Vermont05156

SouthernWindsorCountyRegionalPlanningCommission

38AscutneyParkRoad,POBox320Ascutney,Vermont05030

CommunityRelationsPlanWoolsonBlock,Springfield,Vermont

December21,2018

Page2of5

ContentsA. OverviewandBackground 3B. CommunityRelationsPlan 3C. SpokespersonandInformationRepository 4E. ChronologyofCommunityInvolvement 4F. CommunitySupportLetters 5G. KeyCommunityConcerns 5H. ContinuedCommunityInvolvement 5Appendices:A. MapsB. PublicHearingInformationC. CommunityInvolvementSupportDocumentsD. CommunityandGovernmentalSupportCorrespondence


December21,2018

Page3of5

A. OverviewandBackgroundThisdocumentisaCommunityRelationsPlan(CRP)fortheWoolsonBlockat31-41MainStreetinSpringfield,Vermont(property).Thepropertyconsistsofa0.3-acreparcelonthewestsideofMainStreet.MapsshowingthesitelocationandthepropertyboundariesareincludedinAppendixA.PreparationofthisplanwasfundedusingEPABrownfieldsFundingawardedtoSouthernWindsorCountyRegionalPlanningCommission(SWCRPC).ThepropertyisknownastheWoolsonBlock,andisathree-story,mixed-usecommercialandresidentialbuilding.Duetothepoorconditionofthebuildingitiscurrentlyunoccupiedandisawaitingrenovationsbeforeitisputbacktouse.Thebuildingfootprintcoverstheentirelot.ThebuildingislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaceswithintheSpringfieldDowntownHistoricDistrict.Originallybuiltin1868forcommercialuse,ithashadvariousadditionsandmodificationsinthelate19thand20thcenturies.Inrecenttimestheuppertwofloorshadbeenrentalapartmentsandthemainfloorhashadcommercialuses.Inearly2016,theVermontDivisionofFireSafetyclosedthebuildingforcodeviolations.SpringfieldHousingAuthoritypurchasedthebuildinginOctober2016for$200,000withadeferredloanfromthetown’srevolvingloanfund.TheHousingAuthorityispartneringwithHousingVermonttoredevelopthebuildingusingamixofprivateandpublicfinancing.Theredevelopmentprojectwillinvolvethegutrehaboftheentirebuildingincludingdemolitionoftherearadditionstothebuildingdeemedunsafetore-use.Thefinishedcommercialspacewillbereducedto3,400SFonthemainfloorandapproximately2,000SFofoptionalspaceontheParkStreetlevel.Anewfullyaccessibleentrancewillbecreatedandanelevatorinstalledservingtheentirebuilding.Ontheupperfloors,fifteen(15)rentalapartmentswillbecreatedinanentirelynewlayoutwithtwolaundryrooms.Ayouthtransitionalhousingprogramwithfour(4)single-roomoccupancy(SRO)unitsplusamanager’sapartment;andapproximately3,400SFofcommercialspace.ThebuildinghashadanasbestosinspectionperformedbyClayPointAssociatesandnumerousbuildingmaterialswerefoundtobeasbestos-containing(ACM),includingpipeinsulation,floortile,carpetadhesives,jointcompound,caulk,androofing.AbatementoftheACMisplannedinfourphases.PhaseI(basement,firstandsecondfloorinterior)hasalreadybeenperformedusingnon-Brownfieldsfundingsources.PerformanceofPhases2(exteriorabatement)andPhases3and4(roofing)hasnotbeenperformedanduseofSWCRPC’sRLFfundingisplannedforthiswork.


December21,2018

Page4of5

B. CommunityRelationsPlanThisCRPisarequirementforutilizingSWCRPCRevolvingLoanFund(RLF)fundingfortheasbestosabatement.TheCRPoutlinesthepublicprocesstodateandforthcoming,andhowHousingVermonthasinvolved,andwillcontinuetoinvolve,localresidents,townofficials,andorganizationsinthedecision-makingprocessregardingtheenvironmentalcleanupatthesite.Thesuccessfulredevelopmentofthepropertyhingesoninformedcitizenandlocalgovernmentinvolvement.

C. SpokespersonandInformationRepositoryThespokespersonforthisprojectisMattMooreofHousingVermont.Mr.Mooreistheredevelopmentprojectdeveloper,andhehasbeenworkingwithClayPointAssociatesontheasbestosinspectionandabatementplanning.Communicatingtheresultsoftheassessments,inspectionsandplanningisbeingperformedbyHousingVermont.Contactinformationisasfollows:MattMooreHousingVermont100BankStreet,Suite400Burlington,[email protected]

E. ChronologyofCommunityInvolvementFollowingisachronologicallistingofpublicmeetingsthathavebeenheldwherethebuildingrenovationshavebeendiscussed.SupportdocumentscanbefoundinAppendixC.

• 8/14/18DRBhearingforamendment,minutes• 11/7/17DowntownDesignReviewCommissionandDevelopmentReview

Board,minutes• 7/10/18DRBhearingforamendment,minutes• 7/10/17SelectBoardVCDPfundingpublichearing,minutes• Severalotherselectboardmeetingsrelatingtothetownacquisitionloan• Abuttersnotifiedofzoningapplication• Zoningapproval• RutlandHeraldstory,2015

Thefollowingpublicinformationmeetingsarescheduledtotakeplaceaspartofa30-daypubliclynoticedcommentperiod:


December21,2018

Page5of5

TownofSpringfieldBoardofSelectmanMeetingJanuary14,2019,6:00PM-7:00PMSpringfieldTownHall96MainStreet,VT05156AcopyofthepublicnoticeinincludedinAppendixB.

F. CommunitySupportLettersCopiesofthecorrespondenceareincludedinAppendixD.

G. KeyCommunityConcernsTherehasnotbeenmuchdiscussionaboutthecleanupplans,beyondgeneralstatementsthatvarioushazardousmaterialshavebeenfoundandthatabatementwilltakeplacebeforedemolitionandconstruction.Mostofthepublicinteresthasbeenaroundthecommercialspace,andwhomightrentit.

H. ContinuedCommunityInvolvementHousingVermontwillcontinuetopresentupdatesuntiltheprojecthasbeencompleted.ThisscheduleassumesthattheRLFcleanupfundingbecomesavailableaftercloseof30-daycommentperiod.AnticipatedCleanupStartDate:March1,2019PublicMeetingtodiscusscleanup:January14,2019CleanupCompletionDate:December31,2019


December21,2018

APPENDIXA

MAPS

Figure #1USGS Map

Woolson Block31-39 Main Street

Springfield, VermontJuly 2017

SUBJECTPROPERTY

Figure #2Parcel Map



SUBJECTPROPERTY

Figure #3Satellite Image



SUBJECTPROPERTY

erikc

Polygon

erikc

Text Box

WOOLSON BLOCK


December21,2018

APPENDIXB

PUBLICHEARINGINFORMATION

Public Notice

Town of Springfield Selectboard Meeting

Monday, January 14, 2019

6:00PM

Springfield Town Hall 96 Main St.

Springfield, VT 05156

The Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission (SWCRPC) will be providing loan funding

through its Brownfield Reuse Program to Woolson Block Limited Partnership. The funding for this

project was made available to the SWCRPC through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s Brownfield’s Cleanup Grant Program. The loan funds provided will be used for asbestos

abatement prior to redevelopment of the historic Woolson Block building on Main St. in Springfield, VT.

Abatement work is expected to begin in February, 2019.

All interested parties can view the Asbestos Abatement Design Plans and the Community Relations Plan,

which describes the former and proposed future uses of the site, at the Town Manager’s Office at

Springfield Town Hall located at 96 Main Street in Springfield, between the hours of 9:00AM and

4:00PM. Documents can also be found at https://springfieldvt.govoffice2.com.

Members of the community are cordially invited to attend the public hearing to provide comment or can

submit their comments in writing to Thomas Kennedy at [email protected] or by mail to SWCRPC,

P.O. Box 320, Ascutney, VT 05030.

mailto:[email protected]


December21,2018

APPENDIXC

COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENTSUPPORTDOCUMENTS

Minutes DRB 11.07.2017

1

MINUTES

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY November 7, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. 96 MAIN STREET, TOWN HALL, SPRINGFIELD, VT

Site Visit at 6:15pm attended by: DRB Members: Chair Steve Kraft, Wilbur Horton, Karl Riotte, Lori Claffee, Walter Clark, Applicants: Bill Morlock, Matt Moore, Erik Chrisman, Public/interested parties: Walter Martone, Walter Wallace A. CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 B. ROLL CALL: Members: Chair Steve Kraft, Wilbur Horton, Karl Riotte, Lori Claffee, and Walter Clark

Applicants: Bill Morlock, Matt Moore, Erik Chrisman, Public/interested parties: Walter Martone, Walter Wallace

Also present: Bill Kearns Secretary and Administrative Officer C. ADMINISTER OATH: I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole

truth and nothing but the truth. All applicants and Bill Kearns took the oath. D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Does any member of the Board have a conflict of interest regarding any matter

scheduled for public hearing? None declared. E. REQUESTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. A request by Springfield Housing Unlimited for Conditional Use and Site Plan Review approval for the project known as the Woolson Block, which is a mixed-use commercial building constructed in the 1860s; the proposed project is the complete renovation and historic restoration of the Woolson Block structure to include the demolition of the rear addition along the Black River and development of commercial/retail spaces at the Main St. level, with a supportive housing program (single resident units) at the rear of this level and apartments on the second and third floor. The application includes the adaptive re-use of an historical building, commercial/retails uses of offsite public parking and leased spaces. The Woolson Block is located, in the Central Business Zoning District and the Downtown Design Control Overlay District; this project subject to review by the Downtown Design Review Commission in addition to approval by the Development Review Board; this project is known as 31-41 Main Street, Parcel No. 26-5-44. The Chair read the above notice and called on the Administrative Officer for comments. Bill Kearns state that the notice was posted, mailed and published as required by law and the Springfield Zoning Regulations. He further stated that the Application*, including all the plans, was before them along with minutes of the meeting of the Downtown Design Review Committee, at which meeting the application was heard and approved and the DDRC’s recommendation of approval to the DRB was made.

* The application for the development includes the following information: C000 Cover Sheet C001 Site Legend and Notes Site Plan (Coleman Survey) C100 Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan C200 Site Plan C300 Water Details and Notes C301 Storm & Sewer Details and Notes C302 Site Details and Notes A400 Building Elevations A401 Building Elevations SE100 Electrical Site Photometric Plan SE101 Electrical Site Lighting Cutsheets Narrative materials (Application, Site Plan Review Attachment)


2

At the table for the applicants were: Erik Chrisman, Engineering Ventures (EV); Bill Morlock, Springfield Housing Authority (SHA); and Matt Moore, Housing Vermont (HVT). The Chair called on the Applicant to present the matter. Erik Chrisman of Engineering Ventures commenced the presentation. Erik stated:

• Woolson Block is a mixed-use commercial/residential building constructed in the 1860s. The current building footprint is 8,327 SF. The removal of the 1,869 SF rear addition along the Black River as part of the proposed project will leave a similar mixed-use commercial/residential building with a footprint of 6,458 SF. Woolson Block will consist of three uses: commercial/retail spaces at the Main St. level, with a supportive housing program (single resident units) at the rear of this level 4 Rooms for tenants one for manager and a kitchen/shared common room). The second and third floors are to be apartments. The basement will be used for storage only. • Water and Sewer utility services will be reconstructed as necessary for connection to the Town of Springfield infrastructure, as depicted on the attached plans. Water service is stubbed out on Main St. to provide service for building use and for fire sprinklers for the building. The interior and exterior building sewers will be completely reconstructed and no roof drain connections to the sanitary sewer are proposed. • With exception of the rear addition demolition (and associated reduction in roof area), the existing impervious areas and surface drainage paths will be not change. Soil areas temporarily disturbed during construction work and permanently exposed by the rear addition demolition will be stabilized in accordance with the most current edition of the Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control published by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. • Due to the lack of a designated on-site parking area and the multi-modal means of traveling to the building, an estimate of traffic generated is difficult to calculate. Due to the overall reduction in retail space combined with an overall reduction in residential usage, a reduction in traffic generated by this property is anticipated in the proposed condition. Parking will be leased spaces in the Municipal lot on Factory St. Applicant proposes that 11 such spaces will be sufficient for the building, based on experience with other similar SHA proposed to be 11 spaces for the building. • Electrical, telecommunications and Fire alarm will be provided and coordinated through the local utility services. • Timetable for completions of improvements- Work to commence upon receipt of all permits (perhaps Spring 2018) and construction to be completed in 2019.

Walter Clark asked about parking and the proposed 11 spaces. The issue was who would lease them. The applicant will and they will belong to the building’s operator. He also asked about the transitional housing. Bill Morlock said the program requires the participants spend 6 months in the unit in this building and then another 18 months in the program in other housing – 2 years altogether. Lori Claffee asked for more information and Bill Morlock said there would be 4 rooms, plus one for manager, with a common kitchen and place to eat and gather. Bill Morlock said he is in charge of the program with partnerships with many other entities including the State of VT, Springfield School and HCRS. The apartments 12 single bedroom apts., 2 studios and 2 2-bedroom apartments on the second and third floors. The primary tenants would be workforce tenants, that is, persons with jobs, some of whom would have Section 8 vouchers. This would be the same make up of tenants as at the Huber building. With regard to the demolition And what would be in the rear, the applicant is not sure since it is not known what is there underneath and behind the wooden structure, and Historic Preservation Office does not want a deck out there, as that would not be historic. So the use of the area abutting the river is undetermined. The granite would likely have to be covered to protect it, but the applicant is not sure how it will be treated. Wilbur Horton asked about the ROW on the library side, and if the ramp would not block it and interfere with access to the pole in the rear for servicing by GMP. Bill Morlock said he would check on that with GMP. Wilbur also asked about the gap at the back of the building and blocking that access for safety reasons. Matt Moore said this would be taken care of. Wilbur also questioned the lighting, stating that the proposed lighting would be too bright and needed to be redone. Specifically the lighting Plan SE100 did not average the light, thus the DRB could not see if the lighting met the standards for lighting, which is an average maximum of not more than 2 foot candles. Furthermore the “color temp” needs to match the “white” of the existing street lamps and not the color of the lamps on the Park St. Bridge. Matt Moore stated he understood and would have an expert see to this so that the lighting would be compliant, and a plan showing compliance would be prepared and presented to AO. Wilbur and Lori Claffee, in particular, wanted to discuss the parking proposed. Bill Morlock stated that the 11 parking spaces proposed was, in his opinion and based on his experience with Huber and Ellis Buildings, sufficient. 50% or less of the workforce tenants have autos. For instance in Ellis there are 9 apartments and only 4 or 5 cars. He stated that 11 should be enough, and that SHA could add more spaces if more are needed. Matt Moore stated they need to rent the apartments to succeed, and if more spaces are needed to accommodate the tenants they would lease them. They would have to he insisted. For the Commercial uses, there are spaces in other public parking for owners and employees and spaces on the street for customers. The parking has been discussed with the Town, including


3

availability through the leases administered by the Police Department. When asked, the applicant said there would be 4 commercial spaces all on the first floor of the building. Erik continued with Site Plan Review. Landscaping A400. There would be no plantings. He then discussed screening for the solar panels. The solar, if net metered would be exempt from Town regulations in any case, member of the DRB noted. If they can do the solar (Historic Preservation might not want them), as now shown the panels would deliver about half of all the electricity they need. There was a long discussion, led off by question by Lori Claffee, about the development of something in the area where the wooden building will be demolished. Issues include the Historic Preservation Office not willing to allow a deck or anything that is not historic in that space, Perhaps a corner of the area near the bridge could be fenced off for use by pedestrians, perhaps part of the River Walk the town is working on. The applicant stated it was totally open to working with the Town and anyone who has the ability and funding to develop a use compatible with the use of the building Bike and sidewalk access is apparent. Outdoor storage is limited to the trash cans in the share ROW, in the rear, partially hidden by the building and the ramp. The bins would be wheeled out for pick up. The ROW is shared with the Library. Construction will take about one year once started. They have the new Water and Waste water plan permit from ANR. During the meeting there was discussion about an alternative plan to expand Commercial space and relocate the supportive housing program to the Park St. level on the Park St end of the building, with the unit to extend to the rear of the building, that is, using the area off the Park St. entrance to the building. SRDC and SOM may lease all the commercial space, provided the spaces are larger, that is, cover the entire first floor. The alternative is not available at this time and the applicant has to move forward without this alternative because they have to get the permit to allow the process to move forward with the State Historic preservation Office, which process takes 90 days or so. The uses are set, 4 commercial uses on first floor, 16 apartments upstairs and the supportive housing unit. All are in the building. The only change would be the location of supportive housing and expansion of commercial on first floor. The residential and commercial use will not change, just their location would change as set forth above. Put another way, by Wilbur Horton and Steve Kraft: uses remain same, footprint remains the same, but there would be changes of location within the building. When asked by Walter Clark about commercial interest in the building, Bill Morlock said there is interest but they want it now, not in 1029. He has had interest expressed by various users from private to the Stat of VT. Walter Martone talked about the marketing of the downtown that was about to begin, and with regard to the parking discussion – one of the primary goals of downtown development effort is parking and providing space by building structures to expand parking, as well as finding public parking wherever. There was no further desire to address the DRB by the applicant, public, or members.

MOTION by Wilbur Horton, second Lori Claffee to close the hearing. Motion passed unanimously.

The Chair tuned to the findings for the Downtown Design Review District and the Downtown Design Review Committee. Findings for DDRC MOTION by Walter Clark, second by Wilbur Horton to make the following findings:

1. Project as proposed meets the purposes of the Downtown Design Control District, including maintaining the economic and historic integrity of the downtown, enhance its economic development, promote and improve the structures and maximize economic uses in the area, and especially the area of park St. and Comtu Falls along the Black River. 2. The reason for demolition of the non-historic part of the structure – the wood structure on the rear of the parcel – is historic integrity and adds to the maintenance of the historic integrity of the downtown. 3. That the proposal includes a demolition plan, i.e., extent of demolition and reason for it, meets the standards in Table 2.20 (C)1.c. 4. That the plan for demolition and development has been reviewed by the Downtown Design review Committee.


4

5 That the Downtown Design Review Committee unanimously passed the following Motion: MOTION by Nathan Wardell, 2nd by Sabrina Smith to find that the project as presented meets the purposes of the Downtown Design Review Standards, and to recommend to the Development Review Board that it approve the project as presented. 6. That the Design Criteria set forth in Springfield Zoning Regulations, Section 5.4 (D) 1. and 2.have been met, including preserving and enhancing the historic features and characteristics of the building in the demolition and treatment of the façade. Motion passed unanimously.

Site Plan Review:

The DRB considered the SPR standards presented during the hearing and as expressed in the application: Section5.2SitePlanReviewStandardsandProcedures(D)GeneralStandards.1.Safetyandefficiencyoftrafficaccess.The mixed-use project is in the Central Business District and is located near existing infrastructure andcommunity services (bus routes, library, banks, State offices, etc.). Main Street also offers both publicbicycle and pedestrian travel ways. The configuration of this existing historic structure prohibits theadditionofanyon-sitedrivewaysornewcurbcuts.2.Adequacyofcirculation,parkingandloadingfacilities.The configuration of this existing historic structure prohibits on-site driveways or parking areas. Thepropertyislocatedonapublictransitrouteandisaccessibletopublicbicycleandpedestriantravelways.Publicparkingspacesandlotsareavailableintheareaandonstreetparkingareallowedinthevicinityoftheproperty. It is theopinionof theapplicant,baseduponsimilar facilitiesandpastuseof thisbuilding,that a lease of 11 designated parking spaces from the Townwill be sufficient tomeet the needs of theproposedresidentialuseofthisproperty.TheseparkingspaceswillbeleasedfromtheTownofSpringfieldbytheapplicantasrequired.Anoverallreductioninrequiredresidentialparkingspacesisanticipatedduetothetransitionfromthe21rentedapartmentstotheproposed16rentedapartmentsand5singlepersonsupportive housing residential. The retail spacesWoolson Block Site Plan ReviewApplication Page 3willcontinuetoreceivedeliveriesviasmallvehiclescompatiblewiththelimitedon-streetparkingconfigurationas they have historically. If required, a variance is requested for meeting the requirements for on-siteparking.3.Bicycle&PedestrianAccessTheproject isahousingproject in theCentralBusinessDistrictand is locatednearexisting infrastructureandcommunityservices(busroutes,library,etc.).MainStreetoffersbothbicycleandpedestrianaccesstopublicconveyancesystems.4.LandscapingandScreening.TheexistingbuildingissurroundedonthreesidesbyPublicandcommonlyownedhardscapefeatures.Theforthside(rear)consistsofaverticalstonefaceontheedgeoftheBlackRiver.Theseconditionsprohibittheadditionofon-siteplantingsandlandscapednaturalareasforscreening.Theexistingbrickroofparapetonthefrontandtwosidesofthebuildingscreensmostoftheexistingandproposedrooftopequipmentasshown on the attached Solar Panel Study exhibit dated October 15, 2017. If required, a variance isrequestedformeetingtherequirementsforon-siteplantingsforlandscapingandscreening.5.StormWaterandDrainage.Overland flow of surface runoffwill continue to use the existing drainage paths and discharge points. Areduction intotalroofareaandnonewimperviousareaswill reducetheoverallstormwaterdischarge intheproposedprojectconditions.6.Lighting.Proposed downcastwallmounted entrance lightingwill be provided as shown and detailed on attachedSheetsSE100andSE101preparedbyPearson&Associates.7.OutdoorStorageandDisplay.Garbage and recycling materials generated on-site will be stored on-site in seven proposed 96-gallonwheeledtotesattherearoftheexistingalleysharedwiththeSpringfieldLibrary.


5

MOTION by Karl Riotte, 2nd Wilbur Horton to find that the requirements of site plan review are met in the application and will be met, provided the development of the site and is carried out as presented and a new lighting plan is presented to the Administrative Officer which shows the lighting will meet the standards and that plan is approved by the Administrative Officer.

Motion was unanimously approved. Conditional Use Review: The DRB considered the CU standards presented during the hearing and as expressed in the application:


6

MOTION Walter Clark moved, 2nd by Karl Riotte to find that the conditional use as proposed and conditioned upon the required parking being obtained by the applicant for the uses proposed, provided that the initial number of parking spaces shall be at a minimum 11 spaces, provided further that additional needs for parking will be met by the applicant leasing more spaces form the Municipality to fulfill the needs of the tenants, shall not unduly adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned community facilities; the character of the area; traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; by-laws in effect or renewable energy resources.

Findings: MOTION by Wilbur Horton, 2nd by Walter Clark to make the following findings:

a. That notice of the public hearing and meeting has been carried out as required. b. That a quorum of the Development Review Board was present and voting. c. Party status was determined for: Bill Morlock, SHA; Matt Moore, HVT; Erik Chrisman, EV, and

Walter Martone. d. That those with party status were given the opportunity to testify on the request. e. That the application is a request by Springfield Housing Unlimited for Conditional Use and Site

Plan Review approval for the project known as the Woolson Block, which is a mixed-use commercial building constructed in the 1860s with later additions; the proposed project is the complete renovation and historic restoration of the Woolson Block structure to include the demolition of the rear addition along the Black River and development of commercial/retail spaces at the Main St. level, with a supportive housing program (single resident units) at the rear of this level and as an alternative in the basement off the Park St. entrance, and apartments on the second and third floor. The application includes the use of an historical building, commercial/retails uses of offsite public parking and leased spaces. The Woolson Block is located, in the Central Business Zoning District and the Downtown Design Control Overlay District; this project subject to review by the Downtown Design Review Commission in addition to approval by the Development Review Board; this project is known as 31-41 Main Street, Parcel No. 26-5-44.

f. That the request is permitted under Conditional Use and Site Plan Review in the CB Zoning District,

g.____ That the proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned community facilities; the character of the area; traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; by-laws in effect or renewable energy resources, as previously voted in the affirmative.

h.____ That the requirements of site plan review have been met, as previously voted in the affirmative. i. That the requirements of the Downtown Design Control District Standards and Procedures have

been met as previously voted in the affirmative. DECISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: November 7, 2017:

MOTION by Karl Riotte, 2nd by Wilbur Horton to approve request set forth in subparagraph e. of the Findings, above, subject to the following conditions:

1. That all required State and local permits be acquired. 2. That operation of the activity and construction of the improvements to the site be carried out as presented. 3._____ That the approval allows an alternate plan approval if a commercial agreement is reached between Applicant and SRDC and SOM to rent all the space on the first floor for commercial use, the Applicant proposes to relocate the supportive housing units to the basement off the Park St. entrance and will present plans for this new use arrangement to the administrative Officer for administrative approval.

Motion passed unanimously. F. OLD BUSINESS: None G. NEW BUSINESS: None H. COMMUNICATIONS: None


7

I. MINUTES: September 12, 2017 J. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Wilbur Horton, second by Karl Riotte to adjourn at 9:02 PM. Motion passed

unanimously.

TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT 05156

REQUEST TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD A request by Springfield Housing Unlimited for Conditional Use and Site Plan Review approval for the project known as the Woolson Block, which is a mixed-use commercial building constructed in the 1860s with later additions; the proposed project is the complete renovation and historic restoration of the Woolson Block structure to include the demolition of the rear addition along the Black River and development of commercial/retail spaces at the Main St. level, with a supportive housing program (single resident units) at the rear of this level and as an alternative in the basement off the Park St. entrance, and apartments on the second and third floor. The application includes the use of an historical building, commercial/retails uses of offsite public parking and leased spaces. The Woolson Block is located, in the Central Business Zoning District and the Downtown Design Control Overlay District; this project subject to review by the Downtown Design Review Commission in addition to approval by the Development Review Board; this project is known as 31-41 Main Street, Parcel No. 26-5-44. The Development Review Board made the following findings on November 7, 2017: a. That notice of the public hearing and meeting has been carried out as required. b. That a quorum of the Development Review Board was present and voting. c. Party status was determined for: Bill Morlock, SHA; Matt Moore, HVT; Erik Chrisman, EV, and Walter Martone. d. That those with party status were given the opportunity to testify on the request. e. That the application is a request by Springfield Housing Unlimited for Conditional Use and Site Plan Review approval for the project known as the Woolson Block, which is a mixed-use commercial building constructed in the 1860s with later additions; the proposed project is the complete renovation and historic restoration of the Woolson Block structure to include the demolition of the rear addition along the Black River and development of commercial/retail spaces at the Main St. level, with a supportive housing program (single resident units) at the rear of this level and as an alternative in the basement off the Park St. entrance, and apartments on the second and third floor. The application includes the use of an historical building, commercial/retails uses of offsite public parking and leased spaces. The Woolson Block is located, in the Central Business Zoning District and the Downtown Design Control Overlay District; this project subject to review by the Downtown Design Review Commission in addition to approval by the Development Review Board; this project is known as 31-41 Main Street, Parcel No. 26-5-44. f. That the request is permitted under Conditional Use and Site Plan Review in the CB Zoning District, g.____ That the proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned community facilities; the character of the area; traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; by-laws in effect or renewable energy resources, as previously voted in the affirmative. h.____ That the requirements of site plan review have been met, as previously voted in the affirmative. i. That the requirements of the Downtown Design Control District Standards and Procedures have been met as previously voted in the affirmative. DECISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: November 7, 2017 The Board approved the request by Springfield Housing Unlimited set forth in subparagraph e. of the Findings, above, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all required State and local permits be acquired. 2. That operation of the activity and construction of the improvements to the site be carried out as presented. 3._ That the approval allows an alternate plan approval if a commercial agreement is reached between Applicant

and SRDC and SOM to rent all the space on the first floor for commercial use, the Applicant proposes to relocate the supportive housing units to the basement off the Park St. entrance and will present plans for this new use arrangement to the administrative Officer for administrative approval.


8

DATED: _________________________ _______________________________ STEVE KRAFT, CHAIR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

Minutes DRB 07/10/18

Page 1

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

Tuesday, July 10, 2018- 7:00 P.M.

MINUTES

A. Call to Order: Chair Steve Kraft called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

B. Roll Call: Chair Steve Kraft, Karl Riotte, Walter Clark, Joe Wilson

Lori Claffee (arrived at 7:05)

Applicants: Bill Morlock, Ken Duffy

Public/interested parties: Jayson Waysville, Eric Christman

Also present: Renee Vondle, Board Secretary/Town Planner/Zoning Administrator

C. Administer Oath: I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration

shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Bill Morlock, Erik Christman, Ken Duffy,

Jayson Waysville and Renee Vondle took the oath.

D. Conflict of Interest: Does any member of the Board have a conflict of interest regarding any

matter scheduled for public hearing? None declared

E. Additions to the agenda: Does any board member have a request for an addition to the agenda?

There were no requests.

F. Approval of the Minutes:

Walter Clark moved to approve the minutes of June 12, 2018 as presented. Joe Wilson

seconded. Motion passed 4-0.

G. Requests and Public Hearings:

1. Application 18-026 Woolson Block Limited Partnership

A Design Review Approval request by Woolson Block Limited Partnership, Parcel 26-5-44 to

amend Permit 17-059 to demolish the 637 sq. ft. southwest brick addition, eliminating one

residential unit; convert the Park Street level commercial units into residential space and

relocate the planned youth transitional housing program from the Main Street floor level to the

basement level and expand the Main Street commercial rentable space.

This project review is subject to review by the Development Review Board as well. The

property is located at 39 Main Street and is zoned Central Business, Design Review Control

Overlay District,

AUTHORITY: Table 2.20 DDCOD Downtown Design Control Overlay District states the

purposes for the creation of the Design Control District are:

a. To maintain the economic and historical integrity of the downtown.

b. To enhance economic development consistent with the historic center of industrial,

commercial, social and governmental activities in the Town of Springfield.

c. To highlight the direct influence of the Black River on the growth of all the above

activities along the Black River, and Comtu Falls which is located in the heart of

downtown.

d. To promote and improve the structures and maximize economic uses in the area of


Page 2

the Black River and Comtu Falls.

The plan must address:

Materials

Proportioning and massing

Chair, Steve Kraft introduced the application request and invited the applicant to present the

application.

Bill Morlock, applicant, began his presentation by stating that upon inspection of the building it

was found that the foundation of the southwest section of the building which faces the library

was in very poor condition and needed to be torn down. After review by the State Historic

Preservation office, it was determined that it was not cost effective to rebuild and the State gave

their approval to tear it down. This will result in the loss of one living unit. Mr. Morlock stated

that the first floor is commercial space that is being master leased by the Springfield Regional

Development Corporation and Springfield On The Move and they originally wanted larger

commercial spaces. He also noted that the Historic Preservation office likes that the commercial

spaces will be bigger because that is more in character with the original building configuration.

Mr. Morlock stated that the Youth in Transition program was originally located in the back of

the 1st floor. The new plan is to move the Youth in Transition program to the basement (the

Garden Level which overlooks the river). He stated that this is a win/win for everyone.

Lori Claffee asked for clarification of the why there might have been a need to rebuild the

Southwest section. Mr. Morlock explained that the State Historic Preservation office could have

directed them to rebuild, but did not because it was found that this section of the building was

not original to the building, but rather a later addition.

Walter Clark noted that it seems that not much has changed except for a rearrangement of

interior space. Steve Kraft stated that board would not need to do a complete Site Plan and

Conditional Use review as those aspects are basically the same. This review was for Design

Review.

The board reviewed the Downtown Design Review Commission minutes. Bill Morlock stated

that the DDRC was mostly concerned about the door on the Southwest elevation which is in the

corner where the addition is coming off. The door is in the recessed section and it will not be

visible from the street.

Mr. Morlock stated that the DDRC was concerned that it should be kept in character of the area

and the building and asked him to bring a catalogue cut sheet to this DRB meeting, but he was

not able to do that because the architects have not gotten to that level of detail yet.

Walter Clark asked if the DDRC will need to see the catalogue cut sheet of the doorway again

before approval can be given. Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle stated that the DDRC

recommended approval of the application, but directed the applicant to bring a catalogue cut

sheet of the door to the DRB hearing. She stated that the DDRC did not hold up the application,

but recommended that they bring more details to the next meeting. The Development Review

Board is the board with judicial powers to approve or deny a permit. The DDRC’s only function

is to help the applicant prepare for the next meeting and make a recommendation based on the


Page 3

evidence and testimony from their hearing. Steve Kraft stated that the DDRC’s recommendation

was to approve the application as presented.

Chair Kraft read from the DDRC minutes: “Nathan Wardwell asked if the plan is to put in the

modern door trimmed with window sidelights as depicted on the drawings. Mr. Morlock stated

that the new door will be handicap accessible and it has to be more modern to meet today’s

building and safety codes. He noted that after demolition, the old hallway on the inside of the

building will be gone and the new entrance will be the ADA access to the first three storefronts

and will have two handicapped bathrooms which the stores will have access to. Mr. Morlock

noted that the old Verizon storefront will have ADA access from Park Street.”

Bill Morlock stated that the bottom line is that he will do the best he can to make it look as

attractive as possible, but it must meet the requirements of today’s modern safety codes. .Steve

Kraft noted that he is aware that it is difficult to meet Historical Preservation expectations and

today’s modern safety codes. Lori Claffee asked why the catalogue cut sheet has not been

provided. Bill Morlock stated that he can provide a cut sheet tomorrow, but it isn’t the actual

door that will end up there because it has not been decided yet. Bill Morlock stated that he does

not know if it will have to be a custom door, but it will need to be wide enough for handicap

access.

Discussion followed.

Karl Riotte moved to accept the changes to the original site plan with the condition that the

applicant provide the Planning & Zoning office with the catalogue cut sheet of the final

door design. Joe Wilson seconded. Motion passed 5-0.

2. Application 18-029 Blue Woodchuck LLC

A request by Blue Woodchuck, LLC (Parcel 26-2-39) for Conditional Use and Site Plan Review

to convert space from retail to office space and to renovate existing building. The property is

zoned General Business district and is located at 41 Chester Road

The application was warned in the newspaper, posted and a hearing notice was mailed to

abutters as required by law.

Documents: Application with Site Plan/Conditional Use submission forms, Floor Plans, photos

and Engineered Site Plan. Applicant was directed to contact Vermont Agency of Transportation.

Chair Steve Kraft called on the applicant to present the application.

Jayson Waysville of Waysville Engineering, the applicant’s agent presented the application. He

stated that Mr. Duffy purchased the former Baker’s Fabric building with the intention of splitting

the former retail space into two office spaces. He noted that there would be minimal external

modifications. The only real exterior change will be the addition of a proposed drilled bedrock

well to be located off of corner of the property which is the closest to the Riverside School

property. The existing water supply is a shallow well and it is considered a failed water supply.

Mr. Waysville stated that the parking as depicted currently is the same that has been used in the

past, but it is subject to VAOT review again. He stated that he has been in contact with Brian


Page 4

McAvoy, AOT Permit Specialist who will be handing the State permits. Mr. McAvoy informed

him that once the Springfield Development Review Board approves the application, he will be

meeting with the applicant, applicant’s agent and the District Manager to review the site. It was

noted that the State is

trying to bring these access sites up to the VAOT B-71 Standards on a case-by-case basis. Mr.

Waysville noted that, in this case, the State owns a significant portion of the right-of-way in

front of the building by eminent domain. Mr. Waysville stated that he based his site plan on the

Colman survey, but is now aware that the state owns up to the corner of the building.

The Board reviewed the Site Plan as submitted. Mr. Waysville stated that he drew the property

lines on site plan from the original Colman Survey before he learned of the right-of-way issue.

The Board also reviewed the copy of the map provided by Brian McAvoy showing the new State

right-of-way lines affecting the property.

Joe Wilson questioned how the new property lines will impact the proposed parking plan?

Mr. Waysville stated that it will affect parking, but he is not sure how much because the State

has not done their determination yet. Mr. Waysville stated that the current site plan shows 11

spaces. The first rendition had 12 spaces, but the Zoning Administrator had the applicant

remove one for the dumpster location. The Board reviewed the parking requirements. It was

determined that 7 parking spaces were required for two offices. Standard parking spaces are 9 x

18. Mr. Waysville stated that he can get 8 in on an angle without blocking the entrance.

Walter Clark stated that he drove by the site and it appears that the driveway looks like it is a

shared driveway and asked if it was a driveway or a road? Jason Waysville stated that it is not a

road. It is a multi-family and multi-business shared driveway and it is a dead end. The board

reviewed the difference between the original Colman Survey and the new State map showing the

State ROW lines. It was determined that the new map may not recorded in the Town Land

Records. Mr. Waysville stated that he is not a surveyor and clarified that he is an engineer.

Lori Claffee noted that she does not understand why the DRB is being asked to approve a

parking plan when the State has not determined what they are going to require of the applicant.

The DRB cannot base a decision for Site Plan Approval if they do not know where the parking

will really end up. Discussion followed whether the DRB could approve just the change of use

portion of the application. Lori Claffee stated that our zoning bylaws have parking requirements

for change of use. Mr. Waysville informed the board that Mr. McAvoy told him that the State

will not remove existing parking spaces, but they want to adjust the access entry and exit point.

Chair Kraft stated that the problem is that most of the parking spaces are on State land.

Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle informed the board that she had been in discussions with

Mr. McAvoy and at this time, Mr. McAvoy is not yet clear if he is going to provide the applicant

with just a Jurisdictional Opinion letter or require a 1111 Permit. Ms.Vondle asked Mr.

Waysville if he has any indication whether the State is going to change the actual access or

require a traffic island? Mr. Waysville stated that Mr. McAvoy indicated that he is going to

speak with his district supervisor and they will have to review the site and make a determination

as to whether they are going to change the access point; however Mr. McAvoy has never

indicated that there could be a loss of parking spaces. No timeline was given for the proposed

meeting.


Page 5

Discussion followed why the State revisits access points. Ms. Vondle stated that while

reviewing another site, Mr. McAvoy told her that the State will open up a case if there is any

change whatsoever to a commercial or residential site along a State Road. They especially do

not like the large expanse access areas.

Discussion followed regarding the adequacy of circulation. Ms. Vondle stated that if the State

determines that there needs to be a single access point to deter people from backing out onto

Route 11, they will lose spaces. She noted that if it goes to a single point access, it appears that

the site plan will lose spaces 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Waysville pointed out that with the reduction of

these three spaces, it still leaves 8 spaces and 7 are what is required for this use. Mr. Duffy

noted that he can reclaim an additional space if he changes from a dumpster to two wheelable

bins that can be brought out to the curb once a week which will bring the total to 9 spaces

The board discussed the impacts of the number of average daily trips. Mr. Waysville stated that

office use is a lesser use than retail. Ms. Claffee stated that in theory that is correct, but based on

the last business, Baker’s Fabrics, there was not that much traffic, so this use (two offices) may

be an increase in traffic

Mr. Duffy stated that he would not have purchased the building if he could have foreseen that

parking and circulation would have been such an issue and he felt that the property had

functioned well for the last owner.

Mr. Duffy stated that if the use had remained retail then no questions would have been asked.

Chair Kraft stated that the change of ownership with the same use would not require a new

permit from the town, but he not sure what the State’s policy is and it is not the purview of the

Development Review Board over what the State would require.

Chair Kraft informed the board that if the application is tabled, then Mr. Duffy cannot go to the

State and say they have a local permit. The caveat is that the applicant needs town approval, but

our local permit is conditional on State AOT approval. Our Site Plan Approval requires an

applicant to meet the correct amount of zoning parking spaces.

Mr. Waysville stated that the issue is not if the applicant can meet the parking requirements for

the office use, but rather what the configuration will look like and the applicant cannot tell DRB

what the configuration is until they talk to the State to see what will be required. Mr. Waysville

stated that regardless of the outcome with the State, the applicant can easily make the parking

requirement of 7 spaces.

Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle stated that a permit can be granted with conditions. One of

our standard conditions on every permit is that the applicant meet all the federal and state

permits. The Certificate of Occupancy cannot be given until the applicant meets all their

obligations with the State.

It was agreed to allow the application to go forward with a condition for the applicant to come

back for final Site Plan Approval if it is different than what was presented.

The Board reviewed the Attachment paperwork for Site Plan Review. Karl Riotte went through

General Standards (SZR §5.2 D).


Page 6

1. Safety & efficiency of traffic access. See above.

2. Adequacy of circulation, parking and loading facilities - No need for loading. Site

engineer will attend meeting. Not able to meet 5.2a requirement for parking in rear of

building. Discussion followed. It was agreed that the agent will discuss traffic access with

the State AOT.

3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Access – N/A

4. Landscaping & Screening – N/A

5. Storm Water and Drainage – Applicant responded that the application will not affect

stormwater. Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle stated that she has spoken with the DPW

Director, John Johnson who has no stormwater concerns.

6. Lighting - There will downlit lights on both affixed signs and hidden entryway lights.

Discussion followed. The applicant indicated that there no other concerns of lighting. Chair

Kraft stated that it is important that no light shine in the road that could blind traffic and all

lights need to be downlit in order to prevent light pollution. Lori Claffee asked if there

would be additional lighting for the parking lot. The applicant indicated that there would not

be parking lot lighting. Chair Kraft stated that there is a street light at the corner of the

shared driveway.

7. Outdoor storage and display - Roll-off garbage container to be place on West elevation of

building.

DECISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD:

Joe Wilson moved to approve the Site Plan Review application subject to State approval

of access and parking requirements. Karl Riotte seconded. Discussion followed. It was

Zoning Administration, Renee Vondle asked to be invited to the site visit between AOT and the

applicant. Agent, Jayson Waysville will make that request with Mr. McAvoy.

H. New Business:

Zoning Administrator Report

Renee Vondle informed the board that there is new language regarding the State Open Meeting

law which clears up a lot of questions that people have and makes it less anxiety provoking to

board members to be seen out in public at training events, workshops, social gatherings or other

public hearings so long as current or specific business is not acted upon or discussed. Ms.

Vondle passed out a handout regarding this.

Ms. Vondle announced that there is a 2-day workshop on design review for preservation

planning coming up on Friday, September 21 and Saturday, September 22 in White River,

Junction at the Hotel Coolidge. The workshop features lectures by experts from across New

England. The workshop will focus on how to use and apply standards and develop design

guidelines. There will be a mock public hearing session that puts lessons learned into practice.

Ms. Vondle has secured 5 slots for the training. The workshop is being put on in conjunction


Page 7

with the New England Historic Preservation and the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation.

Ms. Vondle stated that the Planning Commission is in the process of rewriting the Zoning

Bylaws and a large section is devoted to the Design Review Standards and Procedures bylaw.

She encouraged board members to attend. Please let her know if you are interested.

Ms. Vondle reported that the Handly building is progressing nicely and the town has been

working on the sidewalk.

Ms. Vondle informed the board that there may be a potential application for a flood hazard

hearing for the Parent/Child Center in North Springfield for construction of playground

structures. The property is located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Ms. Vondle will be

talking with State Flood representative, John Broker Campbell for guidance on how to proceed.

There may not be a need for a review depending on the outcome of this meeting.

There may be two potential applications for Subdivision Approval coming up.

We have had success with enforcement. Recently, the Zoning office was made aware of

information that there were pigs in a residential neighborhood. Code Enforcement Officer, Paul

Stagner met with the owner. Garbage was removed immediately and pigs were also taken off

the property. Neighborhood was very appreciative. Ms. Vondle stated that this is not a zoning

issue and that the Selectboard do have an animal ordinance, but she was glad to be of assistance.

I. Public Comments:

There were no public comments, however Mr. Erik Christman did remain at the meeting

throughout as a member of the public.

J. Walter Clark moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Karl Riotte seconded. Motion passed

unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Renee L. Vondle

Secretary

Town Planner/Zoning Administrator

Minutes DRB 08/14/18 Page 1

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

Tuesday, August 14, 2018- 7:00 P.M.

MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Steve Kraft called the meeting to order at 7:00

p.m.

2. Roll Call: Members: Steve Kraft, Karl Riotte, Walter Clark, Lori Claffee

Absent: Joe Wilson

Applicants: Annemarie Stout, Rich Howard

Interested parties: Michelle Putnam, JoAnn Jarvis, Fred Wootton

Also present: Renee Vondle, Board Secretary/Town Planner/Zoning Administrator, Tim Ford,

Christian Craig, Bob Flint, Erik Christman, Pat Handly, Bill Handly, Brenda Markwell, John Broker-

Campbell, Robert Howard, Gary Rapanotti, Hugh Stevens, Nick Barlow, Nate Lewis

3. Administer Oath: The oath was administered and taken by board, applicants, abutters, and other

interested parties and their agents..

4. Conflict of Interest: Chair Kraft asked if any member of the board had a conflict of interest regarding

any matter scheduled for public hearing? None were declared.

5. Approval of the Minutes:

Chair Steve Kraft noted that he had a few minor changes that he has submitted to the Zoning

Administrator through email. There were no other changes from other board members.

Walter Clark moved to approve the minutes of July 10, 2018 as amended. Karl Riotte

seconded. Motion passed 4-0.

6. Additions to the Agenda:

Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle asked that Blue Woodchuck, LLC (update) be added to the

agenda to be placed under Old Business to review a new site plan.

7. Old Business:

A. Factory Falls, LLC - Bill Handly , owner of Factory Falls, LLC located at12 River Street

updated the board on the progress of his building renovation and requested that he be allowed to

change the previously approved vertical metal siding to a vertical vinyl siding. Mr. Handly

presented the board with a sample of vinyl siding. He noted that this material is a better choice

because the metal siding would show all the screws which he did not think would look good and

will most likely rust over time. He noted that this vinyl siding with have hidden fasteners and

will not show any screws. He will most likely choose the color grey similar to the horizontal

siding to be placed at the top of the building as it will hide the dust and dirt generated by passing

traffic.

Mr. Handly asked the board if he could change the brick cap from the previously approved gray

brick to a red brick. Discussion followed. It was agreed that the sample brick presented was

acceptable to the board.


The board noted that the building is looking nice and agreed to allow the change of material from

metal siding to vinyl siding and the change of brick. The board thanked Mr. Handly for his

update and wished him well.

B. Woolson Block, LLC – Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle introduced this update noting that

it was not required to have a new hearing with the Downtown Design Review Board because the

permit has already been issued with a condition that the applicant provide the DRB with a

catalogue cut sheet for the doors. The catalogue cutsheet depicts both a sample storefront door

with sidelites to be installed in the SW corner of the building in the alleyway next to the library

and storefront doors with transom window above at the handicapped entrance on the north

elevation of the building. Mr. Eric Christman, agent addressed the board. There are two

different types of doors, but of similar construction. There will be single doors on the North

elevation.

Ms. Claffee asked if the doors will definitely be the ones indicated on the catalogue cutsheet as

there was some discrepancy regarding whether the decision had been made yet at the last hearing

on July 10, 2018. Mr. Christman stated that this cutsheet was provided by the architects.

Ms. Vondle noted that no action needs to be taken as the new cutsheet can be added to the file as

a minor change. The Board thanked Mr. Christman for attending.

C. Blue Woodchuck LLC – Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle stated that she had received an

updated site plan from Jason Waysville of Waysville Engineering. The board approved Permit

#18029 for a change of use to Ken Duffy’s building at 41 Chester Road that required a parking

plan. The permit was conditioned on State AOT approval for access and parking and an amended

site plan showing parking configuration was to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning office.

The new site plan shows 9 parking spaces. It was affirmed in the hearing that the proposed use of

the building will require 7 parking spaces. The new plan shows 2 spaces on the east elevation of

the building, 4 on the front and 3 spaces on the west elevation of the building. Ms. Claffee asked

if the plan was now approved by the State? Ms. Vondle stated that she received an email from

Mr. Waysville indicating that the plan had been shared with the Agency of Transportation and

once the town has approved the plan, the State will issue their decision of acceptance. The board

agreed that the parking plan met the requirements and Chair Kraft asked the Zoning

Administrator to inform the applicant of the approval and place the amended site plan in the

applicant’s file.

D. Edgar May Health & Recreation Center –

This is a status update on the improvements at the Southern Vermont Health and Recreation

Center Foundation, Inc. The board received minutes of the Selectboard from December 11, 2017,

minutes, minutes from the Development Review Board for September 12, 2017 & December 12,

2017 as well as the Stipulation for Judgement and Dismissal dated March 15, 2018 which dealt

with a) parking requirements (reduced to 60 spaces); b) plans if the Jones & Lamson property

rescinds its parking agreement (The Town of Springfield will allow access to the Hartness

Avenue/Bridge Street parking at the Fire Station); c) handicap parking improvements

(construction to be completed in 2018); d) crosswalk from Edgar May Health and Recreation


Center to J & L: parcel (to be repainted by the Town of Springfield) and e) bus stop

improvements (improvements and construction to be completed in 2018).

Christian Craig, Executive Director of the Edgar May Health & Recreation Center addressed the

board. He stated that the biggest item they were required to make was the handicap parking and

bus stop improvements. Mr. Craig stated that the paving of the handicap parking and bus stop

was completed today and lining and signage will be completed next week. He noted that there

has been a slight change from the January 13, 2018 meeting, in that parking spaces have been

reallocated to both side of the Foundry building, 3 spaces in the front and 3 spaces along the

building on Bridge Street.

Mr. Clark asked Mr. Craig if there was anything left to be completed. Mr. Craig stated that

everything else has been satisfied according to the stipulation. Mr. Clark brought up the issue of

parking in the fire department parking which is for overflow parking now, but would also be the

contingency plan for future parking needs if availability is lost at J & L. He stated that one of the

hindrances to this plan is pedestrian crossing and safety concerns and he felt a new crosswalk

should be lined from the fire department lot to the sidewalk now so people can walk across safely.

This will make two crosswalks on each end of the bridge. Mr. Clark stated that this is request is

from a safety standpoint. Mr. Craig asked if there would be issues from the Town in putting in a

new crosswalk. Chair Kraft said that the town and/or highway superintendent should be included

in this discussion.

Chair Kraft asked if they had any plans for the foundry building? Christian Craig stated that they

have visions for developing, feasibility and fundraising.

E. J & L update – August 14, 2017 SRDC was granted a one year extension to come into

compliance with the agreement to tear down a section of the building to be able to meet the side

setbacks between the J & L Building and the ARTISANS building as stated in the original

subdivision permit in 2003. Mr. Flint has previously stated that the demolition would go out to

bid in the winter of 2017-18 and clean up could begin by April 2018.

Bob Flint told the board that EPA Removals came to the site in September of 2017 and removed

990 tons of soil from the behind the building, along the riverbank and rebuilt the riverbank. He

stated that the project is in the State’s BERA program. which is a program for complicated

projects that have contamination in them and it helps expedite the clean-up process.

Mr. Flint passed out Vermont Legislative Act S287 and noted that it was signed into law in late

May which codifies/clarifies the relationship between a Corrective Action Plan and Act 250. In

this case, the CAP is not subject to Act 250.

Mr. Flint also passed out a 2-page Executive Summary report, dated August 9, 2019 from the 300

page Stone Environmental Partial Correction Action Plan report which includes the history of the

site, remedial actions completed to date and corrective actions necessary to prevent exposure to

PCB contaminated soil and concrete. The report recommends:


- Implementing erosion control measurements;

- Implementing a soil management plan

- Installation of engineered barriers to prevent direct contact with contaminated media,

including soil and concrete. Engineered barriers include soil and asphalt caps, fencing and

signs.

It also states that due to restrictions in access, limited area, and step-wise nature of the near-term

redevelopment the following present the general timing of implementation:

1. Install fence along Clinton Street to prevent Site access during demolition.

2. Demolition of Site building;

3. Installation of fencing and interim barriers; and

4. Construction of bike path.

Future redevelopment of the site conceptually includes creation of a new access from Clinton Street and

construction of two stand-alone buildings for commercial/light industrial use, and associated parking and

infrastructure. Elements of necessary remedial actions to support full redevelopment will be provided in the

Final CAP. Elements to be addressed in the Final CAP include:

- Surface soils outside the extent of engineered bike path.

- Sub-surface soils.

- Soil gas.

- Groundwater

- Concrete remaining on site with PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg.

With regards to the demolition of site building and construction of bike path, Mr. Flint informed the board

that three firms have been involved in preparing all the bid specs regarding asbestos removal, demolition of

the building and securing of the site. These are all contained within the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) as is

the location of the bike path extension that the town has gotten the funding for. Procedurally, what happens

now is that the CAP went out last week and has been released for public comment and must be approved by

the DEC and EPA (including TSCA Division [toxic substances control act] of EPA – because a lot of the

substances on the site are pcb’s). If there are no comments or corrections, the CAP can be finalized on a

parallel path with a series of other events including the town applying for Community Development Block

Grant, SRDC codifying their agreement with the Division of Historic Preservation allowing the tear down of

everything except the part that faces the Rec Center and hopefully leading to SRDC bidding the project out

over the holidays, the Town receiving the Community Block Grant contained within the correctional facility

agreement and then demolition of the building late spring, early summer next year. He stated there are other

moving parts, but these were the highlights.

Discussion followed. Mr. Flint showed a color coded map indicating all the different pollutants and stated

that there is far more contamination than the 100 River Street site. The contamination of the site is complex

and unique.

Steve Kraft stated that last year it seemed that SRDC had a goal, but this year they have a plan and this is a

big step farther along than last year.


Mr. Flint stated that the parking at J & L is intended to stay a shared parking lot with the Edgar May

Recreation Center. Eventually there were be a museum for the shops and SRDC offices in the remaining

section of the J & L building as well as possible parking for the trailhead. Discussion followed.

Karl Riotte moved to table the compliance issue for one year. Lori Claffee seconded. Motion passed

3-1 (Walter Clark voted against).

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Application #18033 Annemarie Stout

A request by Annemarie Stout to subdivide Parcel 03-01-17-000 (87.03 acres) into 4 lots of 33.89 +/-

acres; 34.52 +/- acres; 5.79 +/- acres; 12.83 +/- acres. The property is located at 2397 Connecticut

River Road and is zoned both Residential Agriculture-5 ac in overlay zones Flood Hazard and

Riverfront Protection Overlay District (18.62 acres located to east of Old Route 5) and Land Reserve

25 acre in the Riverfront Protection Overlay District (68.40 acres located to the west of Route 5.)

Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle presented the application to the board, noting that the application

was warned in the newspaper, posted and a hearing notice was mailed to abutters as required by law.

Documents submitted: Application and supplemental SFHA Flood and Minor Subdivision forms

Subdivision Map dated and signed August 11, 2018 by Farnsworth Surveys, Flood Ready Vermont

map (FIRM map 50027C0733E)

The board reviewed the survey map. Ms. Stout stated that there are shared right-of-ways on all

existing parcels which are sufficient. She is planning on retaining the 5.79 acre lot for herself which

is in the Flood Hazard Overlay and pointed out the proposed building envelope is well above the 500

year floodplain. She explained the history of the property, noting that it is called the Governor’s

Farm because it was originally owned by Governor Benning Wentworth. She stated that it is on old

maps dating back to 1700’s.

Karl Riotte moved to approve the 4 lot subdivision permit as presented. Lori Claffee seconded.

Motion passed 4-0.

B. Application #18036 Rich Howard Request by Rich Howard to construct a 1836 sq. ft. single family dwelling and 1200 sq. ft. garage in the

Special Flood Zone X on the NFIP (1% chance of flooding - 100 year flood zone). The base flood elevation

for this area is 310.8. The building must be at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation. Mr. Howard

submitted a Site Plan done by Gary Rapanotti dated July 14, 2008 which indicates that he is proposing to

building two retaining walls with top elevation at 316’ and a 3 bedroom house with basement floor elevation

at 312’.2” above base flood elevation. The garage will be connected to the house on the West elevation, which

is further out of the flood hazard area. Fill would have to be brought in to meet this requirement. The

house/garage will be on a cement foundation. There are no crawl space areas indicated on the building

elevations.

Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle stated this property is in the Special Flood Zone X on the NFIP

The base flood elevation for this area is 310.8’. Ms. Vondle stated that Mr. Howard submitted a Site

Plan done by Gary Rapanotti dated July 14, 2008 which indicates that he is proposing to build two


retaining walls with top elevation at 316’ and a 3 bedroom house with basement floor elevation at

312’.2” above base flood elevation. The garage will be connected to the house on the West elevation,

which is further out of the flood hazard area. Fill would have to be brought in to meet this

requirement. The house/garage will be on a cement foundation. There are no crawl space areas

indicated on the building elevations.

Mr. Howard was scheduled for a hearing tonight to ask permission to build according to our flood regulations.

However, excavation was started before obtaining a permit . This office was completely unaware that the

land was being cleared while processing this permit application. The applicant did not indicate this and the

Zoning Administrator did not find out until after abutter notices were sent out. The damage had already been

done. After a visit to the neighboring property to view the site and consultation with the town attorney, a 7-

day Notice of Violation was issued and mailed out on Friday, August 3rd. The violation exists as follows:

Land has been excavated, filled and graded within 25’ of the Connecticut Riverbank within the Floodway

Zone in violation of our Flood Hazard Overlay District and our River Protection Overlay District bylaws.

Excavation and fill has occurred at the edge of a stream on the north elevation of the property. The land was

cleared all the way to the top of the Connecticut River bank and to the edge of a stream on the north elevation

of the property and to the deeded right-of-way on the south elevation near Route 5. A large swath of trees

were taken down in the middle of the property. I have visited the area a number of times including Saturday,

July 28th after the Friday, July 27th storm incident that flooded town roads in Springfield. At that time there

was significant stormwater damage.

Ms. Vondle noted that Mr. Howard had 7 days to cure the violation. He must restore the land. This does not

mean regrade. It means to put foliage back in. He must replant trees to a sufficient size so that the trees will

thrive.

Mr. Howard and his son Robert Howard addressed the board. Mr. Howard said he talked to Hal

Wilkins (interim Zoning Administrator) a few months ago and indicated that Mr. Wilkins told him he

could have a permit within a few days. He stated that he assumed it wasn’t going to be a problem

and commenced doing some work on the property. The trees he cut were junk trees. Mr. Howard

stated that he had excavated all the property before he came in to ask for a permit to build the house

and garage.

Chair Steve Kraft stated that the issue is that the excavation took place within the Flood Hazard and

River Protection Overlay District. Robert Howard, son, indicated that no land was excavated in the

flood hazard area as it was “raised, not dug out”. Discussion followed regarding the placement of

hay bales and a silt fence. Walter Clark asked how close to the top of the riverbank was the land

disturbed? Mr. Howard stated that it was excavated within 10’ of the riverbank and he knows that

needs to be brought back.

Chair Kraft informed Mr. Howard that the Development Review Board cannot proceed with the

construction application until the land is returned to the original state. The site plan included in the

application is a 2008 topo map, however grading has been done since then. The board will need a

new topo map in order to show what elevations look like now because the board needs to know that

what is being planned to construct is above the flood elevation. Chair Kraft advised the applicant that

he should make sure that what he has built is definitely above the base flood elevations, because if it

is not it will have to be torn down. Ms. Claffee clarified that the applicant must cure the violation,

before the board can hear plans for any new construction.


Robert Howard informed the board that grass seed is already in place and asked what else needs to be

done.

Chair Kraft stated that streambanks needed to be graded back the streambanks, seeded and stabilized.

Discussion followed regarding vegetation and trees. Zoning Officer, Renee Vondle stated that the

soil is very precarious and erodible and the tree roots are what holds the soil and there are other

native trees that can be planted. It does not have to be box elder. There are other native trees that

will be acceptable.

Robert Howard stated that the trench was lined with slate. Trees growing on side helps, but slate is

what is keeping everything together. Chair Kraft stated that the trench sides are very steep right now

and rainwater will take those sides out.

John Broker-Campbell Regional Floodplain Manager for the Agency of Natural Resources addressed

the meeting. He stated that when flood hazard review applications come to Renee, she must send the

application to him and he has 30 days to review and comments before the DRB can review it. Mr.

Broker-Campbell stated that Mr. Howard’s previous site plan had hand drawn lines on it and was

unclear. He needs an accurate, clear plan with marked base flood elevation information.

Discussion followed regarding the 25’ river buffer bylaw. Zoning Administrator, Renee Vondle read

Section 4.19 Streams and Surface Waters:

(A) Streams & Water Courses. No structure shall be placed, and no land shall be excavated, filled or

graded in any zoning district within a distance of 25 feet measured horizontally from the following

surface waters except with the approval of the Development Review Board, subject to review under

Article 5:

1. top of slope, where the channel runs adjacent to a valley wall or high terrace, or top of the normal

bank, where the channel has access to its floodplain, of any stream or watercourse shown on

town plan maps;

Ms. Vondle also read Section 4.19 (B):

General Standards. It is the object of this Section to promote the establishment and protection of

heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees along the Town’s waterbodies to reduce the

impact of stormwater runoff, prevent soil erosion, protect wildlife and fish habitat, and maintain

water quality

1. Except as provided in Subsection (2) below, all lands within a riparian buffer shall be left in

an undisturbed, vegetated condition.

2. Removal of dead trees or trees of immediate threat to human safety as well as reasonable

pruning of existing trees is permitted.

3. The creation of new lawn areas within riparian buffers is not permitted. Property owners

already encroaching on the riparian buffer are encouraged to return mowed areas to their

naturally vegetative state. Supplemental planting with appropriate native vegetation to

restore and enhance the effective filtering and bank stabilization functions of a riparian

buffer is encouraged.

4. Any areas within a riparian buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during

construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn

grass.


Ms. Vondle noted that in Table 2.16 Riverfront Protection Overlay District

3. Between the top of the bank and a line seventy-five (75) feet horizontally from the top of the

bank, construction shall be prohibited.

Discussion followed regarded whether one of the streams has been filled in. Robert Howard stated

that this is a misunderstanding as they have made a culvert actually bigger. John Broker-Campbell

noted that Scott Jensen, Stream Alteration Engineer for Southern Vermont did visit the property and

determined that drainage area for the streams are not substantial to meet the stream alteration rules.

Steve Kraft stated that the proposed house is really close to the flood hazard zones and the DRB needs

to be really careful because it jeopardizes the town’s standing with FEMA.

Discussion followed regarding a restoration plan. Chair Kraft stated that it is important to get the

land seeded and restored to protect from run off. Trees need to be placed along the streams, willow,

cottonwood, cut leaf maple, box elder or anything that is native low land species. In addition to this

restoration program, a topo map will be needed.

John Broker-Campbell clarified the issues:

1. The restoration of the 25’ setback from streambank and riverbank is the town’s purview.

2. The flood hazard area where the applicant wants to place his house is the State’s

purview.

Rich Howard asked if the elevation of the 25’ setback needed to be changed as well. Chair Kraft

reiterated that both the elevation and vegetation within the 25’ setback of both the river and streams

need to be put back, seeded, planted and stabilized.

Gary Rapanotti, local land surveyor and originator of the site plan asked about the area from the 25’

to the edge of the floodplain that has been altered. John Broker-Campbell stated that his

interpretation of the Springfield Zoning Flood Bylaws is that it does not prohibit fill, but the DRB is

within its right to ask that the land be brought back to its original state because any work that has

been done is a violation because it is development within the flood hazard area.

Gary Rapanotti stated that 10 years ago they obtained a LOMA-F so that the house could sit partially

in the floodplain in an elevated state. As part of the LOMA when the house gets built there has to be

an as built survey to show what has been altered and as the surveyor he has to show how that area has

been changed. As he shows how that area has been changed, and if there is an area between the 25’

and the edge of the floodplain that has been changed, then that violates the LOMA.

The board reviewed the flood elevation site plan. Gary Rapanotti discussed the contour changes that

have occurred from the excavation. John Broker-Campbell stated that Gary Rapanotti and Mr.

Howard could get a metes and bounds LOMA showing the whole property. It was agreed that the

applicant, Zoning Administrator, Gary Rapanotti and John Broker-Campbell will clarify these

answers before the next meeting.

Ms. Vondle presented the Conditional LOMA-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill

Comment Document). Ms. Vondle read from the document: “Our (meaning FEMA) final

determination will be made upon receipt of a copy of this document, as-built elevations and a

completed Community Acknowledgement form”. Ms. Vondle stated that the Mr. Howard has to

prove to local community officials that he has built it according the LOMA-F plan before we give our


Community Acknowledgement letter to FEMA before FEMA will change the flood map indicated

that this is a pretty delicate dance.

The board discussed what the next steps need to be. Gary Rapanotti stated that he has a topo and

knows what the land looked like before and noted that it is his belief that Springfield streambank and

riverbank setbacks need to be complied with and replanted. The other areas in the floodplain (field)

should be restored back to near normal and the other areas outside of the floodplain (big ditch)

stabilized with stone rip rap and going down driveway on the left side should either be a grass swale

or stone rip rap. May have a hard time in getting grass to grow in between storms so a little bit of

stone in those areas would slow things down. Ms. Vondle asked Mr. Rapanotti to qualify what “near

normal” means. Mr. Rapanotti stated that near normal means close to what the original contours

were. As part of LOMA-F they applied and got approval to change some of that. There was a knoll

that was knocked off by 2’ or 3’ and he feels if it’s lower than normal it’s ok, but if it’s higher than

normal, it should be pulled back for the floodway. He stated that you do not add fill in the floodway

unless you get a LOMA-F. He did look at the property recently and took some photographs and it is

pretty close to what it was, but there is a few areas where it is a little higher down by the riverbank.

Steve Kraft clarified the plan going forward. He stated that 25’ from the top of the river has to go back

to the way it was, make sure streams are stabilized, land is seeded and mulched because there is

definitely gullying from the last couple rainstorms. Once the land is stabilized again we can start on

the rest of the application. He instructed Mr. Howard to give Ms. Vondle a call to work out the

restoration plan.

Ms. Vondle clarified that rip rap is not to be put on or near the streambank, because that will cause

more erosion in a storm event and then cause additional damage downstream.

Fred Wootton, abutter to the south of Mr. Howard addressed the board about his right-of-way

concerns. He informed the board that his only access to his property is through the right-of-way and

he has to maintain it year round in order to get in and out of his property. He has spent a considerable

amount of money hauling truckloads of crushed stone in and stated that Mr. Howard has excavated

right up to the right-of-way and he is concerned about the erosion. Mr. Wootton also talked about

highway plows throwing snow onto both the right-of-way and Mr. Howard’s property. He stated that

Mr. Howard is building a separate driveway for himself, but he is concerned about the stability of his

right-of-way as it is his only access. He also is concerned whether he will be able to trim trees as

needed.

Michelle Putnam, abutter to the north stated she believed that she and the applicant have a property

line dispute as she believes the applicant may be on her property. She noted that she is in the process

of getting the land surveyed but stated that through history and through maps it looks like the applicant

has moved their property line and caused damage to their land. Her request is that the property be

restored and that no further development is allowed until the property line issue is resolved. Mr.

Howard agreed that was a fair request.

Karl Riotte moved to table this application until more information is brought forward.

Lori Claffee seconded. Motion passed 4-0.

Minutes DRB 08/14/18 Page

10

9. Other Business:

1. Skyline Nursery

Gary Rapanotti addressed the board regarding a proposed subdivision plan that he is working

on for Hugh Stevens. Hugh Stevens, Nick Barlow and Nate Lewis joined him in the

discussion. Mr. Stevens owns Parcel 07-03-23 at 1541 Skitchewaug Trail. A single family

dwelling, business and out buildings are on the property. The owner wishes to subdivide the

property to divide the home from the business, thereby creating a viable housesite for a non-

related owner in the future.

The property is located in LR-25 zone. The subdivision bylaws allow for a one-time

subdivision of two 2-acre parcels in a LR-25 zone. The parcel is separated by a road. The

house and business with 34.36 acres is located on the East side of Skitchewaugh Trail and a

parcel of 1.81 acres is on the West side of the road. The owner wishes to subdivide the East

lot into 5.23 acres (to remain with house) and 29.13 acres to include the business and

outbuildings.

The small parcel (1.8 acres on the West side of the Skitchewaugh Road) which is clearly

indicated on the town maps as merged with the 34.36 acres on the west side of the road.

There is also an inactive parcel of 23.19 acres (Parcel 07-03-23.002) on the West side of the

road as well. Discussion followed regarding the one time provision of allowing two 2-acre

lots to be subdivided in the LR-25 and whether both sides of the road would be considered

one contiguous lot or two separate lots?

The board reviewed Section 2.4 Lot Size and Density in Land Reserve and Agricultural Zones

and the LR-25 District dimensional requirements: standards for 2-5 acre lots. Intended to

conserve open space for land reserve and associated uses. The history of this regulation was

farmers with larger lots did not want to parcel the property out in large lots, but rather be able

to give their children a 2-acre lot on the family property.

Through discussion, it was unclear if Parcel 07-03-23.002 is a legal separate lot. Zoning

Administrator, Renee Vondle stated that contiguous parcels are taxed and considered one lot

by the Listers per state statute, but she believed that zoning considers it two parcels. It was

decided that Mr. Rapanotti would look into this.

Driveway and access points were discussed. The owner would like to keep the current access

points maintained.

The board discussed what options were available for this situation. Ms. Vondle stated that the

board could approve the application as a 2 lot subdivision with the condition that they not be

allowed to use the disclaimer for the two 2-acre subdivision in the future.

Mr. Stevens asked about the parcel on the east side of the road that has a separate parcel number

(Parcel 07-03-23.002) and whether he would be able to subdivide that in the future with the

provision to allow the two 2-acre. Discussion followed. Mr. Rapanotti stated that he will do

more research.

Minutes DRB 08/14/18 Page

11

10. Adjournment:

Walter Clark moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Lori Claffee seconded. Motion passed

unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Renee L. Vondle

Secretary

Town Planner/Zoning Administrator


December21,2018

APPENDIXD

COMMUNITYANDGOVERNMENTALSUPPORTCORRESPONDENCE