PLANNING BOARD February 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM TOWN HALL, 41 SOUTH MAIN STREET

PLANNING BOARD February 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM TOWN HALL, 41 SOUTH MAIN STREET In attendance: Members: Nancy Carter (Selectboard s Representative), Kelly Dent, Judith Esmay (Chair), Brian Edwards, Paul Simon (Alternate), Jenna Musco (Alternate), April Salas (Alternate), Jon Criswell, Michael Mayor, and Iain Sim; Staff: Robert Houseman, and Catheryn Hembree Others : Please see attendance sheet ESMAY called the meeting to order and called the first item on the agenda. 1. Voluntary merger by Jason Densmore of Tax Map 12, Lots 62, 63 and 64 located at 20, 22 and 24 River Road in the RR Zoning District. Mr. Houseman explained there were no representatives present for the case. He stated there was one residence on one of the lots and the other two lots were vacant. The final lot would be conforming to the zoning regulations. ESMAY asked if any member of the public wished to speak for or against the merger. No one came forward. ESMAY called for a motion to find the application complete. SIM made a motion to find the voluntary merger complete. EDWARDS seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Vote 7-0 SIM made a motion to approve the voluntary merger. DENT seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Vote 7-0 2. P2018-15 Site Plan Review (DESIGN REVIEW), Chris Audino for Christ Redeemer Church, property owner of record, to demolish existing structures and construct a new house of worship church facility, access drive, and parking at 28 & 32 Greensboro Road, Tax Map 25, Lots 14 & 15, in the SR-2 & RR zoning districts. ESMAY called the second item on the agenda and read the legal notice. ESMAY stated tonight s meeting was not a public hearing. The meeting would be a conversation about the proposed site design for Christ Redeemer Church. Representatives for P2018-15 came forward. They included architect Chris Huston, and building committee members Chris Audino and Lauren Groves. 1

Mr. Huston stated that he had made a mistake at the site visit by misreading a stake. He would show the correct location during his presentation. The stake was showing the middle of the drive on the west side of the property. Mr. Huston stated that the project is under the required lot coverage and building coverage as stated in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Huston had prepared pictures showing how the buffer would shield the development. The tree shading the existing west drive would not be able to be saved but a large tree in front of the house will remain. Mr. Huston had prepared site section views that compared the height of the lighting fixtures, the height of the church, and the heights of the existing buildings. Mr. Huston pointed out stormwater catchment along the bottom of the drive and close to the curve at the top. Mr. Huston stated the building was behind the 35 foot front setback. The church, at the closest point, would be 36 feet from the road. The planting plan showed native species and would minimize the area of mowed lawn. Mr. Huston had prepared context photos using the existing structures. The existing white house s floor elevation is about the same as that of the church. Mr. Huston showed pictures of the winter and summer views through the buffer from the white house. He next showed pictures from Velvet Rocks Drive toward the yellow house in the summer to show the buffered views. Mr. Huston showed pictures of existing buildings to give context to the proposed church. He used the Velvet Rocks neighborhood and 52 Greensboro Road. The next slides showed the proposed building imposed onto the existing landscape. He stated these images showed the worst case scenario because he was unable to place the proposed additional landscaping. ESMAY asked the Board if they had any comments or questions. SIMON asked about the stormwater plan on sheet C1.1. He asked how the stormwater was captured on the north side of the project. Mr. Huston explained it would be captured along the top curve of the drive and in the buffer area. SIM asked what material would be used for the driveway. Mr. Huston explained that it would be asphalt paving. SIM expressed concern about a channel being created and water running down the drive. Mr. Huston assured the Board this would not happen with proper maintenance. MUSCO asked about landscaping on west side and if it would be enough to block the neighbors views of lights. SIMON suggested adding a berm that would provide screening as well as help with stormwater. SIM asked about the size of the proposed plantings. SIMON stated the plans showed a 3 to 3.5 tree size for the red oak. MUSCO suggested adding trees to the drive s corner. Mr. Huston stated the white pine would remain at the front of the building to the east. SALAS asked about the east side stormwater plan. Mr. Huston explained the dark lines showed underground piping that flowed to an underground holding tank. A rain garden and additional catchment along the front of the parking lot is shown in the proposed plans. ESMAY asked if there was landscaping within the parking lot. Mr. Huston explained there would be trees along the edge and at the ends of the rows. 2

DENT commented that the proposed building was on a different scale than the rest of the neighborhood. SALAS stated that the building would have to be integrated into the neighborhood. The current plan has a lot of paved surface and is inviting to automobile traffic but not pedestrians. The plan is servicing people commuting into the neighborhood. Mr. Audino commented that they have talked about a sidewalk along Greensboro Road and they could enhance the internal pathways. ESMAY stated she would like to see a plan for the pedestrian walkways. SIMON suggested the sidewalk could connect to the stairs and walkway on the east side of the building. SIMON also suggested clustering evergreens along the edge of the front of the parking lot to minimize light coming from cars and fixtures. SIM stated he had a few observations. He wondered if there was enough parking if the church s congregation grew, and would the additional cars park along Greensboro Road. He stated that during the site visit traffic did stop due to the cars parked along the road. SIM asked how else parking could be organized so there is not a disruption on the street. SIMON asked about the traffic study. Mr. Houseman explained that traffic studies usually are not presented during design review. ESMAY explained that the Board had two options tonight. The first was to continue design review and the second was to end design review. Mr. Huston stated he worked diligently with feedback from the Board, staff, and neighborhood and to meet technical criteria. ESMAY explained to the public that she would take their comments and questions by subjects that appeared frequently in their previous emails and discussions. The first subject to be commented on would be stormwater. Sylvia Spitta, Hollenbeck Lane: Explained she lived on Greensboro Road for 27 years and tracked the stormwater coming down from the new developments. She asked who she should show the pictures of stormwater damages and issues to. ESMAY stated she could send them to the Planning Department and they would forward them to the correct persons. Josh Hunt, 24 Greensboro Road: Explained the existing culverts do not work. Mr. Huston explained the culvert is under state jurisdiction and they could not do anything with it. The most they could do is be proactive about stormwater on their site. ESMAY suggested having the civil engineer present at future meetings. Raymond LaBombard, 41 Greensboro Road: Stated that bugs were an issue because water would not properly drain. There is a swamp next to his property that was not there before the new developments. Drew Matter, Hanover Resident: Stated he was a member of the church and an engineer, but not for this project. He suggested measuring water levels in areas of concern and comparing them with data going forward to make sure there is improvement. 3

Tracey Smith, 80 Greensboro Road: Stated the residents who have lived in the neighborhood a long time have noticed changes in the stormwater. She suggested that a part of any study needs to include interviews with people who live there. Karen Geiling, 19 Hollenback Lane: Stated the culvert along Silent Springs washed out and she had to repair it to have access to her home. It came to a total of $10,00.00. Roger Sloboda, 150 Greensboro Road: Stated this project cannot be compared to the commercial project at 52 Greensboro Road. The existing project is smaller, has less parking, and less visitors. He stated that assurances were made when the other new developments were built but stormwater damage still occurred. He asked how the existing trees were going to be maintained during development. Mr. Houseman explained that there would be a temporary controlled measures plan that would lay out how the site would be managed and staff would review and approve it before development could start. Dana Schlosser, 42 Greensboro Road: Stated that the State does not do anything to mitigate existing problems but the Town still allows development. She suggested the Town go to the State to get help addressing the issues. SIM stated that the Select Board would decide if the Town would adopt Greensboro Road from the State. Carter explained that the Town would have to take on the bill to fix and maintain Greensboro Road. Jeff Acker, 27 Greensboro Road: Explained that Town ordinances dictate what requirements a development needs to meet to not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The State s alteration of terrain (AOT) permit is a separate process and just because an AOT is issued does not mean it will meet the Town requirements or have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Meg Bucett, 5 Bacchus Circle: stated there are 50 homes in Velvet Rocks which was different than what number was presented. She asked about the parking filtration system. Mr. Huston explained they were following stated regulations regarding filter time and quality, but he would get the civil engineer to attend a future meeting to give more detailed answers. ESMAY stated the next topic for comments and questions would be traffic. Maria Laskaris, 10 Aurora Way: Shared concerns over having a large building like this not being used all the time. Mr. Huston stated a time and use plan would be submitted. Mr. Audino stated that the plan would show the current usage numbers but they do want to make the building a community point of service and need help from the neighborhood to figure out how it can best serve the community. Roger Sloboda, 150 Greensboro Road: Asked how the numbers on the traffic plan were determined. SIM stated he would like some time to study the traffic plan before they discussed it. ESMAY stated that was fine but she still wanted to hear concerns about traffic. Josh Hunt, 24 Greensboro Road: Commented that other properties on Greensboro Road do not need a 22 foot wide drive. 4

Amit Chakrabarti, 25 Greensboro Road: stated that the use of the building through the week could change and he was worried about how it would impact school traffic. Drew Matter, Hanover resident: Stated they could tell the congregation not to park on Greensboro Road. Heide Whelan, 43 Greensboro Road; Stated there is a lack of transparency regarding the use of the building. First, the neighborhood was told it would be used Monday nights and Sundays but now they are talking about it being a community area that could be used all week. Jose Del Pino, 97 Greensboro Road: Stated a project like this would change the street forever and is not appropriate for this street. It is the right of the church for them to use the building as often as they see fit but this use is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Pat Schumacher, 2 Hollenbeck Lane: Stated it was already dangerous to pull out of her road. She asked about emergency access to the project. Mr. Houseman stated that during staff review the Police, Fire, Public Works, Code Enforcement, and Planning look at all the elements of the plans and comment before the Planning Board ever sees the plans. Mr. Huston stated they would be widening the drive curve based on feedback from Police and Fire. ESMAY stated she had attended plan reviews and was impressed by the rigorous process staff puts the designs through. ESMAY stated the next topic that would be up for comments and questions would be lighting. Amit Chakrabarti, 25 Greensboro Road: Stated the lights from the drive would shine directly into his house. Mr. Huston stated during the summer the plantings would be dense enough to block his house from the parking lot. Jeff Acker, 27 Greensboro Road: Pointed out the lights were not really 12 feet in height. They are 12 foot lights on a 3 foot base. Pat Schumacher, 2 Hollenback Lane: Stated she felt the plans for the church have already had a negative impact on the neighborhood and she gave an example of the neighborhood no longer participating in a Christmas light tradition. Roger Sloboda, 150 Greensboro Road: Asked if the Town requires parking lot lights to be on all the time. Mr. Audino stated no, they lights would be on timers. Mr. Houseman stated the applicant would have control of the lights and times would be submitted with the application. John Hunt, 24 Greensboro Road: Stated there are issues if the church has lights on all the time or if they do not. Louis Burkot, 10 Aurora Way: Asked if Mr. Huston had an east view from Aurora Way in winter. Mr. Huston only had an summer image. 5

Joe Sullivan, 93 Greensboro Road: Asked if the plans submitted to the State for stormwater would meet or exceed a 50 year storm. Mr. Huston stated the plan would meet the State requirements. Mr. Houseman stated that the Town maintains stormwater well and most damage is caused from blockages. He suggested the neighborhood to create their own maintenance plan. Donna Schlosser, 42 Greensboro Road: Commented that taking out houses and adding a large parking lot seemed like it created a large paved footprint. She stated it was imperative to put in a pervious parking lot and to go beyond what is expected on paper. The neighborhood s concerns should be put first. A resident suggested shuttling church members in on Sundays. Ms. Bernie, 5 Aurora Way: Asked if increasing the curve on the driveway would make it too close to the wetlands. Mr. Huston said no and the increase was fine with staff during review. He stated that pervious pavement does not work well and he felt this stormwater system would work better. A resident suggested looking at the Velvet Rocks stormwater plan because it does not work well and the engineer for the church s site could learn from their mistakes. ESMAY asked the Board if they had anymore comments or questions. SIM requested the 3D images be made public. ESMAY asked if the Board wished to have another meeting. Jeff Acker asked if he could make another comment. He distributed a handout showing the changes to the footprint comparisons from the January 30th presentation and February 20th presentation. He asked how the residents could trust information coming from the representatives of this project. Drew Matter, Hanover resident: stated it was hard for the church to hear grievances and they want to be a good neighbor. He explained how it was possible to get incorrect numbers from a Google Map add on. He knew the church was going to be larger than the houses in the neighborhood but it was because it was going to be a community space the neighborhood could use. Mr. Acker stated that if the representatives made errors on square footage and house placement, things that were easy to catch, how would the neighborhood know if there were errors on engineering plans. Mr. Huston stated he made a point of addressing errors. ESMAY stated the map showing the square footage of properties was not a required document. It was made to help with understanding the proposed project. It was flawed and the errors have been pointed out. Josh Hunt stated this proposed project was causing a rift between two parts of the community. ESMAY asked the Board what they wished to do. SIM stated he has not seen or heard any major changes to the design. He felt like what they were presenting is what was going to be seen by the Zoning Board of Appeals and in final review. ESMAY stated she had concerns how the proposed 6

project was engaging with the street. SALAS stated she had concerns with stormwater management, the increase of impervious space, and having a drainage system that already is not working. She would like to see how stormwater would be managed using observed flows of water. SIMON seconded SALAS s concerns and suggested directing as much stormwater as possible from the State s responsibility. The site should handle 100% of its own stormwater. CARTER stated she felt the Board had all the information it needed. ESMAY called for a motion. SIM made a motion to end design review. EDWARDS seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Vote 7-0 The case would move forward to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. Minutes January 30, February 6, and February 12, 2018 ESMAY called the next item on the agenda, the review and approval of minutes from previous meetings. The first was from the meeting held on January 30, 2018. SIM made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. EDWARDS seconded the motion and it passed. Vote 5-0 with CARTER and MAYOR abstaining, The second set of minutes was from February 6, 2018. MAYOR made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. EDWARDS seconded the motion and it passed. Vote 6-0 with CARTER abstaining. The third set of minutes was from the February 12, 2018 site visit. CRISWELL made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. DENT seconded the motion and it passed. Vote 5-0 with CARTER and MAYOR abstaining. 4. Other Business Mr. Houseman made an announcement about the Density Done Well conference and invited Board members to attend. 5. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:56 pm. Respectfully submitted, Catheryn Hembree 7