TOWN OF BENNINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
CDC ASSEMBLY ROOM
BENNINGTON, VT 05201
JUNE 5, 2002 @ 7:30 P.M.

Present: Robert Burgess, Charles Copp, Bill Barney, Andy Anderson, Barry Hörst, Janet Thompson, Jamie Jerome, Ron Alderman, Randy Maxon and Al Ray.

Excused:  Michael von Ouhl.

Also present: Dan Monks, Zoning Administrator; Jon Endres, Jim Secor, Mike McDonough, Dave Nicholson, John Austin, Tom Lewis, Beth Myer, Elaine Harwood, Dick Cutler, Dave Mance, Bob Edwards, Dr. Fran Moriarty, Lon McClintlock, John Ponsetto, Russel Archer, Ron Berubi, Scott Stockman, Chris Drencuf, Bobby Gates, and Robyn Baker.  

Brady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 

1. Minutes of May 15, 2002
Anderson and Burgess were not present. Thompson moved to approve the Minutes of May 15, 2002 as amended. Hörst seconded. The motion carried. Anderson and Burgess abstained. 

2.  Reading of witness' oath.
Mr. Monks read the witness oath: "I solemnly swear and affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the statement I make, the testimony I give, and other evidence I submit to the Development Review Board at the Board's public hearing held on this date shall be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." 

3. Disclosure of Ex parte Communications and Conflicts of Interest 
Alderman recused himself from Item 8, as he owns property in a competitive business. Jerome will recuse himself from Items 8 and 9. Thompson will recuse herself from Items 10 and 11. Alderman will also recuse himself from Item 12. Copp will recuse himself from Item 6. Brady will recuse himself from Item 7.

4. Alternates - Voting Assignments
Beginning with Maxon, then Ray, then Copp.

5. Written Decisions - Board Review - Announcements
* Bellemare and Sons, Inc., Westminster Development LLC, Northside Drive, New Retail Store.
* Vermont Composites, Inc., 139 Shields Drive, Addition to Manufacturing Plant.
* Robert Johnson, 1-3 Buckley Drive, Discontinuance of Use.

The Board was comfortable with the findings. Monks noted that the Robert Johnson decision was that the lot could not be used for a dwelling.
Vermont Composites was approved as presented unanimously. 

Bellemare & Sons was approved with conditions including additional landscaping around the propane tank, a sidewalk constructed across the front of the property, three new deciduous trees, intensity of lighting limited, left hand turns onto Northside restricted.  Brady, Copp, Alderman, von Ouhl, Barney, and Thompson were in favor. Hörst was opposed. 

Alderman moved to authorize the Chair to sign the Findings. Jerome seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

6. CAT-TV, 625 Main Street, design review of sign.
Copp recused himself. Hörst explained that the ARP reviewed the matter and recommended approval. The sign is green with gold lettering. Beth Myer, CAT TV and Elaine Harwood, sign designer were present. Alderman asked if the sign above the doorway was necessary, as they are the only business in the premises. Myer felt that it was aesthetically pleasing. She also noted that they want to distinguish the difference between CAT-TV and a community media center. Jerome moved approval. Alderman seconded. Maxon voted. The motion passed unanimously. 

7. 210 South Street Corp., 210 South Street, amendment to previously approved site plan for additional parking area. 

Brady recused himself from the matter. Hörst noted that the applicant met with the ARP. They are seeking a site plan review for interim parking changes. McDonough and John Austin were present. Hörst noted that this is not the final site plan, which will change. They discussed drainage at the pathway, additional lighting in the handicapped area, and additional landscaping and screening along the 20-car parking lot. Hörst reported that the ARP recommends approval for an interim period, perhaps 18 months. McDonough distributed revised plot plans based on the ARP review. There are a series of revisions proposed including enlargement of the existing parking on the east side of building, off of Union Street. The purpose of the additional parking on Hillside is to improve the appearance of site. They are hoping to make the building accessible. Some work has been done in the area of the embankment between Hillside and Union. This material is fairly loose ledge. This affords the opportunity to scour the hillside to provide parking for additional five cars. They plan to scour the hillside, and move the material into the area north of Hillside Street at the southeast entrance.

They also plan to develop a path from the lower parking facility to the entrance, which will be the principle accessible entrance. The path would be gravel, perhaps paved in the future. They envision that this area will serve as a long term parking solution. They also plan a realignment of the two handicapped parking spaces off of Hillside. They were head in, but are now parallel to the street. This affords an opportunity for two additional cars. They also plan a parking area for 20 cars on the terrace between Hillside and Union. There was originally a house and carriage barn on this site. There is a degree of old pavement existing. The vegetation is thinner than the rest of the site, and some has been removed. This is a fairly flat terrace, accessed by way of the existing curb cut at the crest of Hillside. They would maintain sheet drainage from the hard packed area. There is an old lawn surrounding this area. They plan to clean up the embankment and reclaim the lawn. There is a 20' setback. The line along Hillside is a 10' setback. They propose to reclaim lawn and clean up the edges of the parking areas. 

The next revision is lighting at the two entranceways. There was none originally proposed. They now plan on the installation of two 50-watt metal halide cylinder downlights located below the beam structure that supports the opening. There will also be two in the interior of the new porch. Also, one surface mounted cylinder downlight can over the steps where there is currently a floodlight. 

The ARP recommended changes, and had concerns about drainage finding its way down the path. They have altered the grading to ensure a slight swale to allow drainage. They are proposing to take the existing flood light and relocate it to the east side of the building with a baffle to shed light in the direction of the path. While a dumpster is not currently proposed, they have proposed a location in the interior portion of the site, to be accessed from parking area. This will be a 10' x 10' gated enclosure.  Copp asked if the light was intense enough, and McDonough felt that it was. It now illuminates the area surrounding the step. It is a 17 watt fluorescent light. Alderman asked if the lights are shown on the plan, and McDonough indicated the location. Burgess moved to accept the plan as final as presented. Thompson seconded. Copp and Ray were voting. Brady asked if the Board considered trees in the parking lot. Jerome asked what the size of the parking lot is, and McDonough noted that it is to scale. 63' x 107', allowing for some turn around. Jerome asked about the elevation difference in the parking lot to keep cars from ending up on Union Street. McDonough noted that they have used boulders in one area, and they could do the same. Jerome asked about landscaping the parking lot. McDonough noted that they intend to reclaim the lawn. There is some vegetation that will remain. They are not proposing any new plantings, consistent with the proposal that this is an interim plan. The areas east and west are overgrown with vegetation now. This is likely to be changed when final plans are designed. Jerome asked and McDonough noted that this would not be a permanent parking lot. Jerome asked, and Monks confirmed that the requirement is one shade tree for every 3000 square feet. Improvements would be removed by a permanent parking solution. Jerome asked about sheet drainage, and would like a condition that if it has an impact of storm water running onto Union Street, the applicant be responsible for storm drain system. Austin felt that they should measure what is currently happening and compare. Jerome felt that the applicant should be responsible for the runoff onto the town right of way. Austin was willing to work with the town. Thompson understood that they do not have an understanding of when the parking area could be planned. She understands that trees would have to be ripped up. McDonough noted that there could be a parking structure in this location. Jerome noted that was why they were not addressing paving, lighting, curbing, drainage, etc. Alderman asked what happens to the temporary parking after 18 months. Monks noted that the applicant would have to return and reapply or remove the lot. Jerome requested that the motion be amended to limit the permit to 18 months. Hörst noted that the ARP recommends 18 months. He also asked that there be a condition that the owner address sheet drainage onto Union Street. Burgess and Thompson agreed to the amendment for the 18-month limitation, and the sheet drainage. Anderson asked if there was enough room to empty the dumpster. McDonough noted that they do not plan a dumpster. The motion for final approval with conditions passed unanimously. Jerome noted that construction should include erosion control.   

8. Richard Cutler, A. Merle Johnson, Valley View Road, subdivision plat review of three lot subdivision/boundary line adjustment. 

Hörst reported that the ARP met with Cutler. They are satisfied that the Section 6.01 requirements for a cul de sac have been met, as well as with the changes to the subdivision plan. Using section 7.01 of Administrative Enforcement allows the board to specify circumstances or conditions that comply with the intent of purpose of town plan. This is not a new road, but an improvement over existing road. Hörst reported that the ARP recommends final approval. Cutler explained that he was requesting a 3 lot-subdivision. He is taking 2.65 acres from his property and 2.4 acres from Johnson's property to make one 5-care lot. The road is existing. There is a new right of way up to the new boundary line, with a 100' turn around. The first 540' is a class V road. The second 460' is blacktop, which will be widened to 16'. They are just extending the existing road. Alderman asked and Cutler noted that there is about 1150' from Houran Road to cul de sac. Copp asked if cul de sac would be graded or leveled. Maxon asked about the culvert, and Cutler noted that he would extend the culvert to each end of the cul de sac. Brady asked, and Cutler noted that the 16' width would be blacktop. This will be a class V road to the utility line, where the two driveways divide, right to cul de sac. Cutler noted that the grade on the whole road is less than 10%. The length from the end of the existing class V road to cul de sac, is about 580'. When asked about the usefulness of the cul de sac, Cutler remarked that he does not feel it is necessary. The turnaround at the Johnson house is 24' x 100' paved, and the new home has a 70' diameter turnaround. Maxon asked why they need to construct two cul de sacs. Monks noted that this was previously denied. The lot requires 50' of road frontage. According to regulations, every dead end road has to have a 100' cul de sac. Hörst asked if the Board decided that the cul de sac was not necessary. Cutler feels that it does not make sense to have it there. This is 70' with a 25' hammerhead back up area. A number of letters from neighbors supporting the project have been received. Brady explained that this is an open meeting because the ARP recommended approval, otherwise it would be a closed deliberative session. Barney does not feel that the cul de sac makes sense, but he and Alderman agreed that they need to be consistent. Thompson agrees with consistency. Brady noted that if the Board decides to waive the length, then the cul de sac should also be waived. Brady feels that the Planning Commission needs to change the regulations. Burgess agreed that they are bound by the Bylaw, while common sense requires no cul de sac. Hörst feels that they have to be reasonable. He read section 7.01, specifically that requirements of regulations may be waived or modified when in the opinion of the Board specific circumstances indicate that such waiver or modification will properly carry out the purpose and intent of the town plan. Hörst would vote to approve the road without the cul de sac, based on that paragraph. Cutler noted that the home he is building is for him personally. Hörst moved to accept the subdivision as presented, without the cul de sac, and waive the requirement for the length of the road, with a stipulation that the driveway meet the minimum requirement of Class V roadway. Burgess noted that they should approve according to 4.02, which he reviewed in detail. Anderson seconded. The motion carried. Maxon and Ray were voting. Brady was opposed. 

9. Nastech, 110 Shields Drive, seeking site plan approval for expansion to existing manufacturing facility and expansion of parking lot at the above address, an I District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 6.0, 6.6 and 8.5.

Copp and Maxon were voting. Secor presented the project. He explained that they are proposing a parking lot expansion of 102 positions. There are three landscaped islands, and additional cutoff light fixtures. They plan on overbuilding the existing courtyard to expand the manufacturing area. They will buffer the side of the property with landscaping. The existing berm will remain. Storm water will drain into the existing ditch and swale and will sheet drain into the culvert and drop inlet to the main storm water detention basin. Barney moved to close the hearing. Hörst seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 

10. Gillian Clay Ehrich and Shannon Kelley Ehrich, Trustees of the Camp Gundah Trust, South Stream Road, subdivision plat review of two lot subdivision. 

Barney and Thompson recused themselves. This is an adjustment of two boundary lines. Hörst noted that this was a readjustment of boundary lines. He explained that the ARP reviewed the matter. Dave Mance was representing the applicant. Hörst noted that the ARP recommends approval. Mance indicated that the Camp Gundah Trust owns two parcels, 32 acres, parcel 24. He explained that Ehrich's desire was to create a two acre parcel around the existing house, and combine the remaining land with the northern parcel that the trust plans to hold in order to balance acreage, and allow the road frontage to be controlled by the trust. They will relocate the existing driveway. Alderman asked, and Mance indicated that they propose that everything be combined into one-two acre and one 29 acre parcel. This is to maintain control of as much frontage as possible, including the wooded area along South Stream Road. The small piece has been parceled out to sell.  The large piece will remain with the trust. Jerome moved final approval. Maxon seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Copp, Ray, and Maxon voted. 

11. Peter and Alice Pappas, James Cone, 832 West Road, conditional use and site plan review of golf driving range. 
Jerome moved to continue the matter. Hörst seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 

12. Stewart's Shops Corp., 711 Main Street, site plan review of relocated and expanded pump island and revised traffic circulation.

Alderman recused himself. If this becomes the final hearing, there will be closed deliberation. Maxon and Ray were voting. Lewis reviewed the most recent changes. A no left turn sign is now present. Burgess asked why they removed the oil separator from the original plan. Lewis noted that they have been replaced. 
Burgess asked if the drain from the front to the rear was connected, Lewis explained that engineers spent a lot of time updating the drainage. Water will be diverted to the detention area, other water sheet drains. Four catch basins have oil water separators. There are five in total. Jerome asked where the three front catch basins flow. Burgess asked why there is a five foot landscaped strip between the pavement and the street instead of ten. He felt that the whole design would not work. Brady noted that 10' are required. Lewis explained that there are 10' from the edge of the sidewalk to the canopy. Those distances were set for safety. They must have that much room between the planter and the island. Maxon noted that if they don't bring back the other 10', then cars would park there. Jerome asked why canopy could not be pushed closer to the store, and Lewis felt that there would not be enough room for the parking spaces at the front. Barney asked how the canopy is supported. Burgess asked and the applicant distributed a lighting plan. Burgess specified that he would like to see a photometric plan. Jerome noted that on the western side, from the sidewalk to the edge of the paving there are 90' on the front, and 110' of paving off the back corner heading west. The parking stalls are shown as 40' deep. He feels that the scale is wrong. Jerome asked why there is extra paving instead of increasing green space. From parking space 9, there are 60', when 44' are required. Lewis explained that this was because of the tanker turning and moving around building. Burgess asked why 1 and 2 are angled one way and 3 and 4 are angled the opposite. Around the corner there is head in parking, and around back it is angled again. Lewis reviewed the traffic flow as they anticipate it. He explained that they could fit five head in, rather than 4 diagonal. Burgess would like to see more green space, and more diagonal parking than head in. Brady noted that on the easterly most portion of the main street frontage, there is no planter. Lewis agreed to place one similar to the other side. Thompson asked if there was curbing on the east side. Jerome asked if there was a difference in asphalt wing curbing and planter curbing. Lewis noted that asphalt is easier to maintain. There is a proposed evergreen hedgerow off Stewarts' property. Monks felt that the applicant should be responsible for the hedgerow. The applicant agreed. The applicant was asked about the deciduous trees in the front island. Lewis noted that they were hawthorns that grow to 22' and other trees that grow 25-30 feet. Burgess asked about the storm detention discharge area onto town property. Lewis explained that this is how the drainage works best. Some flows there now. Barney moved to close the hearing. Jerome seconded. Maxon and Ray were voting. The motion passed unanimously. 

13. Independent Wireless One, Rigas Family, Mount Anthony Road, site plan and conditional use review for addition of cell antennas to existing tower. 

John Ponsetto was representing the applicant. He explained that they are asking permission to install six antennas at the 67' level of an existing 70' Adelphia tower. The application includes a 9' x 10' concrete pad in a 12' x 12' compound. This is located in a forest district, where telecommunication is a conditional use under Section 3.4. Russ Archer, employed by IWO, and Ron Berubi, an engineer with Clough Harbour, will review what the project will bring to the site. Scott Stockman, is a radio frequency engineer who will discuss coverage. Chris Drencuf has prepared simulations of before and after. 

Russ Archer, a consultant for IWO, a subsidiary of Sprint, explained that the object is to provide reliable personal communication services. They have been successful in Vermont, with service in Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, etc. They are continuing to grow and would like to include the Bennington area. This particular location is key to providing the best possible service with minimal impact. It is their policy not to introduce new structures. They have successfully launched three cities with no new towers. 

Ron Berubi explained that their original plan was to place six antennas and one small one on the northern face. There is currently a 70' guy tower and a 40' elevated wooden platform. On the adjacent site is a 60' tower owned by US Cellular. The IWO installation will be 7 antennas at the 67' level, and three radio cabinets on the ground. Tower work is usually limited to 2-3 days. Lucent delivers the radio cabinets. They did not complete a full boundary survey for the project, but used a plan that was on record. There is just over 100' from their equipment to the nearest property line. They will be using the existing gravel drive and parking. Once construction complete, traffic will be one to two trips per month. There is no landscaping, lighting, screening, etc. proposed. This is an unmanned installation, and will have no impact on water or sewer. Power will come from the existing Adelphia shelter. Telephone will be addressed with microwave antenna. 

Scott Stockman, IWO radiofrequency engineer addressed the Board. He explained the need for locating the antennas at 67'. For a user using a mobile phone, there has to be a fairly clean line of site. The signal degrades as more clutter gets in the way of the line of site path. The greatest problem with providing reliable coverage is terrain. Stockman reviewed radiofrequency propagation and the decibel planner.  Existing coverage was indicted. Their goal is to provide reliable coverage on the corridors and in the populated areas. Stockman next indicated coverage of the Mt. Anthony area. He explained that the entire corridor to New York is covered, as well as a substantial part of the north/south corridor.  Stockman also showed the configuration with the antennas located at 57', and explained that coverage is lost to the east. There is not coverage 10' lower because of the heavily vegetated hillside. Greater distance to transmit through dense vegetation. To fill the gap in the town, they have a co-location on the Benmont Avenue Mill at 160 Benmont. Antennas are about 6' high and 3-6" wide, about 3" deep. They are not obtrusive. They would try to mitigate their appearance by painting them to blend in with the background. 

Chris Drencuf distributed a visual impact study to the Board. This includes computer generated photo simulations. He explained that this was difficult because of the remoteness of the tower. He reviewed before and after pictures, blowups of photos taken with a 300-mm lens, and then with the proposed grid superimposed. The simulation is done on a smaller scale. When blown up, it gets some grainy character. He reviewed six photos surrounding the Mt. Anthony tower to the north and east that are fairly representative of the view of the tower from town. The nearest view is photo number 3, from the Southern Vermont College athletic filed on Monument Avenue Extension, about 1.4 miles from the tower. Drencuf reviewed the locations that the photos were taken from. 

Copp asked Scott if these antennas would affect the police and fire antennas. Scott noted that those affects could be furnished. The proposed frequency is very far away from emergency frequencies. They have not yet done a study to see how it would affect those. Thompson asked where the coverage would extend at 47', and Scott noted that you would see smaller coverage everywhere. He also noted that 47' would not work because they have to be 10' away vertically from the other antennas as they are both in the same frequency range. Hörst asked about the engineering of the concrete platform. Hörst asked if they considered pylons instead of earth excavation. The applicant agreed that would be feasible. Jerome noted that on page 2 of the letter from Gravel and Shea there is an Adelphia 75' tower, and on page 4 of the report from Clough Harbour, it shows the tower at 70'. The tower is 70 feet. Jerome asked about the exact panel sizes. Scott noted that they are all a little different. The largest is 64" x 8", x 2" deep. They are proposing 67' to the center of this piece. The GPS antenna is lower, approximately 27" in height. The seventh antenna is a microwave antenna. With all of the underlying issues, easiest, the least obtrusive way is to emit a small radiofrequency. The other land site options are either the Benmont Avenue site, hidden, or to shoot it up the South Shaftsbury tower. Jerome asked and the applicant noted that 47' is not available, and would cause coverage gaps. There are very few PCS carriers licensed in the state of VT. Most other carriers are in the 800 MHz range. The 57' spot is still viable for another carrier. Each carrier has different objectives. Their objectives are clearly stated by the plots, to cover the corridors and as much area coverage of Bennington as possible. Hörst asked what the procedure is when the antennas have to be removed. Archer explained that they are responsible for their equipment. They have been required to file and post a removal performance bond in the neighborhood of $5000. They have no responsibility for the tower. Copp asked if Archer has studied the tower, and Archer noted that they have done three studies and all passed. One of the studies was from Devon's when they were required to reinforce the guylines. Their antennas weigh about 12 lbs. each. The actual installation is very little. The wind load is the greatest concern. Archer is unsure of torquing. He reported that because the antennas are relatively symmetric, there would be little to no torquing. That is typically carried by the tower and guide cables. Thompson asked, and Scott noted that these are the limitations set forth. There isn't anything better out there. Ray asked about the affect on the Bennington Airport, and Scott noted that they would not affect pilot communications. Jerome asked if they considered the installation of fake trees, monopines, instead of towers. Monopines are mounted pole structures with artificial branches attached. IWO policy to use new structures as a last resort and to collocate on existing structures. The tower owner had asked them to rebuild a bigger stronger tower. This would require a hot slide, and they would have to move all of the existing facilities over, at a cost in excess of $350,000. Jerome asked if they checked the tower on Carpenter Hill. Scott noted that would not work. The available mounting height is 64', and the tree line is 70'. They have also investigated three silos along route 7. Burgess noted that Adelphia owns the tower, and the Rigas brothers own the land. They lease with Adelphia. They own the equipment. Independent Wireless One is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint, similar to a franchise. Copp was concerned about the radiation from their antenna effecting emergency coverage. He would like to see details, as well as the wind load of the antenna details. Jerome has concerns with the aesthetic viewscape. Anderson shares Jerome's concerns, with mixed feelings in the interest of growth. He would be in favor if they did all of their homework and could minimize the visual impact. Hörst was interested in bonding for removal. For lack of a good on site description concerning excavation and elevations he would like to see pylons. Archer explained that they have not done a geographical survey, but felt that it would be easy to do a pylon mount if underlying rock allows them to do this. Archer agreed to bonding for removal of the equipment. Monks would obtain details. Burgess referred to the ice bridge going over the top of the fence. The Devon's facility gate faces to the east. Their ice bridge has to come up to get equipment in and out. It is ten feet high on the elevation. The proposed ice bridge would be 12' above the finished bridge. Burgess asked what the span is. Archer explained that there would be 2 1/2" diameter posts every six feet. The gates will be located to avoid that. Detail will be provided. The Board agreed that they need to see wind details on torquing and the affect on police and fire communications. Archer explained that they have arranged to relocate antennas either higher or lower to get proper clearance. The frequencies will not interfere with one another. Alderman suggested that the bond include a 5% increase per year. Archer will agree to CPI, but not 5% per year. He agrees that aesthetics is obviously the number one concern. They never want to break the crest line of any view shed in the state. They cannot place these antennas lower because technology does not allow it. They cannot go at 47' because they cannot collocate on the same platform. The applicant agreed that it is likely that a new carrier would be interested in the 57' location. Verizon has 26 sites in Vermont. Every individual carrier has their own plan. They all work off the line of site. Jerome explained that he is able to get coverage in a concrete building with no windows. Scott noted that line of site does not mean free space. There is a certain amount of attenuation associated with free space. Barney moved preliminary approval. Anderson seconded. Copp voted. The motion carried.

14. Merritt Family Trust, Bennington School, 972 Vail Road, site plan and conditional use review of school/residential care facility. 
Lon McClintlock, Dr. Fran Moriarty and Jim Secor addressed the Board. Secor reviewed the site plan, including the approximate location of the septic system. Jerome would like to see more complete details of the septic system. McClintlock explained that the children served at this facility are not criminal. Moriarty explained that they have students from Vermont, New England, New York, Maryland, Washington DC, New Jersey, and Virginia. McClintlock explained that they are trying to use the facility more efficiently, and plan to increase by three more children. He explained that the town is not being asked to educate them. They are not generating anything through water and sewer system. McClintlock noted that the children always have adult supervision. He was not aware that there are any difficulties with the police. As a social service agency, the school will meet legal responsibilities. Public schools have boards, where this is a private corporation. Moriarty agreed that it was possible to have a reporting mechanism for buildings and grounds and occupancy issues. He would provide a report annually to the zoning administrator. McClintlock addressed issues of the youngsters' rights to live in the community. Moriarty explained that the youngsters that they deal with are basically youngsters who have failed in traditional situations. Their families have collapsed or public schools are not able to meet their needs. This is a community that is healthy, therapeutic, and vibrant, made up of children. Children in general are not always easy, well behaved, and don't always follow the rules. They do not place a huge burden on the police department. Because they are a social service agency, they are required to report when kids are at large. Moriarty invited the Board to tour the facilities. Alderman would like to see a stipulation for no more than eight resident students. This is a preliminary hearing. The application is specifically for eight. Burgess would like to see contours, drainage, etc. He would also like to see screening of the dumpster and added maples shown on prints. McClintlock asked what information they require regarding the impact to the neighborhood. Jerome would like to see police reports; particularly how many instances have the police been involved with the students. McClintlock noted that the students are entitled to confidentiality, but he felt that he could obtain a general statement from Chief Gauthier. Moriarty explained that this unit operates substantially separate from the main campus. He would be happy to provide information about the school at large. Copp has been volunteering at VT Arts Exchange for three years with these boys, and reports that there have been no problems. Burgess moved to grant preliminary approval. Anderson seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 

15. Merritt Family VT LM, Bennington School, 615 and 662 Mattison Road, site plan and conditional use review of school use. 

Secor and McClintlock presented this project to the Board also. They explained that this is a different facility. This is a self-contained residential care facility. There is a one minute walk, down the street and across to the girls campus. Educational and clinical services take place in the detached garage, which is now heated and finished. Secor distributed copies of the prints with minor changes, which were highlighted changes. He explained that he added revised grading to the parking area indicating drainage. He also explained that the density calculations were incorrect. He addressed the parking situation, and indicated that they tried to dress up the façade and appearance of the main campus. They are proposing to enlarge the parking area and cut down honeysuckle growth. They will clean up where the parking is and delineate. They will buy stockade fencing to isolate the dumpster. There is currently a cubbyhole in the honeysuckle used as a smoking hut, and they are trying to prevent that. They plan to clean up the existing grass island, and plant additional trees. They will bring the curb cuts into compliance. Secor proposes three new parking positions, one handicapped. The main parking is not based on the school or normal function of the facility. Once or twice a week at shift change and during the staff meeting, they counted the vehicles on site. He has added handicapped parking. 

The drainage across the parking lot is going into a natural swale, which drains into an existing wetland. Burgess noted that the parking lot was helter skelter. He also noted that they propose planting trees within the existing 10-15' town right of way. Burgess has a problem with trees in town right of way. He noted that the edge is already vegetated. Secor explained that this follows the tree line along that whole section of road. Burgess noted that they are currently non-compliant. There are more students than originally permitted for. Moriarty explained that there was a mistake on the application. They are asking for ten students at the Judy Funt house. The Mattison campus was originally permitted for 16 girls, and they currently have 14. The application is for ten and 16. Monks noted that the permit across the street is for 16. The other two facilities grew over the years. Funt house was permitted for 5. McClintlock reviewed the history of the property acquisition. They now have use of an additional building because a life lease expired. The property has Bennington water and sewer. There is an easement across the Blazen property. Bennington College gave them an easement to connect with their municipal services. Hörst is concerned with the Funt house septic system. Secor noted that if the system failed he would connect to municipal sewer. This system is preexisting and has not failed. The Board reviewed provisions for a student pedestrian walkway. The applicant would have to get approval for a crosswalk. Other than the shoulder of the road, there is no sidewalk or pathway. This is a natural pathway. Their proposal would be a crosswalk and gravel walkway, an upgrade of the existing pathway to a 4-5' gravel walkway. The applicant is willing to pursue with the Select Board for approval. 

Bob Edwards owns the property kitty corner to this property. He has several concerns. Alderman asked and Edwards indicated the location of his property. He noted that the school has applied for permits for 16 students in this building. Over the years without additional permits, they have grown to 35. Edwards noted that this is not a commercial area, but a residential neighborhood. He feels that they have grown far beyond what they originally applied for. Edwards has concerns with kids in the road, walking back and forth across the street. He noted that the road is narrow, and goes around like a snake. Now there are 20-30 cars parked every day in the Mattison property. This is not what the neighbors expected. Edwards reported that there have been kids running around their house. He felt that if the school wants to grow some more, they should find a spot where it fits. He explained that there are 70-80 people on the corner every day. This is an old farmhouse directly on the line between Bennington and North Bennington. Jerome asked if there were any issues with noise. Edwards noted that in the summertime could hear music when windows are open. Edwards is concerned with cars parked in the road, and felt that the area does not warrant something this size. Thompson asked where the 20-30 vehicles were parked, and Edwards indicated that they are behind the house and in lots, as well as the property across the street that they don't own. Burgess noted that if this isn't a correct site plan, they need one. McClintlock noted that the parking across the road was previously allowed by the private property owner who allowed the staff to park on vacant lot, Since that property went up for sale, they are trying to get staff to stay within bounds of parking. It is against school policy to park there. Secor noted that road was surveyed. Parking at the house includes a van drop-off, 28 parking spots, 3 handicapped, and two vans. Hörst asked what the site distance was from the corner to the drop off parking lot. The curb cut and split rail fence is already there. The site distance is 120'. There are 35 students, and 9 staff at a 4-1 ratio. McClintlock explained that the population at Vail is lower cognitive functioning, with lower IQ, needing more assistance with ADLS etc. That is more intensive than other sites. Moriarty noted that on Wednesday they run shifts from Shave a meeting from 1 to 3:30, creating a swell of cars. Ray asked the age range and Moriarty noted 9-21. This site is 9-13. The Judy Funt house across the street is 13-17. Moriarty explained that when they were growing, he thought he was responsible to SRS. He never grew without SRS approval for expansion. He has an emphatic goal to be an open book. Hörst asked and Secor noted that the basketball court is paved outdoors, and is used quite a bit. McClintlock noted that this campus is all girls. The garage has been converted to clinical space. There is parking planned for overnight staff, two spots, plus handicapped. Alderman asked and McClintlock noted that they were treating this as one entire site plan. They are trying to coordinate the entire site so that it meets zoning regulations, provides adequate parking and screening. McClintlock noted that this is a residential school. He explained that the Mattison permit reads as a school. Funt house is permitted for five people at a single-family residence, but it has become a residential treatment facility.  The whole site plan is now a residential school. Vail Road was originally permitted as a Bed and Breakfast and is now a residential care facility. Maxon asked if they could get more than three cars at the Funt house. Secor would like to have staff park in that area, but does not want to make it look like a parking lot. Maxon thought that they could squeeze one or two more. Jerome feels that Funt should stay residential and that they should control the parking that is happening. Anderson noted that is what the new lot is for. Moriarty knows there is a problem. They park all the way down to the road. He wants to make it so there is not a problem. They do not want to be a great menace to neighbors. Burgess moved to continue. Hörst seconded. Hörst noted that these items would be addressed before they go forward. This can be approved preliminarily, finally, continued or denied next time. The motion passed unanimously. 



16. Other Business
Election of officers, setting the date for the Orientation Meeting and discussion on moving the location of the meetings were continued for two weeks.  

As there was no further business to come before the Board, Jerome moved to close to deliberative session for the Nastech matter. Copp seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:47 PM. 

Respectfully submitted,



Robyn C.  Baker

13


1


10