town of bennington planning commission minutes 1 veterans memorial drive, bennington, vt 05201 MAY 3, 2000 @ 7:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman Donald Hicks, Robert Burgess, Jamie Jerome, Vice Chairman Barry HØrst, Dick Cutler, Janet Thompson, Secretary, Jim Frechette, Mike Lochner, and Michael von Ouhl. Also present: Jim Davis, Chris Little, David Mance, Sharon Yorke, Ron Elwell, Gary Marckers, Paul Young, John Endres, Daniel Walton, Dave Prandini, Christopher Denio, Tony Stout, Chris Kambar, Mike McCrory, Ed Letourneau, Warren Crisp, Jim Secor, Ty Campbell, Chris and Renee Davis, Marcel Donaj, Mary Martialay, and Robyn Baker, recording secretary. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. Minutes of April 19, 2000. The following corrections were noted: ¨ In the corrections, 50,000 and 15,000 referred to square feet rather than dollars. ¨ The Davis project should be consistently referred to Woodford Packers, not Davis Commissioner H”rst moved to approve the minutes of April 19, 2000 as amended. Commissioner Burgess seconded the motion. The motion carried. Commissioners Cutler and Jerome abstained. . 2. State of Vermont Military Department, 100 Franklin Lane, The Armory, design review of sign. Gary Mackres noted that there is no present sign at the Armory. This sign will face east toward the town office building, not south as depicted. He noted that they were present to find out what the historical society was looking for in relation to the sign. Mrs. York noted that she spoke with Mr. Axtell, an architect, that explained that the National Guard signs are all the same writing and size, and others are not made. She felt that the sign was large and metal, and they were trying to be compatible with the historic nature of the building. Commissioner Cutler asked Mrs. Yorke for ideas, and she reported that Mr. Axtell understood their concerns, but noted that the signs come from national headquarters and there is a size regulation. She noted that other towns within Vermont do not allow them to put up signs. Commissioner Jerome noted that this is within the design review district, but is not on a main street. Commissioner Thompson thought that something could be done with the framing for the sign. The applicant noted that the framing would be constructed of 4' x 4's. He felt that the framing might be negotiable. Mrs. Yorke noted that Mr. Axtell might speak with the design assistance people. Commissioner Lochner asked if the design assistance program should review the matter. Commissioner Jerome felt that the framing design was appropriate. Mr. Mackres noted that all of the signs within the state of Vermont are the same, and they are all purchased under one contract. Commissioner Cutler moved to approve the sign as presented, with the stipulation that the 4' x 4' frame be painted green to match the lettering of the sign. Commissioner Jerome seconded. The motion carried. Commissioner Thompson was opposed. 3. Anna Mattison, Burgess Road, seeking final subdivision plat approval for a two lot subdivision at the above location, an MR District. Subdivision Regulations and Section 4.3 of the Zoning Bylaw apply. Dave Mance was representing Mrs. Mattison. He explained that the property consists of just over two acres, and they are proposing to use one and one half acres, which have water and sewer allocations. The property will share a driveway with Mrs. Mattison's remaining one-half acre lot. Commissioner Jerome explained that he does not like to see this type of "pork chop" subdivision. Commissioner Cutler agreed. Commissioner Jerome and Mr. Mance noted that there was a 15-foot easement. Commissioner Cutler noted that it was technically less than a half-acre parcel because of the easement and the right of way for the driveway. Mr. Mance noted that the hookups are still present, but there was formerly a trailer located on the lot, but the proposal is for a house. Mr. Mance noted that Mrs. Mattison is conveying the property to her daughter and son-in-law. Commissioner Frechette noted that most of the lots in this neighborhood are very irregular. Commissioner Cutler asked if the right of way would be shared, and Mr. Mance noted that it would remain one driveway. Commissioner Jerome moved to approve the subdivision as presented. Commissioner von Ouhl seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Bennington Senior Living, Village at Fillmore Pond, West Road, seeking final subdivision plat approval for a two lot subdivision at the above location, a portion of which is located in the RR District and a portion of which is located in the RCON District. Subdivision Regulations and Section 4.1 of the Zoning Bylaw apply. Paul Young and John Endres were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Young indicated the location of the two parcels, and their size, the first parcel is 6.48 acres, and the second is 17.483 acres. They have 30 units of cottages that are part of the overall development. Subdivision is to facilitate the condominium association documents. Commissioner Cutler asked why this was not proposed in the beginning, and Mr. Young felt that it should have been proposed in the building. He explained that as they worked through the marketing and condominium arrangements, the attorney felt it would be best for the condominiums to function on their own, and the assisted living facility on its own. Commissioner Jerome felt that the subdivision was not appropriate for this project, as they had originally approved it as a single site plan. Commissioner Burgess asked Mr. Monks about the condominium, and he noted that he has reviewed the condominium association documents. Mr. Monks felt that condominium associations and homeowner associations are basically the same. Commissioner Burgess asked if they would have the required amount of open space, and Mr. Monks felt that they would. Commissioner Jerome asked, and Mr. Monks noted that they had extra density based on the Planned Residential Development. Mr. Monks noted that this was approved as a single project on a single lot. Commissioner Burgess felt that they should examine their options at this point. Commissioner Frechette asked if anything would be detrimental to the town or property owners if the subdivision were approved. Commissioner Frechette is in favor of the project, and does not see where anything detrimental would occur if the subdivision occurred. Commissioner Burgess agreed with Commissioner Jerome, and felt that they should have more information. Commissioner Cutler felt that he would have had difficulty approving this if it had been presented this way the first time. Commissioner H”rst was also uncomfortable with the subdivision, and felt that it might set precedents or a trend. Mr. Young noted that this would facilitate the condominium association entity. The building and grounds will be maintained as originally conceived under a single lot. Commissioner Cutler moved to deny the subdivision without prejudice. Commissioner H”rst seconded the motion. The motion passed with six in favor. Commissioners Frechette and von Ouhl were opposed. 5. VEDA, Vermont Mills, 160 Benmont Avenue, seeking final site plan approval of parking lot modifications to the Holden-Leonard Mill property located at the above address, a VI District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 6.0, 6.5 and 8.5. Commissioner Thompson offered to remove herself from the hearing to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, but the applicant and the Commission had no objections to her participation. Daniel Walton presented the project to the Commission. Commissioner Jerome asked if the lot would be paved, and Mr. Walton noted that it would be as soon as settlement had occurred. Commissioner Jerome asked if the ingress and egress was dead center with County Street, and he felt that it should be a condition that it is lined up with County Street. Commissioner Lochner asked about relocating the existing utility pole, and Mr. Walton noted that in order to relocate the guidewire, they would have to add another pole and guidewires. He reports that he has checked with CVPS and they do not want to do anything to that pole. Commissioner Lochner asked if they have considered putting the telephone cable underground, as he feels that the poles clutter the property. Mr. Walton noted that in order to bury the line, they will get rid of the one black line, but they cannot get rid of any poles. The poles support the weight of the wires for all of County Street. Commissioner Cutler moved to approve the site plan as presented with the condition that the entrance/egress line up with County Street and that it be paved within two years. Commissioner Burgess seconded the motion. Dave Prandini asked if there would be an egress to Holden Street, and Mr. Walton noted that the entrance at the corner of Holden and Benmont would remain closed. One of their concerns was making the dock work. The dock size has been reduced, and the truck traffic has been diverted, but will not increase traffic on Holden Street. Commissioner Jerome asked about the caliper of the trees, and Mr. Walton noted that he has been in contact with Mr. Monks about the Bylaw. Commissioner Burgess asked about curbing and the applicant noted that there would be 6" curbs. Commissioner Thompson asked, and the applicant noted that the parking would accommodate the entire mill. They have tried to bring the grades down to most of the floor level of both north and south wings. Commissioner Burgess noted that within the islands they delineate the type of tree. On the north and south side they show trees between the sidewalk and the building, and Mr. Walton noted that they are bushes. Mr. Walton noted that Mr. Goodrich would like a chance to work more three dimensionally before he selects a specific bush. Chairman Hicks feels that the shrubs and trees have been very well delineated on the plan. Commissioner Burgess suggests that they insure that there is no less than what is indicated. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Christopher Denio, LLC, Chapel Road Gravel Pit, preliminary site plan review of pole barn and camp. Mr. Denio noted that he would like to construct the pole barn to house tractors and other equipment that he uses on the property. He noted that the camp is currently being utilized, but not full time. Mr. Monks noted that a pole barn is a conditional use in that area. Chairman Hicks noted that the camp has a basement, and is almost a full time residence. He feels that it has been built as a house, and does not follow the condition they granted in the first place. Commissioner Frechette felt that a camp must not have a permanent foundation, nor be a primary or secondary residence. He feels that camps are actually secondary residences. He also noted that the pole barn would be replacing an existing building, but Mr. Monks noted that it is larger that the existing structure, and the footprint is changing. Commissioner Frechette asked how the town would enforce the residency issue. The old footprint is 15' x 22', and the new footprint is 24' x 36'. Commissioner Cutler asked about the alternative blackwater system, and Mr. Denio noted that he has a holding tank that is periodically pumped out, and the grey water system is a plan that Morrissey's office drew up, and the applicant presented a letter from Mr. Jusczyk when it was inspected. Commissioner Thompson felt that there were 864 square feet. Mr. Denio felt that it is just less than 800 square feet. Commissioner Burgess reviewed the Bylaw's definition of a camp. Mr. Monks noted that the Bylaw defines a camp as a building not exceeding 800 square feet of building area and 20 square feet of building height, and having no permanent foundation. Mr. Denio feels that a concrete block foundation is not permanent as it can be torn down easily. He noted that it is an 8' foundation. Commissioner Cutler feels that the foundation is a violation of the Bylaw. Commissioner Jerome asked what the alternative was. Chairman Hicks feels that they can approve the revised plan. He is concerned about construction within the forest zones, and feels that it goes against what they are trying to accomplish. He feels that the matter does not follow the town plan or bylaw. Mr. Denio noted that he does own some property outside of the forest zone. Commissioner Jerome asked if the barn could be constructed on the property outside the forest zone, but Mr. Denio felt that he would like the barn located near the camp. Commissioner Frechette feels that the issue of a permanent foundation is not specified. He feels that a permanent foundation is not readily or easily removable and concrete blocks can be easily removed. Commissioner Cutler had no problem with the pole barn, but feels that the camps should not have foundations underneath them. Commissioner Jerome feels that a concrete block foundation is permanent. Commissioner Cutler asked if the building could be put on piers, and Mr. Denio noted that the chimney goes through it. Mr. Monks notes that there was no specification in the minutes about permanent or non-permanent foundations. He feels that they should make a specific ruling to follow for future uses. Commissioner Burgess felt that they could not change the topography underneath the dwelling they could not excavate. Commissioner H”rst feels that the basement is exceeding the square footage. Chairman Hicks feels that they cannot take away what Mr. Denio has done, but they can strengthen the Bylaw to give guidance for future projects. He feels that they were restrictive on the tower on Mount Anthony. Commissioner von Ouhl is amazed that they are debating whether an 8-foot deep concrete block foundation is permanent. He feels that the pole barn would be compounding the problem. Commissioner Jerome feels that this does not meet the definition of a camp in the Bylaw, and noted that they need to send that on to the Zoning Board. Chairman Hicks noted that there is no foundation on a pole barn. Commissioner Burgess asked if the pole barn requires excavation, and Mr. Denio noted that there would be a gravel pad, and poles going three or four feet deep. Commissioner Cutler moved to grant approval for the pole barn with the stipulation that it not be used as part of Mr. Denio's commercial operation, and forward comments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to look into the interpretation of permanent foundation. Commissioner Frechette seconded the motion. Commissioner Frechette feels that Bylaw is too vague, and needs to be clarified, specifically the issue of a camp as primary and secondary residences. Commissioner Burgess asked if this is a primary residence, and Chairman Hicks noted that the applicant has stated that it is not. Commissioner H”rst asked if this was preliminary, and Mr. Monks noted that it is. The motion carried. Commissioners Burgess and von Ouhl were opposed. Commissioner Cutler asked Mr. Denio to come back with a better plan. The Commission took a brief recess. 7. Furnace Brook Investments, LLC, Northwest Corner of Kocher Drive and Route 7, final site plan review of a 15,000 square foot grocery store. Tony Stout noted that they have ZBA approval on the flood plain issues. He noted that they have submitted a traffic study from Resource Systems Group, a revised site plan, and a cover letter reviewing changes. He noted that the roof membrane would be black instead of white. There were no restrictions placed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Lou Kippling, the Aldi representative could not be present. Chris Kambar the engineer, and Mike McCrory, traffic engineer, were present to represent the applicant. Commissioner H”rst asked about egress from Lovers Lane. Mr. Stout noted that they have put posts with a chain and lock in the town right of way. The fire department representatives indicated that they did not have a problem with the location. He indicated the location, and noted that the location was chosen so that it can be easily plowed, and is a logical place for pedestrians to go around the end of the post. They do expect some pedestrian traffic from the housing projects in the northwest quadrant of the town. Commissioner Jerome asked about future plans for parcel number 2. Mr. Stout noted that the parcel has not been subdivided. There are no current plans, but they placed this to one side because of the size of the site. The site could accommodate an 8,000 to 10,000 square foot retail facility. Commissioner Jerome asked why there was no traffic ingress and egress from Lovers Lane. Mr. Stout felt that the town probably would not want it. There is no through traffic or destination on the road, just pedestrian use. Mr. Stout felt that people probably would not want through vehicle traffic on the road. Commissioner Jerome asked if they considered continuing the pedestrian walk down Lovers Lane to tie in with Orchard Road. Commissioner Jerome noted a couple of other properties in the area with no pedestrian access. The only legal crossing on Northside Drive is by McDonalds. Commissioner Jerome asked the applicant if they considered a curbed, concrete walkway down Lovers Lane to Orchard Road for pedestrian safety. Mr. Stout noted that there is currently a raised sidewalk on the East End of Orchard Road. The sidewalk is in better condition from McDonalds to Lovers Lane than it is toward the school. Mr. Stout reported that they asked the town manager if they felt they would need a sidewalk on Lovers Lane, and he did not feel that there was a need, as people are currently walking safely on Lovers Lane. Commissioner Jerome feels that there will be a lot of foot traffic, and they need to address these sites to be user friendly to pedestrians. Mr. Stout noted that if part of the Kocher traffic study is to add sidewalks, one of the options could be a pedestrian tunnel under Route 7, or a grade crossing at the signal, across right of way and onto Lovers Lane eliminating the pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Commissioner Jerome feels that there is enough room for a paved walkway off Lovers Lane, and feels that the site needs to be friendly to pedestrians. Commissioner Frechette noted that he would agree if this was a through road with a lot of pedestrian traffic, but he does not feel that there will be a huge amount of pedestrian traffic. He feels that residents will drive to the grocery store. Commissioner Frechette feels that they need to get the Select Board's input about maintenance before they require a sidewalk. Commissioner Jerome feels that the other shopping center was being required to install sidewalks from DeMarcos past the Mobil station on state property. Commissioner Cutler would agree to the need for sidewalks, but noted that the road has little vehicular traffic. Commissioner Burgess noted that there are a tremendous number of people who walk through there, and they have worn a path up against the fence. Commissioner von Ouhl feels that they required Price Chopper to put a concrete sidewalk in, and feels that if they plan for the future they should require sidewalks. Commissioner Cutler feels that they are dealing with two different issues. Lovers Lane is a dead end road with little traffic, and is already pedestrian friendly, opposed to a high traffic area on Northside Drive. Commissioner Jerome feels that the sidewalk would be 500 feet. Commissioner Thompson feels that they need to keep pedestrian access in mind for the future. She feels that if Northside Drive continues to expand, then maybe this is the time to put a sidewalk in. Commissioner Cutler feels that if the other parcels are going to be developed they will have to divert traffic onto Lovers Lane, and then sidewalks should be required at that time. Commissioner Burgess asked about the fire road, and Mr. Stout noted that Mr. Kambar was able to accommodate all of the fire chiefs wishes, except for the fire lane along the side for aesthetic purposes, as they want to maintain the green space along the side facing route 7. Mr. Stout explained that this is a narrow building in terms of addressing fire safety issues on the roof. It is fully sprinklered, steel stud construction, with a brick fa‡ade. It does not require fire access on three of the four sides according to the state. The applicant felt that the understanding was that the fire chief recommended it, but did not require it. They did not comply because they were worried about wreaking havoc with the landscape design that they have worked hard to develop with the town staff and Planning Commission. Commissioner Burgess asked if this was a sharp slope, and Mr. Stout noted that it was a four to five foot fill. Commissioner Jerome asked Mike McCrory, Traffic Engineer with Resource Systems Group, about a right hand turning land. Mr. McCrory noted that the congestion conditions did not warrant one. He noted that if conditions indicated a problem they would have included one, but they did not find a need for it. Commissioner Jerome noted that last week coming from the east heading west the light went through a whole cycle and he did not get through it. Mr. Stout noted that once the signal is present, they would not be waiting for cross traffic. Mr. McCrory noted that when the driveway is added, the intersection geometry will change, and that will require a redesign of the signal. They will take that opportunity to optimize signalizations. Commissioner Jerome expressed concern about vehicles backing up to the Kocher Drive intersection. Mr. McCrory noted that one cycle length in the location Commissioner Jerome indicates is only 60 seconds. They looked at the average delay over a peak hour. Commissioner Thompson noted that she has not had a chance to look over the traffic survey, and asked Mr. McCrory to review it. Mr. Stout noted that this was just a full documentation of the results of the traffic study. Commissioner H”rst felt that the intersection was currently optimized, and asked how they could make them better. Mr. McCrory reviewed the traffic survey in detail. He explained that they are hired to do a traffic impact study of the supermarket. This is a special type of supermarket where the trip generation rates are higher than what is found elsewhere in Vermont and New Hampshire. They estimated rates using an existing, similar, supermarket in New York State. Based on those rates, they estimate that this project will generate 148 peak hour trips during weekday, 154 peak hour trips during a Saturday. A 25% reduction was made because there is a condition called a "pass by trip." Those are people who stop on the way to somewhere else, and are already part of the traffic. The new project site will generate 111 new trips during the P.M. peak hour and 115 during the Saturday peak hour. With the new intersection geometry it will be necessary to retime the signal, which they addressed in congestion analysis. Mr. McCrory reviewed the findings in the report in detail under both build and no-build conditions projected to 2006. In terms of the safety of, US 7/ Kocher Drive, state engineers are assessing improvements of that condition. Mr. McCrory reviewed the optimization of the signalized intersections at US 7/Kocher, Benmont, Orchard, etc., and noted that they are coordinated by the state, and it is the state's responsibility to maintain them. When a project makes a change that would require improvements, a project engineer needs to provide signal plans for the entire corridor, all five signals. They intend to do this as part of the project scope, in order to optimize the corridor. They gained permission from the state to use optimized timings. Their responsibility is to use those designs and improve operation with the extra approach. Signals are coordinated so that the total green time at each signal is balanced. Commissioner Jerome asked how they could improve the optimization. There will need to be less green time, which has to stop traffic from every other direction. Stacking will get greater not less. They will be stopping traffic from east to west. The delay time for a red light will increase from east to west. Mr. McCrory noted that they do not have to maintain the same cycle length, and can balance the necessary green times for progression. Part of the design for Price Chopper was to increase green time for an optimal condition. Commissioner Burgess noted that the lights are controlled by the state. Mr. McCrory noted that the consultant or developer needs to submit plans for the state for review and approval. The state has the option to review and approve one signal or the whole corridor. Mr. Stout noted that the state approval is pending, and asked if the state would allow them to put a right turn lane there if the software did not support it. Commissioner Jerome noted that right turning lanes work, and he has never seen one that did not help congestion. Mr. McCrory noted that the state does not like constructing facilities that won't be used. If congestion analysis shows no need, he doubts that the state would support a right turning lane that would become their property. Commissioner Burgess asked if the pavement were wide enough for a right turn lane, and Mr. McCrory noted that there would need to be widening. Commissioner Jerome noted that there is currently an 8-foot shoulder. Chairman Hicks noted that the whole area is being studied by the Agency of Transportation, including the widening of the Benmont Bridge, and an extra turning lane at route 7A. He is not sure it would be wise to make decisions that might need to be reversed by the Agency of Transportation in the future. He shares Commissioner Jerome's concerns, and agrees that there needs to be right hand turns. Ed Letourneau, explained that this currently has a rating of D without increased traffic from the store. He asked how, in a peak hour, you can add 150 cars and still have a rating of D. Mr. McCrory noted that at Wal-Mart the engineers for the Price Chopper expansion have conducted a study for the five intersection corridor. They increased the cycle length for all of the signals from 60 seconds to 120 seconds, improving overall levels of service for that corridor. With the improvements, the band of time for people to travel down the corridor becomes wider. They need to balance the need for vehicles on the minor approaches. Commissioner Burgess noted that they would be making the traffic coming out of Benmont better. He feels that you would be holding up traffic more, and cannot be improving access to Northside. Mr. McCrory noted the left turns go first, then through turns, then conflicting approaches. Through proper phasing design they can properly allocate the green time. Commissioner Jerome moved to approve with two stipulations: 1. If the state requires or sees a need for a right hand turning lane, Aldi's will address that. 2. There be a raised pedestrian walkway 5' and curbed, paved or concrete from Orchard Road to the back entrance of paved 14-foot wide ingress. Commissioner Burgess seconded. Mr. Kambar noted that Lovers Lane is a dead end road and access is not used for cars. Commissioner Jerome felt that this should be user friendly for pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Cutler asked Mr. Kambar if he had a problem with the condition. He would rather not see the sidewalk, there might be a few more people, but he does not see a large amount of traffic that would need a sidewalk. Commissioner Jerome would like to see ingress and egress. Commissioner Frechette agrees with everything but sidewalk restriction, as he feels that there is currently safe pedestrian access. Sidewalks are not necessary, and he is not in favor of piecemeal sidewalk placement. The motion carried with Commissioners Jerome, Burgess, Thompson, Lochner, and H”rst in favor. Commissioners Frechette, Cutler, and von Ouhl were opposed. Mr. Letourneau noted that they intend on preserving as many trees over 6" in diameter as possible, and would like that to be a stipulation. Commissioner Jerome noted that the notation is one the clearing plan. Nothing over six inches except as marked. The Commission took a brief recess. 8. Woodford Packers, Inc., Route 9 East, Woodford Road, final site plan review of 30-unit Planned Residential Development for seniors. Mr. Davis explained that they would review the changes that have been made since the preliminary site plan review. He introduced attorney Warren Crisp, who authored the declaration of covenants. Mr. Secor noted that there is a new site plan. He reviewed the concerns about compaction issues and vegetative material underneath fill. He explained that a survey was done prior to placement of fill. Stumps were removed and fill was compacted or new fill was added. The hydrant placement was also changed and they have a letter from the fire chief stating that he is satisfied with the location of the hydrants. They have received Agency of Transportation approval for the intersection design and utility crossings. They have had discussion with Carrel Carpenter, Stormwater Management, Agency of Natural Resources about storm water and use of the femoral pond idea, how they work, and how to prevent discharge to the river. They discussed paved parking lots and roads. The state did not like large paved areas; they would rather have gravel. Mr. Little reviewed the sidewalks along the road and parking areas and in front of community center. He also gave examples of typical plantings for three houses. He reviewed roof pitches and colors. He indicated the location of plantings, actual massing and types of species, which are planted. They will use species that are hardy in this area, as well as common landscape materials. He also provided drawings of typical roof pitches, 6' and 12' on bungalows and ranches, 12' and 12' on capes. He showed examples of the colors that will be available, Sherwin Williams historic paint sample group selections. Typical colors within the development will be of three basic groups, light gray, white, and Nantucket gray; earthtone colors, tan, sand, redwood, and sage; Phillipsburg Blue and cream. He reviewed the question about guestrooms on second floors, and reviewed a floor plan that indicated a room with two single beds, and single bath. Mr. Little also reviewed roof colors, three samples were provided. Traffic will be able to see the roofs, looking down from above. The units will all have the capability of being handicapped accessible from the front door. The sidewalk will go directly to the threshold of each door, with a slight rise for runoff. A handicapped bath will fit into any unit plan, and adaptable units are included in all plans. The appearance of the trash shelter was indicated, and Mr. Little noted the intent to make it look more like a garden structure than a trash shelter. He also indicated the location. Chairman Hicks asked if the trash shelter would include recycling bins, and Mr. Little indicated that it would. It will have double doors on rollers. Homeowners will be responsible for bringing out their trash, which is being taken care of by the association. Commissioner Thompson noted that when looking at details, the amount of buildings seems tight, landscaping and depth really tight. Mr. Little noted that they laid it out twice as big this week, and found that it got less tight when laid out on a larger scale. The intent of the cluster type development is to make it as clustered as possible to achieve a community effect and village feel, not suburban. Commissioner H”rst asked who does the landscaping, and Mr. Little noted that as each unit as it is sold is part of the package. Commissioner H”rst asked if there were any guidelines about putting two big footprints side by side, and noted that the minimum distance between them is actually 15 feet. Mr. Little noted that they do not want the bigger units where it is tighter. Mr. Little noted that the footprints will be developed on a case by case basis and they will work systematically across, building one cluster at a time. Mr. Lochner asked if they would stub out the entire project for sewer, water etc. and Mr. Davis noted that they will stub to location and leave enough excess to go to the final. The size of the buildings will vary, but they will leave excess pipe or wiring close enough. Mr. Crisp reviewed the development of covenants. He explained that his specialty is in the development field, and has worked on most of the covenants in southern Vermont. He reviewed the January 1, 1999 law about the common interest ownership act, and noted that he worked to get the law passed. He feels that it has important, unique features that integrate the creation of planned unit communities in Vermont. One of the requirements is a public offering statement required by developers so that the buyer knows what they are getting, a summary of everything. When you sell a unit, you must issue a resale certificate. It expanded on the rights and the powers of the individual unit owner associations, and gave more power and authority to the owner. It clarified and gave a road map to create common interest communities. Ty Campbell, and Chris and Rene Davis, Barney Road residents note that they face the project. They think that the project will enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Thompson noted that she went through the document. Section 9.11 mentioned age restriction, and she noted that there was a discussion about caregivers. Mr. Crisp noted that they have gone to the limits of what federal and state law permit in terms of discrimination. Caregivers are permissible. Commissioner Thompson noted that the concern was the age of the caregivers, and Mr. Crisp felt that would not be a problem. Commissioner Burgess noted that he could not find when community center would become available to the owners. Mr. Crisp noted that he does not have that in the declaration, and is more typically seen in a permit. He understands that the intent is for it to be built with the initial units. It would be acceptable to them if the Commission chooses to put in a stipulation that the center be constructed at the same time as the infrastructure. He noted that everything would be turned over to the Board of Directors at 75%, and felt that a similar cutoff would be appropriate. The community center includes storage, which will be necessary to the first residents. Mr. Davis noted that they have decided to put the community center in soon, as it is one of the selling points. They will be starting with the cluster on the lower end, and will dictate that this is one of the first things built. He reported that not all of the documents are together, purchase and sales, deeds, lease between Davis and the association. Assuming density of thirty, he is the association until over 20 units are constructed. Starts at 25% according to the law. When you get 25% of the units sold, then two of directors (Executive Board) must come from owners. At 75%, roads will be complete. Starting at lower end and going up. Water comes in from the East End, and the sewer comes from the middle of the project. Commissioner Burgess addressed soil compaction. Mr. Secor noted that the local building inspector would monitor that. Commissioner Burgess noted that in the past the town has had to supply the money for the engineer. Commissioner Burgess felt that there are a couple of mistakes in the declaration. Mr. Crisp noted that this was put together for their purposes, he has picked up some errors, and there are some reference mistakes. This is the way they want to go through the project. Page 16, 908D Stipulation to read, normal construction hours, 7 am to 5 p.m. Mr. Crisp noted that they could make it a condition, or Mr. Crisp could agree to make the change. Burgess moved to approve with stipulations ¨ Clarify lease terms of community center before first unit is occupied. ¨ Agreed to complete infrastructure before occupancy on first unit. ¨ Certification by Engineer that two compaction studies have been completed. Mr. Secor noted that on other projects, infrastructure was being turned over to the town. Commissioner Jerome noted that they are proposing to excavate that material and put back in compactible fill, he would like to see three trips of compaction takes at three different elevations. Mr. Davis noted that the engineers are licensed professionals and does not feel that three lifts are necessary. Commissioner Cutler felt that Mr. Secor could give test results to the building inspector. ¨ Pine Trees on Northside of the drive be replaced by deciduous trees. The motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business ¨ Mr. Monks reviewed the May 17, 2000 Warning The Town of Bennington Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 7:30 P.M. in the District Court, located at One Veterans Memorial Drive, Bennington, Vermont. The purpose of the meeting will be to conduct regular business and to hold public hearings on the following: Regional Affordable Housing Corporation, 501-507 South Street, seeking final site plan approval for nine unit apartment building at the above address, and MR District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 4.3, 8.5. Regional Affordable Housing Corporation, 120-126 Benmont Avenue, seeking final site plan approval for three apartment buildings at the above address, an MR District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 4.3, 8.5. Christopher Denio, Chapel Road Gravel Pit, seeking final site plan approval for pole barn to be constructed and seeking site plan amendment for camp at the above location, an F District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 5.2. Woodford Packers, Inc., 219 River Street, former Putnam Hose Fire Station, seeking final site plan and design plan approval for addition to former Fire Station and changes to the exterior to accommodate electrician's office at the above address, a CB District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 6.4, 8.5. As there was no further business, Commissioner Cutler moved to adjourn. Commissioner H”rst seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C. Baker