Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0065 Shunpike Road (2)
ray From: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:29 PM To: ray Subject: BJs project Ray, After consulting with BJs and reviewing offers from other communities, we have decided to withdraw the BJs application for Shunpike Rd. Thanks, Gene Gene Beaudoin Director of Retail Development Saxon Partners 25 Recreation Park Drive Hingham, Massachusetts 02043 Saxon-Partners.com 860-651-1455 gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington. Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com June 17, 2016 Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning 5?5 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD-15-28 Dear Ray: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BJ's Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"), which was continued until June 21, 2016. We write to respectfully request that the Board continue its review of the Application until July 19, 2016. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SH L Robert H. Rushford :.: Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin (w/o enclosure) gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. PatdStrect Post Office Box369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com May 11, 2016 Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD-15-28 Dear Ray: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BJ's Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"), which was continued until May 17, 2016. We write to respectfully request that the Board continue its review of the Application until June 21, 2016. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC z9:z-- Robert H. Rushford RHR:kjm Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin (w/o enclosure) gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com May 11, 2016 Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD- 15-28 Dear Ray: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BFs Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"), which was continued until May 17, 2016. We write to respectfully request that the Board continue its review of the Application until June 21, 2016. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC .'Z� Robert H. Rushford RHR:kjm Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin (w/o enclosure) NBT BANK DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT 114557 BURLINQTON, VERMONT GRAVEL & SHEA PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 50-361/213 P.O. BOX 369 5/11/2016 BURLINGTON, VT 05402-0369 PAY TO THE City Of South Burlington s **50.00 ORDER OF Fifty Only****** DOLLARS GRA L & SHEA PC - DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT TWO SIGNATURES REQUIRED /) 575 Dorset Street NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR AMOUNTS OVER $400 South Burlington, VT 05403 By. ,a aE MEMO By a r+oRlzeD ACCOUNT sroraT Iss kjm;SaxonBJ's;564023;1 11011455711' 1:002130361131: 7004077053311' ig SECURITY FEATURES INCLUDED. DETAILS ON BACK. L= ray From: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:31 AM To: ray Subject: RE: BJ's Secong mtg in June. Thanks Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App -----Original Message ----- From: ray@sburl.com To: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Cc: jpolubinski@gravelshea.com Sent: 2016-05-10 08:28:07 GMT Subject: RE: BYs To which future meeting would you like to be continued to? Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all a -mail, a -mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. !f you have received this message in error, please notify its immediately by return entail. Thank you for your cooperation. From: genebeaudoin@comcast.net [mailto:genebeaudoin@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 6:19 PM To: ray <ray@sburl.com> Cc: Polubinski, Jeffrey <jpolubinski@gravelshea.com> Subject: Re: BJ's Ray, We will not be ready by 5/17. Please table the matter and Jeff will send you the formal letter and check. Thanks, ray From: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 6:19 PM To: ray Cc: Polubinski, Jeffrey Subject: Re: BJ's Ray, We will not be ready by 5/17. Please table the matter and Jeff will send you the formal letter and check. Thanks, Gene From: "ray" <ray@sburl.com> To: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 4:07:21 PM Subject: BJ's Gene, Following up on our conversation from a couple of weeks ago, you indicted that you would be presenting traffic information to the Board at this coming meeting (May 17th). Is this still your plan? Will you presenting any revised plans? We need to know so we can prepare staff notes, thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com J April 1, 2016 Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD-15-28 Dear Ray: ,ity of So, BurlingLorl Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BJ's Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"), which was continued until April 5, 2016. We write to respectfully request that the Board continue its review of the Application until May 3, 2016. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC 1 Robert H. Rushford RHR: Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION IN RE: SAXON PARTNERS, LLC DOCKET NO. 5-1-16 Vtec AFFIDAVIT OF RAYMOND J. BELAIR I, Raymond J. Belair, being duly sworn, do hereby certify on my personal knowledge as follows: 1. I am at least eighteen years of age and serve as the Administrative Officer for the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City"), a position that I have held since 1999. One of my duties as the Administrative Officer has been to provide staff support to the Development Review Board (hereinafter "DRB"). I review applications to the DRB, attend DRB meetings and hearings, prepare Staff Notes for applications and prepare draft decisions for the DRB's review and possible approval. 2. The City is a Vermont municipality situated in Chittenden County. In May 2003, the City adopted bylaws that, for the first time, consolidated its zoning and subdivision bylaws. At all times material to this matter, the City has had duly adopted unified development bylaws, known as the City Land Development Regulations (hereinafter the "LDR"), in effect. A true and correct copy of the LDR that took effect on September 24, 2013, marked as Exhibit A, is attached hereto. 1 E STTI'ZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 3. Until May 2003, the City had Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations in effect. Under both the Subdivision Regulations and the LDR, sketch plan review has been an informal review process. The City does not publish a warning of, and the DRB does not hold, a hearing on a sketch plan. The DRB does not swear in anyone in connection with a sketch plan agenda item. The DRB and the applicant go over and discuss the sketch plan during a DRB meeting and the DRB may provide nonbinding comments or suggestions regarding the sketch plan. Under both the Subdivision Regulations and the LDR, the DRB Members neither take a vote on, nor render a decision on, a sketch plan. Because the comments and suggestions of the DRB are nonbinding, it is solely up to applicants whether they take the comments or suggestions into account in preparing their applications for preliminary plat approval. 4. LNP, Inc. owns and/or occupies real property located at 65 Shunpike Road in the Mixed Industrial Commercial zoning district in South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter the "Property"). Saxon Partners, LLC (hereinafter "Appellant") is LNP Inc.'s representative in connection with an application for sketch plan review that is the subject of this appeal. 5. In June 2015, Appellant submitted to the City Planning and Zoning Department an application for sketch plan review of a Planned Unit Development (hereinafter "PUD") on the Property. I reviewed the sketch plan and attended each of the meetings for which the DRB had Appellant's sketch plan on the agenda, with the exception of the DRB's meeting of March 1, 2016. Appellant's proposal 2 SnITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHEP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 consisted of an application form and fee, a four -sheet set of plans and an opinion letter from Appellant's attorney. Should Appellant submit an application for preliminary plat approval for this PUD, the LDR require significantly more information than is required for sketch plan review. 6. The City required Appellant to send written notification of the first meeting at which the City Development Review Board would review and discuss with Appellant its sketch plan at least. seven days before that meeting would take place on September 15, 2015. On the Friday before the DRB's Tuesday meeting, the City posted the meeting Agenda in three or more public places within South Burlington. 7. Shortly before September 15, 2015, Appellant requested that the DRB continue the sketch agenda item to the DRB's regular meeting on November 3, 2015. The DRB continued the agenda item as requested. 8. Thereafter, Appellant revised the sketch plan. When the DRB reached Appellant's sketch plan agenda item during the DRB's November 3, 2015, regular meeting, the DRB did not place anyone under oath. Appellant's representatives made a brief presentation of the revised sketch plan to the DRB. The DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to its December 15, 2015 meeting. 9. On November 19, 2015, the City Council issued public notice for a first public hearing on amendments to the LDR. . 10. Thereafter, Appellant further revised the sketch plan. During the DRB's regular meeting on December 15, 2015, the DRB provided nonbinding comments to 3 S=EL, PAGE & FLETCHEP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 Appellant regarding the proposed uses in case the then -existing LDR are still in effect when Appellant submits a complete application for preliminary plat approval. Upon Appellant's request, the DRB agreed to Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to its January 19, 2016 meeting. 11. By letter dated January 5, 2016, Appellant's attorney requested that the DRB continue the sketch plan agenda item until February 2016. At the DRB's meeting of January 19, 2016, the DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to its March 1, 2016 meeting. 12. By letter dated February 19, 2016, Appellant's attorney requested a further continuance of Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to the DRB's meeting on March 15, 2016. While I did not attend the DRB's meeting of March 1, 2016, it is my understanding that the DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to its meeting of April 5, 2016. 13. The DRB has not yet provided comment on other aspects of Appellant's sketch plan. If Appellant wishes, the DRB could provide guidance or comments to Appellant regarding the proposed sketch plan in connection with access, circulation, traffic, lot layout, related necessary applications, stormwater and numerous other issues. 14. The DRB-has not taken a formal vote on, or rendered a decision, written or otherwise, on Appellant's sketch plan. 15. If Appellant submits an application for preliminary plat approval for this proposed PUD, it is very possible that Appellant may revise the proposed PUD El either in response to the DRB's comments and guidance on the sketch plan or for other reasons. 16. At its meeting of March 21, 2016, the City Council adopted amendments to the LDR. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this 25th day of March 2016. r j i aymond J. Belair STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of March 2016. SON16-008 (SAXON) AFFIDAVIT OF R- BELAIR 16-03-25 LIT STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 Notary Pu is My Commission Expires: 02-10-2019 5 i gravel & l s h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com February 19, 2016 Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD- 15-28 Dear Ray: :. N 1 F.¢. cftys a� so. 6L i,ig ,r, Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushfor&�Wgravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BYs Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"), which was continued until March 1. We write to respectfully request that the Board continue its review of the Application until March 15, 2016. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford RHR:kjm Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT IN RE: SAXON PARTNERS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION DOCKET NO. 5-1-16 Vtec AFFIDAVIT OF RAYMOND J. BELAIR I, Raymond J. Belair, being duly sworn, do hereby certify on my personal knowledge as follows: 1. I am at least eighteen years of age and serve as the Administrative Officer for the City of South Burlington (hereinafter the "City"), a position that I have held since 1999. 2. The City is a Vermont municipality situated in Chittenden County. At all times material to this matter, the City has had duly adopted zoning bylaws, known as the City Land Use Regulations (hereinafter the "LDR"), in effect. A true and correct copy of the LDR that took effect on September 24, 2013, marked as Exhibit A, is attached hereto. 3. LNP, Inc. owns and/or occupies real property located at 65 Shunpike Road in the Mixed Industrial Commercial zoning district in South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter the "Property"). Saxon Partners, LLC (hereinafter "Appellant") is LNP Inc.'s representative in connection with the sketch plan that is the subject of this appeal. STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHEP,P.C. .ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 1 S=EL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 4. In June 2015, Appellant submitted to the City Planning and Zoning Department a proposed sketch plan for the Property. I reviewed the sketch plan and attended each of the meetings for which the Development Review Board had Appellant's sketch plan on the agenda. Appellant's proposal consisted of four plans and an opinion letter from Appellant's attorney. Should Appellant submit a preliminary plat application for this development proposal, the LDR require significantly more information than is required at sketch plan. 5. The City required Appellant to send written notification of the first meeting at which the City Development Review Board (hereinafter "DRB") would review and discuss with Appellant Appellant's sketch plan at least seven days before that meeting would take place on September 15, 2015. On the Friday before the DRB's Tuesday meeting, the City posted the meeting Agenda in three or more public places within South Burlington. 6. Shortly before September 15, 2015, the Appellant requested that the DRB continue the sketch agenda item to the DRB's regular meeting on November 3, 2015. The DRB continued the agenda item as requested. 7. Thereafter, Appellant revised the sketch plan. During the DRB's November 3, 2015, regular meeting on Appellant's sketch plan agenda item, the DRB did not place anyone under oath. Appellant and Appellant's representatives made a brief presentation, of the revised sketch plan to the DRB. The DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to December 15, 2015. 2 0 STTTZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, vERMONT 05402-1507 8. Thereafter, Appellant further revised the sketch plan. During the DRB's regular meeting on December 15, 2015, the DRB provided guidance to Appellant regarding the proposed uses should Appellant submit a complete preliminary plat application that would be reviewed under the same set of LDR in effect at that time. The DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to January 19, 2016. 9. By letter dated January 5, 2016, Appellant's attorney requested that the DRB continue its review of the sketch plan until February 2016. At the DRB's meeting of January 19, 2016, the DRB continued Appellant's sketch plan agenda item to March 1, 2016. 10. On February 22, 2016, I received a letter from Appellant's attorney requesting, and paying the fee for, a further continuance of Appellant's sketch plan to the DRB's meeting on March 15, 2016. 11. The DRB has not yet provided comment on other aspects of Appellant's sketch plan. When Appellant's sketch plan is next on the DRB's Agenda, the DRB would expect to continue providing guidance or comments to Appellant regarding the proposed sketch plan in connection with access, circulation, traffic, lot layout, related necessary applications, stormwater and numerous other issues. However, the DRB does not issue any written decision, comments or other statement on a proposed sketch plan. 12. If Appellant submits a preliminary plat for this development proposal, it is very possible that Appellant may revise the application either in response to the G7 STUZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 DRB's comments and guidance on the sketch plan or for other reasons. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this 22nd day of February 2016. Raymond J. Belair STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of February 2016. SON16-001 (Saxon) Belair Affidavit 16-02-22lit Notary Public My commission expires: 02-10-2019 4A K January 21, 2016 Robert H. Rushford, Esq. Gravel & Shea, PC P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Re: Docket Number: 5-1-16 Vtec - Appeal of Saxon Partners, LLC Dear Mr. Rushford: Pursuant to Rule 5(b) (4) (A) of the Vermont Rules of Environmental Court Proceedings (also see 24 V.S.A. §4471(c)), the following is a list of `interested persons" for the above referenced proceeding. You are instructed by that Rule to serve a copy of your client's notice of appeal upon all people or entities listed below, by certified mail. Name Street City & State Zip Code Brian Bertsch 48 Winding Brook Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 AI Senecal 31 Commerce Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Nicole Senecal 31 Commerce Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Thibeault 16 Villa Drive Essex Jct., VT 05452 Pete Kelley 277 Blair Park Williston, VT 05495 Denis St. Jean PO Box 9322 South Burlington, VT 05407 Jim Foster PO Box 4120 Burlington, VT 05406 Patrick Gallivan 125 Kennedy Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas Chittenden 1600 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Bill Gardner 147 Allenbrook Lane Williston, VT 05495 Brian Leahy 25 Relaxation Park Dr. Hingham, MA 02043 Patrick Netreba 25 Research Drive Westborough, MA 01581 -Greg Ga ette 80 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 David M. Zajchowski 79 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Barbara Pickard Sirvis 24 Arbor Road South Burlington, VT 05403 W. Spencer & Nancy L. Baker 123 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas M. & Nancy A. Tavares Trust 76 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com "Interested Persons" Continued Name Street City & State Zip Code Danielle R. Fisette 10 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 James J. Dougherty Carol A. Dougherty 52 Kaylyn's Way South Burlington, VT 05403 Dorothy A. Lovering 84 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 When the Appellant sent out their notice on the above referenced application, the following additional people or entities on the list below were provided a copy of the DRB notice (this list may or may not include the persons noted above who appeared at the DRB hearing). Name Street City & State Zip Code Eugene J. Ward 3069 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Mary G. Antonioli 6 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Danielle R. Fisette 10 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Kevin Gross 14 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 LNP, Inc. 31 Commerce Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Ezra Spring 69 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Tamara Bassett 71 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 HenryE. Vanzile, Jr. 6937 LaSalle Street Vancouver, BC Canada V5S 3W6 Gordon E. & Elaine J. Bassett 73 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Nancy J. Howard 74A Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Pierre J. & Claudette Simard 163 Chapin Road Essex Junction, VT 05452 Kenneth, Margaret & Matthew Page 50 Maplewood Road East Montpelier, VT 05651 Thomas M. & Nancy A. Tavares Trust 76 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 David M. Zajchowski 79 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Maria H. Guyette 80 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Dorothy A. Lovering 84 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT" 05403 Paul S. & Nancy E. Lyon 90 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 W. Spencer & Nancy L. Baker 123 Shunpike Road South Burlington, VT 05403 102 Kimball Avenue, Unit 2 LLP 102 Kimball Avenue, Unit 2 South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com Name Street City & State Zip Code Birnn Holdings, LLC 102 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington, VT 05403 Unit 4 Knuckles, LLC P.O. Box 64941 Burlington, VT 05406 -Grumpy Catamount/Woodlands, 210 College Street, Burlington, VT 05401 LLC Suite 201 Mary A. Levi 236 Sephyr Road, No. Williston, VT 05495 101 Warren & Mary LaHue 103 Irish Cove Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Lawrence Press 102 Kimball Avenue, South Burlington, VT 05403 Unit C13 Cable Holdco Exchange One Comcast Center, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2838 III, LLC 32"d Floor 110 Kimball, LLC P.O. Box 4120 Burlington, VT 05406-4120 2069 Williston Road, 85 Shunpike Road Williston, VT 05495 LLC Paul H. Choiniere Real 2073 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Estate Holding, LLC Imported Car Center, 3017 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Inc. Choiniere Properties, 17 Harbor Watch Road Burlington, VT 05401 LLC 2069 Williston Road, 2069 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 LLC Calkins Family Limited 1835 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 -Partnership 3000 Williston Road, 1852 Texas Hill Road Hinesburg, VT 05461 LLC c/o Fredrick L. Lowen of Burlington 129 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 -City Blodgett 49 Kaylyn's Way South Burlington, VT 05403 -Nancy Robert Kaigle 50 Kaylyn's Way South Burlington, VT 05403 Nickolett Kai le Denis St. Jean 51 Kaylyn's Way South Burlington, VT 05403 James J. Dougherty 52 Kaylyn's Way South Burlington, VT 05403 Carol A. Dougherty Lastly, I recommend that you consult the statutory definition for "interested persons" contained in 24 V.S.A. §4465(b). If you believe that our list is missing someone who has interested persons status in this proceeding, you should consider sending them a copy of the notice of appeal, so that you can be confident that all persons or entities who are entitled to notice have received it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincer y, /. J iay and J. Belair Administrative Officer cc: Vermont Environmental Court Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. James Barlow, Esq. 4 Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division Environmental Division 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303 Burlington, VT 05401 January 15, 2016 CGOTVr (802) 951-1740 " www.vermontjudiciary.org NG� � J Docket Number: 5-1-16 Vtec Saxon Ptnrs LLC Airport Complex PUD Initial Notification AN 'I J ZWO City of So. Burlingtr- The above -referenced appeal from a municipal panel, district commission, Agency of Natural Resources, or Agency of Agriculture was received at the Environmental Division on January 14, 2016. Environmental Division docket number 5-1-16 Vtec has been assigned to this appeal. Please use the Environmental Division docket number and the above case name when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case. Please note, this case name may not be final if we are missing necessary information from the appellant. All documents should be filed with the Environmental Division at: Superior Court Environmental Division 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303 Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 951-1740 Also, if you have not provided the Environmental Division with a telephone number where you can be reached during working hours for the purpose of telephone conferences, please do so as soon as possible. The Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) set out the procedures to follow for this appeal. You may obtain a full copy of the Rules and Reporter's Notes at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The person filing the appeal is called "the appellant." The appellant must take certain actions in order to assure that this appeal is not dismissed. Consult the V.R.E.C.P. to see what those actions are. For requirements regarding the appellant's responsibility to notify interested parties, see V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4) for municipal appeals (see also Form 900 available on the Court's web site at www.vermontjudiciary.org by calling the Environmental Division at the above number and requesting that one be sent to you). Letterhead Page 5 of 6 5-1-16 Vtec Saxon Ptnrs LLC Airport Complex PUD This case will be ready for an initial pretrial conference when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired, or 20 days after the notice to interested parties has been sent, whichever occurs later. To complete service of appeals, the appellant must do as follows: • From an Appropriate Municipal Panel, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). The clerk of the appropriate municipal panel must provide the appellant with a list of interested persons within five working days of the municipality's receipt of a copy of the notice of appeal. • From a District Commission, District Coordinator or the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B): Take special notice that no list of interested parties will be provided by the tribunal, other than the service list on the decision appealed from. The Environmental Division may extend timeframes if a request is made by written motion filed with the Environmental Division before the deadline has expired. If this case is set for a hearing on the merits, the hearing will take place in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(g), these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make certain appeals on the record. Faxing or e-mailing a copy of a document is not sufficient to meet deadlines for filing documents with the Environmental Division. Faxed or e-mailed copies may be authorized by the Court in certain circumstances, but the Environmental Division will not accept a faxed or e-mailed document unless the sender has first telephoned the Court and obtained permission to do so and/or unless the judge has authorized faxing or e-mailing in a court order. A person filing any documents (including letters) with the Environmental Division must also send a copy of that document to each of the other parties. The Clerk of the Environmental Division will schedule a conference in person or by telephone as soon as all necessary documents have been filed with the Court or at the expiration of the deadlines for those documents. Before the initial conference, the Appellant is requested to provide the Environmental Division with a copy of the decision being appealed from. The Environmental Division finds it useful in preparing to discuss the appeal with the parties at the initial conference. Electronically signed on January 15, 2016 at 08:50 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). Diane C. Chamberlin Assistant Clerk Letterhead Page 6 of 6 5-1-16 Vtec Saxon Ptnrs LLC Airport Complex PUD Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division Environmental Division 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303 Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 951-1740 www.vermontiudiciary.org City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 fold line Letterhead 5-1-16 Vtec Saxon Ptnrs LLC Airport Complex PUD RECEIVED JAN 19 2016 City of So. Burlington Page 4 of 6 gravel & s h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com January 14, 2016 RECEIVE-0 _IAN 19 2016 City of So. Burlington Alyssa M. Bachand abachand@gravelshea.com HAND DELIVERED Joanne Charbonneau, Interim Manager Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division 32 Cherry Street, Suite 303 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: In Re Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-28 0 Dear Joanne: Enclosed for filing please find Applicant Saxon Partners, LLC's Notice of Appeal, together with our check in the amount of $295.00 to cover the filing fee. Thank you. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Alyssa M. Bachand Litigation Technology Assistant :amb Enclosures cc: Paul Connor, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning E SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. IN RE: SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-28 NOTICE OF APPEAL Applicant Saxon Partners, LLC ("Saxon"), by its attorneys, Gravel & Shea PC, hereby appeals to the Vermont Environmental Court from the City of South Burlington Development Review Board (the "DRB") sketch plan application decision of December 15, 2015 wherein the DRB issued a decision that the use proposed in Saxon's project is not permitted in the Mixed IC Zoning District. Saxon is the applicant for the sketch plan application and is an interested person pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). An excerpt of the Draft Meeting Minutes with the DRB's decision is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (see Item 7). Final Meeting Minutes for the December 15, 2015 DRB Meeting are currently unavailable. Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings ("VRECP"), all interested persons are hereby notified that they must enter an appearance in writing with the court within 20 days of receiving this notice of appeal, or in such other time as may be provided in ;ravel & ' subdivision (c) of VRECP 5, if they wish to participate in this appeal. shea i St. Pail] Stwet ost Office Box 369 urlington, Vermont 05402-0369 The DRB's decision concerns property located at and around 65 Shunpike Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Dated: Burlington, Vermont January 14, 2016 ;ravel & shea A1I<III 1-1 AI lAIX' i St. Paul Street Est Office Bos 369 nrlington. Vermont 05402-0369 'ROR siovnt a>uvou.ATI Iry Robert H. Rush, Esq. Matthew S. Stern, Esq. Gravel & Shea PC 76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor, P. O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 rrushford@gravelshea.com mstem@gravelshea.com For Applicant DRAFT MINUTES EXHIBIT SOUTH BURLINGTONDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES ------------------- December 15, 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room, South Burlington Police Station. MEMBERS PRESENT—T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leinwohl, C. Snyder, B. Gilbert, D. Seff, M. Scollins, G. Beaudoin, S. Vock, D. Fisette, S. & N. Baker, P. Galivan, B. Bertsch, kA. Senecal, M. Thibeault, J. Dougherty, B. Gardner, M. Courcelle, B. Leahy, P. Netreba, B. Cimonetti, G. Farrell, P. Walcott, D. St. lean, D. Lovering, G. Gayette, T. Tavares, J. Foster, J. Polubinski, R. Rushford, A. Rowe 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15_38 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of relocating taxiways A and G, 1200 Airport Drive. Mr. Leinwohl explained that there is a need to make the runways safer. In this plan, they will be removing one taxiway (taxiway G), which is at the end of its "lifetime". He indicated where the new taxiway G will be relocated and rebuilt. It will be 100 feet closer to the runway and 100 feet further from the roadway. Mr. Barritt directed the applicant's attention to comments from Public Works regarding stormwater. Mr. Wilking asked how this plan will coordinate with Air Guard plans. Mr. Leinwohl said this has been a collaborative effort to get the geometry correct. He showed a piece of pavement that will be left out at the request of the Air Guard. He also showed the taxiways the Air Guard will rebuild in 2017. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Leinwohl estimated they would have a plan at the end of January at the earliest. S. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-39 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of installing a 10,000 gallon above -ground aviation fuel tank, 1200 Airport Drive. Mr. Leinwohl showed the Heritage Aviation building and parking lot that will be rebuilt and indicated the location of this project. This is the same site as the previously proposed Aviation Tech Center, which was built elsewhere. Some fill will be placed in a ditch near the road. There will then be a concrete pad placed for the 10,000 gallon above -ground fuel tank. This will be similar to the facility located nearby. Mr. Leinwohl showed an area for treating stormwater. They will try to minimize the cutting of trees in that area. Mr. Belair noted the Board can ask for additional trees to replace those that are removed. Mr. Leinwohl explained that the proposed facility is for another entity that would like to maintain its own fuel supply. He indicated that there may be further information on this at a later date. Mr. Barritt directed attention to the Fire Chief's comments and recommendations No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Leinwohl said they may be ready to present the plan in mid -January. 6. Continued sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 14 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 12 3-unit multi -family dwellings totaling 50 new units, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder noted that at the last hearing there was discussion regarding relocating the park, product type, spaces between units, and Vale Drive concerns. He said they have looked at all previous iterations and then tried to come up with a new overall layout for the site. The biggest change is the relocation of the park to the southeast corner. Along Vale Drive, the configuration of unit types has changed to tighter clusters with more open space. Vale Drive now has some "swiggle" to it and has been narrowed to 18 feet. They have also added a sidewalk from Vale Drive to the rec path. There is a new configuration of homes on Spear Meadow Drive. 2 of the 3 garages face to the side and are "side loaded." The carriage homes will also have variations. Mr. Barritt said he liked the relocation of the park. He then raised the issue of the long private road. He noted that none of the current Board members was on the Board when that was originally discussed in 2009. The issue was whether to allow a cul-de-sac of 700 feet. Mr. Barritt said that issue still needs discussion. He indicated a private road that could in the future become a public road if the Gilbert property were ever to be further developed. Mr. Snyder said they have thought about that and are open to the idea. It could reduce the length of the private drive, but they didn't feel it was appropriate to show that connection. Mr. Barritt said it is something to think about. Mr. Gilbert said the problem is the density, not sign. He felt it was important to build the road to city st ids with a T intersection instead of having more access onto Spear Street. Mr. Snyder stressed than a Board had wanted the density shifted and the park reloc. . Members agreed they liked the park location as shown. Mr. Behr liked the idea of making the road public and allowing for a future connection. He suggested a break between 2 of the carriage homes and possibly removing one to create a real break in the road. Mr. Behr expressed concern that there seem to be 5 different neighborhoods with housing types not intermixed. He questioned whether that met the "diversity of design" criteria. Mr. Barritt asked the difference between the town houses and flats. Mr. Snyder said the town houses are 2 story. Flats can have options, but you can live on the first floor (they will be ADA adaptable). Mr. Barritt noted that some of the parking in front of the town homes is not allowed. Mr. Behr noted the triplex orients to the side, not the front. Mr. Snyder said they can have the front door face the street. Members were OK with submitting the TDRs prior to final plat. Mr. Barritt asked when the road would be built. Mr. Snyder said they would build Spear Meadow Drive to the Intersection of Vale Drive in Phase I (with appropriate stormwater and improvements to the intersection). Phase 2 would connect to the park. Phase 3 would go to the southwest corner. Mr. Behr questioned whether one building behind another meets the "facing the street" criteria. He felt that most of what faces the street is the garage door. Mr. Snyder said the plan reduces the number of curb cuts and solves a lot of the issues people brought up. Mr. Wilking felt there is too much density and that a few units have to go to make it work. Mr. Scollins said he spoke with Eric Farrell about not removing the red oaks in the woods that extend onto his property. He wanted to see the park at the southeast corner because it is the highest point. To move the park south loses that height. He suggested moving the road south so you get back the height. It would also create a sharp turn which would slow traffic down and not make it such an appealing cut -through. Mr. Behr said he liked that concept and felt it also breaks up the long road while keeping the same size park. Mr. Belair indicated a piece of land on which the city has an offer of dedication, which could create a challenge. Mr. Barritt asked that the next presentation show where trees are and where the property line is and what trees would be affected. Mr. Seff felt that both private drives are in violation of the regulations which said that dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. He said "shaIIs" cannot be waived according to the DRB. He didn't feel a potential connection eliminates the need to comply. Mr. Seff also maintained that the TDR bylaw is invalid, which is allowing the extra density. There was no other public comment. Mr. Belair noted the Board has approved other dead end streets where there is a potential for an adjacent property to be developed. Mr. Snyder noted that the park in the other location solved all the road length problems, but the Board liked this location. Mr. Belair explained that staff wanted the park in this location, to eliminate possible noise issues from 2 single family homes. Mr. Barritt said if the 2 houses weren't there, it would become an access road to the park and not a "street with homes." Mr. Conner said it would then be a "park access." Mr. Barritt stressed that if the density goes down, the plan would be getting closer to what everyone can agree on. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 19 January 2016. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ's Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: Mr. Beaudoin said since the initial application, they have changed traffic flow. The driveway is now an "in" only, and there is no longer a need for a light on Williston Road. Only the top leg of Shunpike is affected now. Mr. Beaudoin showed overhead photos of the site. He said BJ's would serve the "south part of the county while Costco serves the north part" He also noted that VTrans has a major project just east of this site. He said that on the south end of the site, where Comcast Way is, Public Works suggests a series of rotaries on Kimball Avenue. He then reviewed the property line changes with Comcast, PJs, and the Imported Car Center. Mr. Beaudoin then showed the concept of the interior of BJ's (photos from the New Hampshire store) and showed various departments and merchandise, including the tire center and food center. Mr. Barritt said that staff recommends the Board focus on issues such as: uses/purpose, access, stormwater and Fire Department comments. With regard to uses/purpose, Mr. Barritt noted that "supermarkets" and "major shopping centers" are not allowed in this district. He noted receipt of the applicant's lawyer addressing this issue. It notes that less than 50% of BJ's business is food sales. The lawyer said that "major commercial use" is not a "use," just a policy statement. In addition, "super market" is not defined in the regulations. He said this is a "wholesale club" which is not defined anywhere in the regulations. Many elements in this facility are not found in a supermarket (e.g., major appliances). He also noted that a "shopping center" is defined as 2 or more buildings. This is one building, one business. Mr. Barritt said there is disagreement on the definition of "supermarket." He suggested the Board meet in deliberative session to discuss this issue. Mr. Miller moved the Board meet in deliberative session. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. When the Board returned from the deliberative session, Mr. Barritt said the Board is of the unanimous opinion that this is not a permitted use; it is a "shopping center" inside one building. He said that is a "non -starter" for the Board. This use in this district is not allowed. After a brief discussion of options, Mr. Beaudoin said he would like a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 19 January 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously i S. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-37 of 900 Dorset Street, LLC, to construct a three unit multi -family dwelling on a 2 acre +/- lot developed with a single family dwelling, 900 Dorset Street: Mr. Vock noted the Board last saw this plan 2 years ago. He showed a rendering that was part of the original plan. The plan adds three additional units and involves realignment of a roadway and some grading. One issue is that the road doesn't match the roadway on the other side as there are 2 different levels. Wastewater allocation would be 840 gpd for all 4 units (the existing unit is served by onsite). Public Works has said that at no point would the city take it over. They do not propose a second curb cut. The proposed relocated curb cut will serve all units. Mr. Behr liked the relocated curb cut and felt it was safer with better view lines. Mr. Vock indicated an 8' wide rec path. It does have some contours to address grading. Mr. Barritt asked if Mr. Vock know who cleared out some brush on city -owned property. Mr. Vock said he did not know. Mr. Conner said he would check whether this occurred on city property. Mr. Barritt questioned the use of the barn and noted it can't be used unless the owner is a resident. Mr. Vock did not know the owner's plans. Mr. Belair asked the purpose of so much parking in front of the barn. Mr. Vock did not know. Mr. Conner said the Board needs to know the purpose of that. Mr. Vock showed the location of a hydrant. The Chief wanted it more accessible. He suggests bringing the water line across and sprinklering the buildings, which would be cheaper. The Chief would then be OK with the hydrant location. Mr. Vock then showed building concepts. Mr. Barritt asked that garage doors be more "architectural" and not just a white square. He asked for design to be in keeping with the look of the property. Mr. Vock then showed the location for a community garden. Mr. Conner asked that there be some kind of orientation of buildings to the street, even if it is just one unit/porch. It should look like a "front." Mr. Conner also noted that porches are facing north, and the applicant may want to think about that. Mr. Vock said they will probably have to regrade to slow stormwater down a bit. They are thinking of some kind of nice fencing to clearly delineate the ends of backyards. Mr. Conner suggested the applicant look at the new stormwater regulations. Mr. Conner noted the end unit is right next to the band shell, and the band shell will be used (the Mozart Festival next year). Mr. Vock noted that could be attractive for some people. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-15-37 to 2 February 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 1 December 2015. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 1 December 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business. Mr. Conner noted that at the next meeting (5 January 2016) there will be a staff briefing on new regulations. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. Clerk Date DRAFT MINUTES Publisby ClerkBase 2n1hed6 b Clerkbase. No Claim to Onginal Government Works. ray From: Kevin Bushweller and Paula Smith <kevinandpaula@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 8:36 AM To: Kevin Dorn Cc: ray Subject: allow Saxon Partners to develop in South Burlington Dear Mr Dorn and the South Burlington Development Review Board: I am writing as someone raised in Vermont, left the state for 30 years, and will be returning to South Burlington this spring to relocate with my family and employment at UVM. Vermont, and South Burlington in particular, are highly desirable locations for quality of life and to raise a family. My husband grew up in South Burlington and we are returning for the educational opportunities and lifestyle. However as we make this transition we are highly concerned about taxes that are among the highest in the nation and poor support for business and reasonable growth. As a 30 year resident of Virginia I am dumbfounded by the business restrictions as balanced by the homeowner tax burdens. Coming from suburban Virginia I can attest controlled growth and expansion is positive for the town, county and residents. Access is progress, and that includes access to business. South Burlington appears to be contemplating a forward thinking plan for growth. Denying BJs wholesale to build in a run down and underutilized commercial space is a poor decision based on a technical zoning or land use regulation. Denying BJs request to become part of the South Burlington business community is not consistent with progressive and positive growth, BJs is active in our current community. It offers convenience and affordability, sponsors local community sports teams and other initiatives, and adds to the county tax base. I strongly urge you to rethink your decision and to work with Saxon Partners. Please forward this email to the appropriate decision makers. I look forward to hearing from you and continued dialogue. Thank you for your partnership in planned growth for business and the community. Paula Smith Bushweller Barbara Pickard 5irvis, Ed.). 24 Arbor Road South Burlington, VT 05403 December 10, 2015 To whom it may concern: While I would like to provide public testimony on the proposed BJ's Wholesale Club, I am unable to attend the meetings. Sadly, that means you will not be able to hear the passion in my voice, but please know I feel very strongly about this particular proposal. A retired college president, I chose South Burlington because it had a sense of community and was not a "big box town" like Williston or a "downtown" like Burlington. South Burlington's ongoing conversations about a City Center and the future vision of our town included public discourse that supported continued protection of residential neighborhoods and expansion of low -impact industrial usage like the other businesses on Kimball Avenue. The proposed addition of a large big -box store goes against that vision. It would mean more traffic day and night for seven days a week. It was my understanding from the Community Forums that the intent of redesign of parts of Williston Road was to slow people driving through town. However, the reasons for them to stop in South Burlington would be for local businesses and to enjoy the benefits of the proposed City Center. Since Kimball Avenue and Williston Road are single lanes in each direction, this proposal would increase traffic congestion on both streets. The LDR maps designate this property as "Mixed Commercial -Industrial." The purpose statement for such development clearly indicates that "Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited...." A major wholesale club that includes both groceries and a wide variety of consumer goods should be prohibited based on this statement. That should be a significant enough reason to deny BJ's application. I also examined the list in the Table of Uses (C-1), and "general merchandise stores" are not allowed in the IC. The regulations seem clear that a major retail establishment such as BJs does NOT fit within the LDRs for the property proposed for a location. If these assumptions are true, then I commend those who developed the LDRs. The business/office nature of development around this area allows the residential areas to maintain some semblance of community. If BJs is allowed to build, any sense of neighborhood in the small residential areas around Shunpike and Williston Road will be destroyed. University Mall is a good location for a large footprint consumer facility. Shelburne Road has major commercial spaces. Those two locations are more than enough for our community. Approval of the application by BJs would create a third and unnecessary consumer focus and virtually assure South Burlington becomes another "big box community" like Williston. I implore you not to let that happen to our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 94. P. "�4 Barbara P. Sirvis, Ed.D. gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com Mr. Raymond Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Saxon Partners, LLC — Application # SD-15-28 Dear Ray: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com We represent Saxon Partners, LLC in connection with its Sketch Plan Application for the proposed development of a BJ's Wholesale Club off of Shunpike Road (the "Application"). At its December 15, 2015 public hearing, the Development Review Board voted to continue the public hearing regarding the Application until January 19, 2016. We write to respectfully request that the Development Review Board continue its review of the Application until February. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50.00 to process this request. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Robe H. Rushford RHR:kjm Enclosure cc: Mr. Gene Beaudoin LAW), li� TK � �� � Ild RECEIVED DEC 15 2015 City of So. Burlington December 14, 2015 Development Review Board City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford@gravelshea.com Re: BJ's Wholesale Club, South Burlin on: Response to December 11 Staff Notes Dear Board Members: We are writing in response to the Memorandum regarding Sketch Plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC dated December 11, 2015 (the "Staff Notes") that were prepared in connection with the Project. The Staff Notes recommend that the Development Review Board ("Board") determine whether the activities proposed by the Project are permitted uses in the Mixed IC District as provided in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, dated September 24, 2013 (the "LDRs"). The Staff Notes state that the proposed Project consists of three principal use categories including two permitted uses (Retail Sales, and Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair) and one use that is permitted as an accessory use (Retail Food establishment >5,000 SF GFA). Furthermore, in considering whether the Project should be permitted in the Mixed IC District, the Staff Notes recommend that the Board consider the Purpose Statement for the Mixed IC District. While we generally concur with the findings of the Staff Notes, we wish to add the following comments regarding: (I) the Stated Purpose of the Mixed IC District and: (II) the characterization of uses for the Project: I. Mixed Industrial -Commercial District Purpose In determining whether the Project furthers the stated purpose of the Mixed IC District, the Staff Notes ask that the Board determine whether the Project constitutes a: (a) "Major Commercial Use"; (b) a supermarket; or (c) shopping center. For the reasons stated below, the Project does not fall into any of these three uses and, therefore, should be classified as a permitted use. Development Review Board December 14, 2015 Page 2 As an initial matter, "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights."' In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication."2 Rather, "[a]ny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner."3 In addition, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "all ordinances are subject to the limits of our Constitution, and we will not enforce laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards."' See also, JAM Golf, 188 Vt. at 207 (finding that an ordinance was unenforceable because it "provides no guidance as to what may be fairly expected from landowners who ... wish to develop their property .... f ssluch standardless discretion violates property owners' due process rights") (emphasis added). A. The Project Cannot be Classified as Prohibited as a "Major Commercial Use" The LDRs set forth a Use Table that establishes what uses are permitted and what uses are conditionally permitted in the Mixed IC District. To provide applicants and landowners further guidance, the LDRs specifically define the uses set forth in the Use Table. The term "Major Commercial Use" appears in the LDRs as a policy statement and not as a restriction on use. Not only does "Major Commercial Use" not appear in the Use Table, but the LDRs do not define "Major Commercial Use" anywhere in the LDRs. A review of the Use Table and definitions only creates more confusion when attempting to interpret the meaning of "Major Commercial Use" and further blurs any interpretation of what types of retail uses are permitted in the Mixed IC District. Because the LDRs do not provide any guidance on what constitutes a "Major Commercial Use" and because "laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards" cannot be enforced, the Board should not consider or prohibit the Project as a "Major Commercial Use."' ' Glabach a Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shear- er Variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (mem.); Town of Westford a Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland a Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). 2 Murphy Motor Sales a First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). 3 Id. at 124 (citations omitted) 'In re JAM Golf, LLC, 188 Vt. 201, 208, 969 A.2d 47 (2008) (emphasis added). 5 JAMGoIf, 188 Vt. at 208. A Development Review Board December 14, 2015 Page 3 B. BJ's is not a Supermarket Similarly, a "Supermarket" is also not defined in the LDRs. In its discussion of whether the Project would constitute a Supermarket, the Staff Notes concede that "the proposed use may not be a `traditional' supermarket or grocery" and that the "business approach and line of products does differ" from "traditional" supermarket. (Emphasis added). However, the LDRs provide no standards or guidance on what a Supermarket, traditional or otherwise, is. Without a definition, the Board is again left with no guidance from the LDRs. Because the Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "we will not enforce laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards,"6 the Board may not create such as restriction by implication. In addition, under any commonly understood definition of supermarket, BJ's cannot be considered to be a supermarket. Unlike a supermarket, BJ's does not focus on selling mainly food -related items. Instead, BJ's retails an assortment of non-food related items such as electronics, furniture, travel agent services, jewelry, and sports and fitness equipment, all items not typically found in a Supermarket. While BJ's does on occasion advertise its food -related items via social media and on its website as pointed out in the Staff Notes, a review of the company's website reveals that the company focuses its advertising on a variety of non-food items. For example, on its home page, BJ's divides its products into ten (10) categories, only one (1) of which is food -related. Furthermore, a review of BJ's website on December 14, 2015, indicates that only one (1) of the ten (10) items shown as "featured products" are food related. These featured products include a scanner, a cell phone, a laptop and a children's roller coaster; all items that are not traditionally sold in supermarkets. A print out of the home page is attached hereto. Furthermore, most of the food items that BJ's does sell are packaged in bulk sizes that supermarkets, or other retail food establishments, do not carry. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of BJ's is sale of its bulk items. Second, supermarkets carry far more items than a BJ's store. A typical BJ's store only carries six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items (as calculated by the number of "SKUs" or stockkeeping units) whereas a typical supermarket carries forty-two thousand two hundred and fourteen (42,2147) items, nearly seven times as many items as a BJ's. Third, entities such as the federal government's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers do not classify BJ's as a "supermarket" but rather have a distinct classification for warehouse clubs, which is entirely different than the classification for supermarkets. 6 Id. 7 The Food Marketing Institute, a trade group, estimates that the "[a]verage number items carried in a supermarket in 2014" is 42,214. FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, SUPERMARKET FACTS, http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts (last visited on 12/14/2015). Development Review Board December 14, 2015 Page 4 Because a "Supermarket" is not defined in the LDRs and because "laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards"8 cannot be enforced against applicants, the Board should not classify BJ's as a "Supermarket." C. The Project is not a Shopping Center A "Shopping Center" is defined in the LDRs, in part, as "[a] group of two 2 or more retail establishments or restaurants." (Emphasis added). Because BJ's constitutes only one 1 retail establishment, BJs cannot be considered to be a Shopping Center. II. The Project Constitutes Permitted Retail Sales The Staff Notes state that the "the proposed activity consists of three principal use categories" including: (A) Retail Sales; (B) Retail Food establishment >5,000 SF GFA; and supermarkets; and (C) Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair. While both Retail Sales and Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair are permitted uses in the Mixed IC District, the LDRs prohibit both supermarkets and certain retail food establishments (those having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area). However, the LDRs do permit retail food as an accessory use in the Mixed IC District. Specifically, the LDRs state that "[s]uch an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own." The Applicant agrees that the Project would involve both Retail Sales and Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair uses. Furthermore, the Applicant concurs with the Staff Notes that, since "General Merchandise" is not defined in the LDRs, the "General Merchandise" use must be treated no differently than Retail Sales and, therefore, must be treated as a permitted use. While the Applicant also agrees that a portion of Project use will include attributes of the Retail Food >5,000 SF GFA use, this use should be considered to be an accessory use for the reasons stated below. The LDRs define "Retail food establishments," in part, as "an establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." (Emphasis added). 8 Id. Development Review Board December 14, 2015 Page 5 In addition, the LDRs define Accessory Use as "a use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot." (Emphasis added.) The sale of prepared ready -to -eat foods at BJ's should be considered to be an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. As noted above, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Additionally, the sale of "prepared ready -to - eat food," or those products that are characteristic of items sold at a "Retail food establishments" in the LDRs, represents an incidental and subordinate use to the general retail focus of a BJ's establishment. Of the six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items sold at a typical BJ's, only 15-19% are the "prepared ready -to -eat food items" that characterize a "Retail food establishment." Furthermore, as noted above, BJ's focuses on the sale of food in bulk sizes, not the smaller sizes typically sold at Retail Food facilities. In addition, the portions of the store that will sell food products will be located "entirely within the principal [BJ's] structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own" as required by the LDRs. As demonstrated by the number of retail food items offered by BJ's, retail food items should be considered to be incidental and subordinate to the retail sales focus of the BJ's store. Therefore, the retail food use should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford BM •r BYs Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I LivingSocial https: //www.livingsocial. com/deals/ 15463 78-bj-s-l-year-membership?pos=0 0 hvin socia 9 l Limited Time extra discount get it now to save even more r- search ■ near Northern Vermont help 1 of 5 12/3/2015 2:25 PM BJ's Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I LivingSocial https://www.livingsocial. com/deals/ 1546378-bj-s-1-year-membership?pos=0 details 96% recommended in LivingSocial customer ratings When you're a Member at BJ's, you aren't a customer — you're a part of the family. Be the hero in your household and save big on everyday essentials with this BJ's Membership. • $19.99 ($50 value) for a one-year BJ's Membership • You'll get one Primary Membership Card and one Household Card • Household Card may be used by family members who live at your address Your Life, Your Club BJ's makes it easy to stock up on what matters the most to your family at savings that'll make you feel like a VIP. Featuring USDA choice meats, deliciously fresh produce, a wide selection of organics, the latest electronics, tasteful home decor, health and beauty needs, travel services, superb tires and much more, this Members -only warehouse is the only one -stop shop your family will need. And BJ's has wonderful and unique holiday gifts, too. Ready to save? Read more on how much BJ's can help you save. Don't Forget: This offer is designed for all BJ's locations. Valid for new BJ's Members only; not valid for those with an active Membership or for a previous Membership. You may use your voucher 48 hours after purchasing. Click here for more information regarding Membership terms and privacy policy. #Giftlt: There's no greater feeling than experiencing the joy of giving and saving. If you'd like to gift this deal to a loved one, enter his or her name and e-mail address. If you're purchasing one for yourself in addition to someone else, process the gift purchase as a separate transaction. BJ's representatives will verify the person's name at the Member Services Desk with a valid ID. BJ's Website I Facebook I Twitter PAID VALUE EXPIRES ON December 3, 2020 PROMOTIONAL VALUE EXPIRES ON March 17, 2016 Buy this Deal with confidence, because it's covered by the LivingSocial Good Deal Guarantee up to the Voucher Expiration Date See Details» the fine print 2 of 5 12/3/2015 2:25 PM BJ's Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I LivingSocial https://www.livine,social.com/deals/1 546' )78-bj-s-l -year-membership?pos=0 • Limit 1 per customer, up to 2 additional as gifts • VOUCHER NOT VALID UNTIL 48 HOURS AFTER PURCHASE • Valid only in-store at all locations; visit BJs.com/locations for more information • Customer must provide their first and last name and residential address at LivingSocial checkout for order fulfillment and marketing purposes • Must be age 18+ to redeem and show valid ID; address on ID must match address that customer provided to LivingSocial at checkout • Customer will receive 1 primary Membership Card and 1 Household Card; Household Card may be used by family members who live at the address of the Primary Cardholder • Not valid with any other offers or discounts • Visit tinyurl.com/bjsprivacy and tinyurl.com/bjsmembershipterms for more information regarding BJ's privacy policy and Membership terms • All services must be used by same customer • May be used over multiple visits • New Members only; not valid for those with an active Membership or a previous Membership • Other conditions apply BJ's BJ's 1-Year Membership from $19 99 enjoy$30.01 savinqs .uy .... _.. gift it! 60% savings 7,138 purchased BJ's BJ's 1-Year Membership 00:00:00 remaining Limited Time $19.99 "discount may not be combined with any other offer. see terms Want this deal for free? Buy first, then share a special link. If three friends buy, yours is free! 3 of 5 12/3/2015 2:25 PM BYs Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I LivingSocial https://www.livingsocial.com/deals/1 546378-bj-s- I -year-rnembership?pos=0 405 81 Sponsored Links Sponsored Links MOBILE APPS GOOD DEAL GUARANTEE HELP US IMPROVE Get the best deals wherever you Our way of making sure you're Sign up to test new products and are. Download for free » nalways happy. Learn more » features. Volunteer now » smart marketing solutions for businesses of every size Flexible, measurable marketing for local Data -driven advertising packages for merchants. Learn more, national brands. Learn more .> 4 of 5 12/3/2015 2:25 PM O O - p� .. N O ((D — r (n . co . O n v. co r o- a vi o 3Cn O C O N CD CD D N � to N (D 'D < � 3 O (D O Q < CD O � O 3 (D O Q 41 C h O O N N < Gi N O :2 cvi (p C w n + C N o O T v W 0 i 3 c En c C. O Ort Q Q � (D x O (p m � 3 O K (D O C O O (�D Q 4� O FL < n .+ ? D = (D w OQ s. 3 C N j 3 W (n O (D v a O (D .II 12/10/2015 1 BJ's Inner Circle Membership- BJs Wholesale r'l;b Help? Membership Order Status Wish List Cart (0) Sign In Find a Club keyword(s) or item # I�z :rnlE to a .. He 1, = & Bcr�utY -"ray I Home > BJ's Inner Circle Membership Membership Options My BJ's Perks Inner Circle® Membership Business Membership Corporate Membership Fundraising Memberships One Day Pass Help Welcome New Members Online Rebates In -Club Coupons Save More Every Day with a BA Membership BJ's Members enjoy wholesale club prices. You'll save big on leading name brands, from groceries to health and beauty to home goods. PLUS, BJ's Services save you money on vacations, home improvements and much more. Join today for just $50* — it's risk -free with BJ's 300% money -back guarantee. FREE Household Card — BJ's Members receive a second card for a household member at no extra charge. You can also add up to three (3) Supplemental Memberships for just $30* each. You'll discover that BJ's is better than ever with everything you need to make life easier: ✓SUPERMARKET SIZES We carry many of your favorite brands in convenient supermarket sizes USDA CHOICE MEATS Cut fresh by our in -Club butcher r�ORGANIC & NATURAL FOODS Delicious selection of USDA -certified choices NATIONAL BRANDS The best in electronics, computers, home goods and more Y MONTHLY COUPONS Use BJ's coupons and manufacturers' coupons to save big */ WETAKE ALL FORMS OF PAYMENT Including major credit cards, debit, checks or EBT Don't miss your chance to save every day on the things your family wants the most. Join now! Find a BJ's near you. All BJ's Memberships are subject to BJ's Membership Terms, ask in -Club or go bis.com/terms. Availability of items may vary by Club location. Items available only while supplies last. *Plus state and local taxes where applicable or required by law. PRIVACY POLICY Membership Options/Join Product Recalls In -Club Coupons Contact Us Careers My BJ's Perks In -Club Clipless Coupons Forgot Username(Password Return Policy Company Background My Account Travel + Services Locations Site Mao Community Relations Club News One Day Pass Mail -in Rebates Press Room Membership Terms Order Status Help Terms of Use BJ's Holiday Catalog s My BJ's Perks" MasterCard<a Terms Warranty Information 40 Live Chat - J'S MORE BJ's Journal - Holiday Gifts a © 1997 - 2015 BTs Wholesale Club,Inc. http://www.bjs.comAnner-circle-membership.content.join_circle_info.A.join_consumer 1/1 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: Sketch plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC, 65 Shunpike Road December 15, 2015 Meeting DATE: December 11, 2015 Sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six (6) boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ's Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road. COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and materials received on June 26, 2015 and subsequently. Please note that the applicant is no longer proposing the razing an existing single family dwelling and the installation of six (6) gasoline fueling pumps. The number of proposed boundary line adjustments has also changed. As this is a large project, at this time, staff recommends the Board's initial reviews focus on a handful of major issues: 1) Proposed uses and purpose 2) Access, Circulation and traffic 3) Lot layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity 4) Related necessary applications 5) Lot survey 6) Stormwater 7) Fire Department comments Please note that this represents a partial sketch plan -level review, focused solely on the items above and not addressing all applicable elements and standards of the Land Development Regulations. 1. Due to the scale of this project, staff strongly encourages the Board to provide clear guidance to the applicant by the conclusion of the Sketch Plan on the above items and others that the Board may elect to address. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com 2 2. In preparing its guidance, staff also strongly urges the Board to take the time it needs to gather information, employ Technical Review of elements, and hold deliberative session as appropriate. 1) Proposed Uses and Purpose: In considering this application, the Board will need to determine whether the proposed activities are permissible in the Mixed Industrial -Commercial District. To help determine this, staff recommends that the Board look at the full context of the Land Development Regulations. This includes the Purpose Statement of the Mixed I/C District, Uses Definitions, and the Table of Uses. As the Board digs further into the application, other standards such as site plan and planned unit development requirements related to transitions between sites structures should also be considered. The Purpose Statement. In the current and proposed [and warned for City Council public hearing] versions of the City's Land Development Regulations, the purpose of the Mixed Industrial -Commercial Zoning District reads as follows: 6.01 MIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IC A. Purpose. The Mixed Industrial -Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. This purpose statement — and notably the section that reads "Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted" — is largely unchanged since 1982 when the district was first enacted. 3. To answer the question of whether the proposal is or is not consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Industrial -Commercial District, as the Board reviews the following initial seven issues the Board should consistently consider: • does the proposal constitute a major commercial use? • does the proposal constitute a supermarket? • does the proposal constitute a shopping center? In order to answer these and other related questions, the Board will have to consider not only the purpose statement but the list of permitted uses in the Table of Uses, and the definitions of the uses in order to come to an understanding of the scope of the application. SD_15 28_65 ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners_PUD BJsWholesale_sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc 3 Use Definitions. The Land Development Regulations contain several potentially relevant Use Definitions. The following are the definitions from the LDRs which would seem to apply or possibly apply to the proposed facility: Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own. Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. Auto & motorcycle service and repair. A business enterprise engaged in the servicing and repair of automobiles and/or motorcycles, including auto body repair or auto detailing, including the sale and installation of automobile and/or motorcycle parts and accessories. Includes Auto & Motorcycle Sales, Limited in conformance with these regulations. Supermarket or grocery store. See retail food establishment. Staff believes that the proposed establishment includes a combination of each of the above, all as principal uses. In reviewing the above definitions, it is staff's view that this facility includes a combination of "retail food establishment", "retail sales", and "auto & motorcycle service and repair" uses. This facility sells a variety of dry goods (retail sales) and food items (retail food/supermarket). It is not unusual for a dry goods store to sell some food items and vice versa. The definition of "supermarket" refers back to "retail food establishment". A portion of this facility qualifies as an "auto & motorcycle service and repair" use as tires will be sold and installed. The only use component in this facility which would be "accessory" would be the propane refilling tanks located in the parking area. As you can see, there is not a clear cut use or uses involved, hence the need to consider the facility as a whole while acknowledging that this facility includes a mixture of uses. It is not uncommon for a single entity to include several principal uses in South Burlington. In this particular case, the proposed main building is 88,548 square feet in size and therefore any one of the uses within a multi -use establishment could be considered to be of similar size and scale to counterparts around the city and region. a. Retail sales. It is staff's understanding that a portion of the BJ's base building will be dedicated to selling a variety of goods or merchandise consistent with the definition above. Staff notes SD 15_28 65 ShzrnpikeRoad SaxonPartners PUD_BJsWholesale sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doe 4 that while "general merchandise stores" are not permitted in this district, the draft amendments to the LDRs before the City Council eliminates this term. Staff therefore recommends that "general merchandise" be treated no different than retail sales. See below under "retail food establishment" for additional discussion regarding the definition above. b. Retail food establishment. Retail food establishment, as defined above, includes two related but distinct elements: supermarkets, and entities which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises. The definition is written this way, we believe, to reference grocery stores and also to clearly distinguish a retail food establishment from an eat -in restaurant. Examples include Hannaford's, Price Chopper, Trader Joe's, Healthy Living, and the Euro Market. It is staff's understanding that the sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BJ's. The retail food sales portion of this building based on general information provided by the applicant appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a supermarket operation. Enclosed (in packet) are two references from BJ's' website and related social media (see attached web excerpt dated 12/10/15 and titled "BJ's Inner Circle Membership — BJs wholesale club" and attached web excerpt dated 12/3/2015 and titled "BJ's Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I Living Social") also indicates that BJ's both functions and promotes itself as a supermarket. Staff recognizes that the proposed use may not be a "traditional" supermarket or grocery. The business approach and line of products does differ, but staff also notes that significant variability exists within grocery stores / supermarkets today, from those including or excluding on -site butchers, bakeries, focus on natural foods, etc. c. Auto & motorcycle service and repair. Staff understands that the project will include a 3,348 SF Tire Center operating consistent with this definition. The facility will sell, install, and replace tires. Staff would also like to acknowledge that there are a handful of other definitions that the Board should be aware of that relate, somewhat, to the proposed activity. They are used in or relate to the definitions above: They include: Shopping center. A group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants, including all associated out -parcels (whether or not they have been subdivided from the original tract), having a unified design of buildings, coordinated parking and service areas, and development plan in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, and where customer and employee parking are provided on -site, and provision for goods delivery is separated from customer access. The shopping center shall be planned, constructed, and developed and/or managed as a unified entity. Non -retail uses, such as offices, theaters, hotels, and automotive repair facilities, may be included in the overall development plan provided such uses are approved by the DRB in conjunction with the overall shopping center. Accessory Use. A use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale sketch_Dec__15_2015_mtg.doc �1 on the some lot. An accessory use shall not be accessory to another accessory use. Wholesale establishment. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling goods, products, material, and merchandise stored on the premises to retailers or persons who are the intermediaries between the producer and the consumer, • to industrial, commercial, institutional or professional business users; to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. Staff understands that while BJ's may use the colloquial term of "wholesaler" for marketing purposes, the business's use of the term is not consistent with the definition of the word in the Land Development Regulations. Staff understands that BJ's primary customers are not intermediaries; they are individuals and households who have chosen to purchase a membership. The LDRs' definition of wholesale establishment is clear on this. Staff, in brief, does not see the proposed use as being a "wholesale establishment". A note on accessory vs. principal use. Staff notes that the definition for retails sales in the Land Development Regulations includes an allowance for some amount of retail food sales: "Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own." Based on the definition above, it appears clear that a full-sized grocery operation located within a much larger building is not an accessory use. Staff's understanding of the BJ's model, assuming this store would be similar to others, is that the retail food portion is not incidental and subordinate in its area, extent, or purpose. Therefore, the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use. 4. Use questions for the Board to consider: • Does the proposed building include more than one (1) principal use or is the entire facility one (1) use? • Which use definitions are most applicable to this operation? • What additional information, if any, will the Board need to determine the answers to these questions? • Is the use a use other than those uses listed as prohibited in the purpose statement? We are including the following information to assist the Board with the complex task of answering these questions. Table of Uses The Table of Uses lists those uses which are permitted and conditional. The relevant items are listed below: Commercial & Industrial Uses Mixed IC District Retail Sales Permitted Retail food establishments > 5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets Auto & motorcycle service and repair Permitted Shopping Center SD_15_28 65_ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale sketch_Dec_I5_2015_mtg.doc 6 As stated in the application, the applicant proposes the following uses: "Retail Store (81,840 SF Base Building, 3,360 SF Receiving Appendage, 3,348 SF Tire Center, Z052 SF Breezeway) and related uses including ancillary fuel pumps. Approximately 300 total parking spaces." As noted above, staff's view is that the proposed activity consists of three principal use categories within this building: [ 1. ] Retail Sales [ 2. ] Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets [ 3. ] Auto & motorcycle service & repair Staff draws the Board's attention to a small but relevant distinction between the Use Definitions and the Table of Uses: The Table of Uses refers to "retail food establishment > 5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets" [emphasis added]. This is important in staff's view because it helps to clarify how staff sees that the definition of retail food establishment includes both supermarkets and establishments whose design encourages the sale of pre -packaged food. Last but not least, it is useful to note that "Retail food establishment> 5,000 SF GRA and supermarkets" is allowed as a Permitted Use in the Commercial-1, C1-R12, C1-R15 and Commercial-2 zoning districts and as a Conditional Use in the City Center CD-1 and City Center CD-2 subdistricts. 5. Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed use or uses on the property, pose questions to the applicant, deliberate to discuss whether the proposed activities are permissible in this location, and then provide guidance to the applicant. 2] Circulation and Traffic The Department of Public Works offered the following comments to staff via email on September 2, 2015. l have looked at the sketch plans for the referenced project and have the following big picture comments to offer: 1. The main technical component of this project for Public Works is the overall traffic impact of the proposal, including: a. Proposed mitigation measures to provide safe and efficient traffic flow for all modes at the project's three main intersections b. The offset nature of the Kimball Drive intersection relative to Community Drive west C. The reliance of a primarily residential street, Shunpike Road, as an access/egress point d. The offset nature of the US2 intersection relative to Calkins Court especially considering Valley Road is not a public street e. The regional transportation impact of the project f. How will the project provide for and enhance bicycle and pedestrian movements through this area 2. Other staff members have provided comments on the stormwater concept Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer It is staff's understanding that a traffic study is underway. The Board can ask the applicant for an update. SD_15_28_65 ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners PUD BJsWholesale_sketch Dec 15 2015_mtg.doc Once the study is provided, staff will review and may recommend an independent technical review. As with the discussion of uses above, staff will urge the Board to provide high-level guidance to the applicant at this sketch level. 6. Staff recommends that the Board request the applicant to address the questions above and propose a methodology to respond. The applicant should address the questions above — at least at a broad level — to the satisfaction of the public works director and Board prior to proceeding to a next step in the application. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more than one dwelling unit. Staff notes that it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive. Public streets should connect through to another street or to other lots pursuant to 15.12 above. The proposed application does not continue Comcast Way; it simply ends it into a parking area. Its function, therefore, is not a public street, rather a driveway. 7. Staff recommends that the Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent. 3) Lot Layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity Staff notes the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards. PUD Provision The following is a portion of the purpose statement for PUDs: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re -development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project. SD 15_28 65_ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners PUD BJs"olesale_sketch Dec IS_2015_mtg.doc 8. Staff recommends that the Board make a determination as to whether or not this project qualifies as a PUD and is therefore entitled to relief from the strict dimensional standards. Section 14.08 of the LDRs state, as part of site Plan review: (C)Relotionship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards. 9. The Board should review, at a big -picture scale, the consistency of the proposed project with standards regarding Lot Layout, innovation in PUD status, and relationship to buildings in the vicinity. Section 3.06 (1) of the LDRs state as follows: 1. Buffer Strip for Non -Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries. Where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district, or where an existing non-residential use, structure or parking area that is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is proposed to be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be increased to sixty-five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. 2 The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses, structures and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback and/or buffer as set forth in (1) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB shall find that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise, light and visual impacts of the new non- residential use to that which would be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above. However in no case may the required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning district in which the non-residential use is located. The proposal involves constructing the ingress only access drive from Shunpike Road within a few feet from the northerly border of the residential lot at 69 Shunpike Road. This property line is also a residential district boundary requiring, at a minimum, a strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide to be SD_15_28_65 ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners PUD BJsWholesale sketch Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc O' landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. This requirement is not being met. 10. The Board should provide the applicant with guidance on this non-compliance and what changes the applicant should make to the plan to comply with this section of the LDRs. 4) Related necessary applications Staff notes that the proposed application will involve changes to other parcels in the area and that applications for those parcels should be submitted so that continued compliance of those parcels with the LDRs can be evaluated in a timely manner. In particular staff notes that reducing the size of the Cota parcel via the proposed purchase of 37,597 SF from it may render the Cota parcel non -compliant with lot coverage maximums. That would not be permissible. 11. The Board should inquire as to the status of applications from adjacent properties. Staff recommends that this present application not proceed to a next step without receipt and review of these related applications. 5) Lot survey Staff has explored the history of the lot in question via a review of land development records. The lot was originally part of the Imported Car Center lot abutting Shelburne Road. In 1981, the lot was subdivided from this lot and was 12 acres in size and included approximately 165 feet of road frontage along Shunpike Road. In 1994 the lot was apparently reduced to slightly more than 10 acres in size and there was no longer any road frontage and the lot was landlocked. Staff recommends that the applicant review this history and provide additional clarity on the status and configuration of the lot presently. Stormwater The Department of Public Works has performed an initial review of the application. For the purposes of this initial, broad -level discussion, staff is highlighting one component: The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Further comments can be provided to the applicant at any time and / or to the Board at a future meeting. 12. Staff recommends that any future versions of the application address the stormwater recommendations. Fire Department comments In an email to staff dated August 31, 2015, the Fire Department provided the following comments: SD 15 28 65 ShunpikeRoad SaxonPartners PUD BdsWholesale sketch Dec 15 2015 mtg.doc 10 Regarding the very preliminary plan for the three structures on or about 7 Commerce, SBFD has no significant issues at this juncture. BJs: Gas islands shall have gas island suppression system installed. LPG storage/dispensary is in a high traffic area and shall be relocated to an area away from the building access for the general public. Coordinate with SBFD. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department The Board should note the gas islands referred to above have been removed from the plan. 13. The applicant should address the Department's comments in detail in its Preliminary Plat application. In conclusion, staff encourages the Board to address the major issues noted above with the applicant and provide direction to the applicant. Staff notes that the proposed project also raises other issues such as wetland impacts, floodplain impacts, setback waivers and performance standards such as noise and fumes from delivery truck operations. Staff will provide additional analysis on these issues and others in future staff comments regarding this application. If this application moves to the end of the sketch plan review process, the Board have to make decisions on all issues raised. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board and applicants address the above -listed items before proceeding to additional levels of detail in review of the sketch plan or any future stage in the application process. SD 15_28_65 ShunpikeRoad SaxonPariners_PUD BJsnolesale sketch_Dec_15_2015_mtg.doc ^*' }wq{&uxaF Kak�ARu a`*C>rn �btrr '�}F ni "� tlPf .R Yelfi ffi#L'w@K K@ (bKASi%Y A! &tJl4 d {+.a.'✓'."� .Yf 'P+ < e _.x .e nros M'PdwY4 y wF W fµf6 Rk`K Y SITE PLAN xtia.Fr. eMyne. � 4sen1c: 8cW 0 9' 'm Yf5w5.PPbM.4N tiCB±A4Ysi �. tE�iAS <QAW 6Mffi!RY 4.46.iDVR.3"iNAWR vg}x riWF U4' FS[uPL4 t.. s iFSMb trtite s YA � LtY'§ $=F EYS"fe1C Lftti%"%E wkR �Y 9 'd CM4 Mt1 LLNXFEFE £3FN£ �w �� w. ! 16L& h_._._� �Au� �• gravel & rhea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com September 18, 2014 VIA E-MAIL Gene Beaudoin Director of Retail Development Saxon Partners 25 Recreation Park Drive, Suite 204 Hingham, MA 02043 Re: BJ's Wholesale Club, South Burlington, Vermont Dear Gene: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford®gravelshea.com You asked me to determine: (i) whether a BJ's Wholesale Club would be allowed in the Mixed Industrial -Commercial District ("Mixed IC District") under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs"); and (ii) whether a BJ's Wholesale Club could operate fuel pumps within the Mixed IC District. I. Zoning Designation Because zoning ordinances contravene common law development rights, the Vermont Supreme Court has created the following special rules for the interpretation of zoning ordinances. First, "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights ... and when exemptions appear in favor of the property owner, the exemptions shall be construed in favor of the owner."' In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication. ,2 Rather, "(alny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner."3 (emphasis added). 1 Glabach v Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shearer variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (mem.); Town of Westford v Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland v Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also In re Pitale, 151 Vt. 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). 2 Murphy Motor Sales v First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). 3 Id. at 124 (citations omitted). gravel & s he a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 2 The proposed BJ's Wholesale Club is located within South Burlington's Mixed IC District. The LDRs state that the purpose of the Mixed IC District is "to encourage general industrial and commercial activity .... [and to] encourage[] development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies." Based on the definitions in the LDRs, a BJ's Wholesale Club should be characterized as one of two permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. First, under the Use and Dimensional Standards Table in the LDRs, "retail and retail services (excluding general merchandise stores)" is listed as a permitted use for the Mixed IC District. Retail sales is defined, in part, as: "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption." A BJ's Wholesale Club, therefore, would squarely fit within the definition of retail. Although this category excludes "general merchandise stores" from the list of permitted "retail and retail services" uses, the LDRs do not define a "general merchandise store." Instead, under the definition of "general merchandise store," the LDRs refer back to the definition of "retail sales" where no mention is made of a "general merchandise store." Because the LDRs fail to inform an applicant as to what exactly a "general merchandise store" is, because a BJ's Wholesale Club is not explicitly prohibited in other sections of the LDRs, and because "[a]ny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner,i4 a BJ's Wholesale Club should qualify as a permitted use as "retail and retail services." Second, even if a BJ's Wholesale Club cannot be categorized as a permitted use as "retail and retail services," the Uses and Dimensional Standards Table in the LDRs also identifies a "Wholesale establishment" as a permitted use in the Mixed IC District. Because BJ's Wholesale Club engages in the sale of wholesale products to individuals and businesses, a BJ's Wholesale Club should also qualify as a permitted use as a "wholesale establishment." Finally, we note that while the general provisions for the Mixed IC District state that "[m]ajor commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted," a BJ's Wholesale Club does not fall under either one of these categories. A supermarket is defined in the LDRs as: "[a]n establishment ... which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." Because BJ's Wholesale Club offers more than just food, it does not fall within the definition of a supermarket. A shopping center is defined, in part, as: "[a] group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants." Because 4 Murphy, 122 Vt. at 124. gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 3 BJ's would be in a single stand-alone building with one retail establishment, it does not fall within the definition of a shopping center. In light of the foregoing, a BJ's Wholesale Club should be classified as a permitted use in the Mixed IC District under the LDRs as either "retail or retail services" or as a "wholesale establishment." II. Fuel Pump Use You also asked whether BJ's could operate fuel pumps in the Mixed IC District. The use of fuel pumps should be allowed under BJ's primary permitted use ("retail and retail services" or "wholesale establishment") or as an accessory use to one of these permitted primary uses. The LDRs do not prohibit the use of fuel pumps as part of the permitted uses for "retail and retail services" or "wholesale establishments." In fact, the operation of fuel pumps fits within the definition of "retail" in the LDRs. "Retail and retail services" is defined in the LDRs as "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods." By operating fuel pumps, BJ's would be selling gasoline, a good, to the general public for consumption; therefore, operating fuel pumps would fit within the definition of retail. In at least one jurisdiction,5 the operation of a gasoline filling station was found to be within the Town's definition of a "retail store."6 Alternatively, the use of fuel pumps could also be permitted as an accessory use. An accessory use is defined in the LDRs as "[a] use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land." Because BJ's fuel pumps would be incidental or subordinate to its primary retail/wholesale sales, the fuel pumps should be classified as an accessory use. Article 3 (F) of the LDRs, which provides the standards and limitations for accessory uses in the Mixed IC District, does not exclude fuel pumps from accessory uses in the Mixed IC District. Use of fuel pumps is in fact specifically allowed as an accessory use in association with at least one other site use in the Mixed IC District. The "Auto rental, with private accessory car wash & fueling" use, identified as a permitted use within the Mixed IC District, allows for the accessory use of fuel pumps. Furthermore, while the LDRs prohibit the use of fuel pumps in connection with auto repair operations in the Residential Zoning district, there is no such prohibition in 5 83 AM. JuR. 2d § 203 (2013). 6 83 AM. JuR. 2d § 203 (2013) (citing C.N. Brown Co. v. Town of Kennebunk, 644 A.2d 1050, 1052, 1994 Me. LEXIS 142 (Me. 1994)). gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 4 association with auto repair operations in non-residential districts, including the Mixed IC District. The implication of this prohibition in the Residential Zoning District and the lack of a similar prohibition in the non-residential districts is that fuel pumps would be allowed as an accessory use in a non -residentially zoned auto repair facility. Because fuel pumps are permitted accessory uses at auto rental and auto repair facilities within the Mixed IC zones, fuel pumps should also be allowed as a permitted accessory use in connection with other permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. Although the LDRs state that service stations are not a permitted use within the Mixed IC District, BFs operation does not fall under the definition of a service station. Service stations are defined in the LDRs as "business[es] ... engaged in the retail dispensing of gasoline." Here, BFs does not fall within the definition of service station because it does not primarily engage in the retail dispensing of gasoline as a service station would. Instead, a BFs Wholesale Club would be principally engaged in the sale of goods within the interior of its store and sell fuel as an ancillary practice. Therefore, based on the above, fuel pumps should be allowed either under an existing permitted use for retail or wholesale or as an allowed accessory use. I hope this information addresses your questions. Please be in touch with any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford 1. EAST ELEVATION (FRON.T) . _ . . .. .............. . ..... -1h = it mft=feom el Can aurwcwnr out , M.M" MEN 4 ft�m 7. wim P4 MUMPS hi = m 4- 1"Phow C9..% Ift Comb C31! ELEVATION KEY VIEW FROM WILLISTON ROAD sEE IEr PLAN BELOW FOR LOCATION NOTE LANDSCAPE DEPICTED WITH S5 YEARS OF GROWTH GARDNER KII�: DYNE Mrc TI ectP s,.a 1m mo,>o wx e5n oxas ..vp.awt�ewt..vm OW L.&— O a .h 453 ('"/JJ an3Afi�µM V\ ReB�etration S AXON �ixi•ti�-ies }S Paaeebn POM1O & ie B0 Peq+n W BBBi] cm WHOLESALE CLUB COMCASTWAY SOUTH BURL INGTON VERMONT05403 SfTE RENDERING VIEW FR' WILLISTON Sde NO SCALE Dae 11103/15 A2 VIEW FROM KIMBALL AVE SEE KEY PUN BELOW FOR LOCATION NOTE: LANDSCAPE DEPICTED WITH 3-5 YEARS OF GROWTH (;ARI)NI,R kit f, YN1, n..� ana nns msy �"Ml Eikn�m F OMRuin PO.Ru 453 "\TOSN6 XO1x5iNOn0 Vt R,lt, Doe S 4 X QN xAA F :+'..k4 }SR Sune ]WMp MingM1am, MA O:W3 WHOLESALE CLUB COMCAST WAY SOUTH 8URU14GTON VERMONT05403 STTE RENDERING VIEW FF KIMBALI Srsk NO SCALE oa�e: 11I03115 Rev: A3 W., No Text BJ's Boston Daily Deals and Discounts I LivingSocial https://www.livingsocial.com/deals/ 1546378-bj-s-1 -year-memo, details 96% recommended in LivingSocial customer ratings When you're a Member at BJ's, you aren't a customer — you're a part of the family. Be the hero in your household and save big on everyday essentials with this BJ's Membership. • $19.99 ($50 value) for a one-year BJ's Membership • You'll get one Primary Membership Card and one Household Card Household Card may be used by family members who live at your address Your Life, Your Club BTs makes it easy to stock up on what matters the most to your family at savings thafll make you feel like a VIP. Featuring USDA choice meats, deliciously fresh produce, a wide selection of organics, the latest electronics, tasteful home decor, health and beauty needs, travel services, superb tires and much more, this Members -only warehouse is the only one -stop shop your family Wit need. And BJ's has wonderful and unique holiday gifts, too. Ready to save? Read more on how much BJ's can help you save. Don't Forget: This offer is designed for all BJ's locations. Valid fornew BJs Members only, not valid for those with an active Membership or for a previous Membership. You may use your voucher 48 hours after purchasing. Click here for more information regarding Membership terms and privacy policy. #GifBt: There's no greater feeling than experiencing the joy of giving and saving. if youd like to gift this deal to a loved one, enter his or her name and e-mail address. If you're purchasing one for yourself in addition to someone else, process the gift purchase as a separate transaction. BJ's representatives will verify the person's name at the Member Services Desk with a valid 10. BJ's Website i Facebook I Twitter PAID VALUE EXPIRES ON December 3, 2020 PROMOTIONAL VALUE EXPIRES ON March 17, 2016 Buy this Deal with confidence, because it's covered by the I ivingSoeial Good Deal Guarantee up to the Voucher Expiration Date See Details)) the fine print M 2of5 12/3/2015 2:25 PM 1?J1012015 .— BJ's Ironer Circle Membership- BJs WhdesaIL la Help? Membership Order Status Wish List Cart (0) Sign In Find a Club r'keyword(s) or item Sports Fc FrI)e5s Health ec Beauty, IF Nome > el's inner Circle Alembership Membership Options My BYS Perks Inner Circle® Membership Business Membership Corporate Membership Fundralsing Memberships One Day Pass Help Welcome New Members Online Rebates In -Club Coupons Save More Every Day with a BA Membership BJ's Members enjoy wholesale club prices. Youll save big on leading name brands, from groceries to health and beauty to home goods. PLUS, BJ's Services save you money on vacations, home improvements and much more. Join today for just $50* — it's risk -free with BJ's 1006/o money -back guarantee. IVA FREE Household Card — Bl's Members receive a second card for a household member at no extra charge. You can also add up to three (3) Supplemental Memberships for just $30* each. You'll discover that BJ's is better than ever with everything you need to make life easier: ✓SUPERMARKET SIZES We carry many of your favorite brands in convenient supermarket sizes ✓USDA CHOICE MEATS Cut fresh by our In -Club butcher ✓ORGANIC & NATURAL FOODS Delicious selection of USQA-certified choices ✓NATIONAL BRANDS The best In electronics, computers, home goods and more ✓MONTHLY COUPONS Use Bl's coupons and manufacturers' coupons to save big ✓WE TAKE ALL FORMS OF PAYMENT Including major credit cards, debit, checks or EBT Don't miss your chance to save every day on the things your family wants the most. loin nowl Find a BJ's near you. All BJ's Memberships are subject to 03's Membership Terms, ask In -Club or go bis.com/terms. Availability of Items may vary by Club location. Items available only while supplies last. 'Plus state and local taxes where applicable or required by law. r: PRIVACY POt3CY membership Options/Join In -Club Couoons Contact Us Prndud Recalls Careers My Bl's Perks In -Club Clipless Coucoru Forgot UsemamelPasv;ard Return Policy Company Badcoround My Accougt Travel + Services LcKations Site trap Community Relations Club Nayn One Day Pass Malkin Rebates Press Room Membershio Terms Order Status Help, Terms of Use BYs Holiday MV Bl's Perks" Warranty Infom;ation 40 Catalog► MissterCaW Tem;s Live Chat Ini, s � BYs MOR a BYs Journal ► YJ C-� -• - Holiday Gifu r p 1997 - 2015 81's Wholesale Club,Inc. DO htip:lAvww.bis.comltnner-circle-meinbersHp.corltent.jdn circle info.A.jdn constttner 11.1 gravel s& shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.corn October 28, 2015. Development Review Board City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2015 My of So. Burlington Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrusliford@gravelshea.com gravelshea.com Re: BJ's Wholesale Club, South Burlin tg on Vermont: Response to Sketch Plan Staff Notes Dear Board Members: We represent Saxon Partners, LLC ("Saxon") in connection with its proposed development of a BJs Wholesale Club ("BJs") off of Shunpike Road in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Project"). We are writing in response to the Memorandum regarding Sketch Plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC dated September 11, 2015 (the "Staff Notes") that were prepared in connection with the Project. We have the following responses to the Staff Notes: I. Proposed Uses Based on a review of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, dated September 24, 2013 (the "LDRs"), the Staff Notes conclude that the Project "contains components of four use categories from the Land Development Regulations: Retail Sales, Auto & motorcycle service & repair, Service Station [and] Retail food establishments 5,000 SF GFA and Supermarkets." A. Retail Sales (excluding General Merchandise Stores)/Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair We agree with the determination in the Staff Notes that the Project will consist of "Retail Use" and "Auto & Motorcycle & Repair" as defined in the LDRs. Both of these uses are permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. Retail sales are defined, in part, as: "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption." A BJ's Wholesale Club, therefore, would squarely fit within the definition of retail sales. B. General Merchandise Although "retail sales" are a permitted use in the Mixed IC District, the LDRs specifically prohibit "general merchandise stores" in the Mixed IC District. In addressing whether BJs would be considered a "general merchandise store," the Staff Notes state that "the definition for a general gravel & Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 2 merchandise store does not provide great clarity as to how it should be distinguished from retail sales." (Emphasis added). However, the Staff Notes then conclude that "`general merchandise' be treated no different than retail sales." Based on the well -settled rules for interpreting zoning ordinances, we do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of the LDRs. The LDRs do not define a "general merchandise store." Instead, under the definition of "general merchandise store," the LDRs refer back to the definition of "retail sales" where no mention is made of a "general merchandise store." In addition, the LDRs do not further define or describe what a "general merchandise store" may be. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights ... and when exemptions appear in favor of the property owner, the exemptions shall be construed in favor of the owner." Glabach u Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shearer Variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (mem.); Town of Westford a Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland v Keier, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication." Murphy Motor Sales v First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). Rather, " ja]ny ambig_uily or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." (Emphasis added). Id. at 124 (citations omitted). Moreover, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated "we will not enforce laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards." In re Appeal ofJAMGoIf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, 117. Therefore, because the LDRs do not define "general merchandise store" and, in the words of the Staff Notes, do not provide "great clarity as to how [the definition of General Merchandise Store] should be distinguished from retail sales," this "ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." Id. The Vermont Supreme Court has further stated that "[w]ords in a statute without definition are to be given their plain and commonly accepted use." N. Rent-A-Car v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222-23 (1983) quoting Eastern Advertising, Inc. v. Cooley, 126 Vt. 221, 223 (1967). Although the collective term "general merchandise stores" does not appear in dictionaries, the United States Department of Labor does define "General Merchandise Stores" as "[e]stablishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a general line of apparel, dry goods, hardware, housewares or home furnishings, groceries, and other lines in limited amounts." United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Intergrated Management Information System, Description for 5399: Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores. Similarly, the definition of "general merchandise store" on Wikipediat links to "General Store," which is defined as "a rural or small town store that carries a general line of merchandise." WIKIPEDIA, GENERAL STORE, https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_store (last visited October 9, 2015). These two definitions from ubiquitous sources make it clear that the plain and common meaning of "general merchandise store" refers to smaller general store -like establishments. t While Wikipedia is often not a reliable source to support a proposition, its use here, to further define the "plain and common accepted use" of a phrase is appropriate because a broad cross section of the population refers to Wikipedia for information regarding the meaning of words and phrases. gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 3 BJs is a members -only club that offers its customers the cost saving benefit of buying retail products in large quantities. Indeed, the bulk scale of the products offered at BJs is one of its defining characteristics. As noted above, the plain and common meaning of general merchandise stores focuses on sales of products "in limited amounts." Because BJs focuses on selling products in bulk quantities, quite the opposite of the "limited amounts" that define "general merchandise stores," BJs cannot be defined as a "general merchandise store." Because the LDRs "delegate standardless discretion" by failing to inform an applicant as to what exactly a "general merchandise store" is, because any ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner, and because BJs falls well outside of the plain and common definition of a "general merchandise store," a BJ's should not be characterized as "general merchandise store" pursuant to the LDRs. In re .TAM Golf, 2008 VT at JJ 17. C. Service Station In order to address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes regarding a service station at the Property, Saxon has elected to remove the fuel pumps from the Project. Revised plans showing the most recent Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. D. Retail Food The LDRs prohibit both supermarkets and certain retail food establishments (those having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area) in the Mixed IC District. However, the LDRs do permit retail food as an accessory use in the Mixed IC District. Specifically, the LDRs state that "[s]uch an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own." The LDRs define "Retail food establishments," in part, as "an establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures pen -nits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods _ intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." (Emphasis added). In addition, the LDRs define Accessory Use as "a use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot." (Emphasis added.) The Staff Notes state that "[t]he retail food sales portion of this building, based on general information provided by the applicant and a brief review of the BJ's website, appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a full-scale grocery operation." The Staff Notes further state that the "sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BJ's" and concludes that "the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use." gravel & Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October- 28, 2015 Page 4 As a threshold matter, BJs is not a supermarket. First, while BJs does offer food items, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Unlike a supermarket, BJs focuses on the sale of non-food items. Furthermore, many of the food items that BJs does sell are packaged in bulk sizes that supermarkets, or other retail food establishments, do not carry. Second, supermarkets carry far more items than a BJs store. A typical BJs store only carries six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items (as calculated by the number of "SKUs" or stockkeeping units) whereas a typical supermarket carries forty-two thousand two hundred and fourteen (42,2142) items, nearly seven times as many items as a BJs. Third, entities such as the federal government's North American Industry Classification System (NA1CS) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers do not classify BJs as a "supermarket" but rather have distinct classifications for both warehouse clubs and supenmarkets. The sale of food at BJs should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. As noted above, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Additionally, the sale of "prepared ready -to -eat food," or those products that are characteristic of items sold at a "Retail food establishments" in the LDRs, represents an incidental and subordinate use to the general retail focus of a BJs establishment. Of the six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items sold at a typical BJs, only 15-19% are the "prepared ready -to -eat food items" that characterize a "Retail food establishment." In addition, the portions of the store that will sell food products will be located "entirely within the principal [BJ's] structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own" as required by the LDRs. As demonstrated by the number of retail food items offered by BJs, retail food items should be considered to be incidental and subordinate to the retail sales focus of the BJs store. Therefore, the retail food use should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. II. Construction of a Commercial Access Drive through a Property in the R-4 District To address concerns regarding the construction of an access drive through the R-4 zoning district, Saxon has elected to move the access drive to the lands located north of the R-4 zoning district. Therefore, the Project's access drive will now be sited entirely within the Mixed IC District. Saxon has engaged Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (`'VAI") a traffic engineer to evaluate the revised Project access from Shunpike Road. As shown on the revised plans, the updated Project access from Shunpike Road will be limited to a right -turn -in only point: of ingress immediately south of a seldom -used point of access located on the Imported Car Center parcel immediately north of the Property. VAI has concluded that the revised Project access will not adversely impact traffic circulation on Shunpike Road. 2 The Food Marketing Institute, a trade group, estimates that the " lalverage number items carried in a supermarket in 2014" is 42,214, FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, SUPERMARKET FACTS, http://www.fmi.orLx/research-resources/superiiiarket-facts (last visited on 10/21/2015). gravel & rhea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 5 M. Circulation and Traffic The Staff Notes provide that "it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive" and recommends that the "Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent." An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication exists for the private section of Comcast Way, and Saxon would welcome the City's acceptance of this remaining private portion of Comcast Way. However, Saxon understands that the City of South Burlington may not be interested in acquiring Comcast Way and, in such event, Comcast Way would be used and maintained as a private driveway. IV. Lot Layout/PUD Status/Relationship to Building in the Vicinity A. Lot Layout The Staff Notes provide that "the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards." The Staff Notes further state that "[t]he applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project." As a threshold matter, to partially address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes, Saxon has elected to revise the configuration of the Property to exclude the eight (8) foot strip abutting the western side of Shunpike Road. Revised plans depicting the modified Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. Given the development challenges in the Project area as well as the policy goals that the Project design supports, the Project configuration constitutes a creative, efficient and innovative design. As noted on the site plans, the Project is comprised of several parcels all owned by distinct entities. The parcel that comprises the majority of the Project (the "LNP Parcel") is almost completely land -locked as it is located between, but does not abut, Williston Road, Shunpike Road, Kimball Road or Potash Brook. This isolated location, therefore, presents a limitation on ingress/egress. In order to develop this parcel, Saxon approached several surrounding property owners in order to craft a Project configuration that would enable the LNP Parcel to be developed while at the same time reducing expected impacts on adjoining properties. By purchasing all or portions of surrounding properties, Saxon found a creative solution to the problems presented by developing the largely land -locked LNP Parcel. Furthermore, the development of this undeveloped parcel located the Mixed IC District contributes to the City's goal of infill development. In the absence of this innovative Project configuration, the LNP Parcel, a vacant parcel in an otherwise heavily developed area, may continue to be undeveloped. B. Relationship of Structure to Adjoining Area As noted above, the Property is located within South Burlington's Mixed IC District. The LDRs state that the purpose of the Mixed IC District is "to encourage general industrial and commercial activity .... [and to] encourage[] development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies." gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LACY Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 6 Section 14.08(C) of the LDRs provides standards regarding the relationship of proposed project buildings to structures in the adjoining area. Specifically, Section 14.08(C) states: (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Staff Notes state that "[t]he proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards." The Project was specifically designed to adhere to Section 14.08(C). For example, the materials and architectural characteristics of the building correspond with those structures located on Williston Road and Kimball Road. The Project was designed to blend in with these nearby commercial buildings. In order to screen and buffer the Project from the residences on Shunpike Road, extensive landscaping has been proposed behind this row of residences as shown on the Project Plans. Therefore, the Project will not be prominent when viewed from the residential portion of Shunpike Road. In addition, Saxon has moved the access driveway on Shunpike Road fa►-ther north and will restrict this access to right -turn - in only traffic to further mitigate the impact on the surrounding residences. As shown on the visual simulations provided in the Sketch Plan Application, the architectural characteristics of the Project building will create smooth transitions to nearby commercial buildings. The brick construction of the Project building, as well as the addition of a second row of windows that gives the Project building the appearance of a two-story structure, will blend in with the many brick two-story structures visible from Williston Road and Kimball Avenue. By using similar building materials at similar heights, the Project building will be "harmoniously related" to the nearby buildings. Furthermore, the Project building's distance from surrounding public streets combined with the extensive landscaping planned for the Project will further reduce the Project's presence in the site area. V. Related Applications The preliminary plat application will address the lot coverage for the Imported Car Center or "Cota" parcel. Modifications will be made to this parcel to ensure compliance with dimensional and coverage requirements. VI. Stormwater Based on the recommendation of the Staff Notes, Saxon engaged Champlain Consulting Engineers ("CCE"), which evaluated the existing soil conditions on the Property to determine the feasibility of gravel & Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 7 stormwater infiltration on the Property. Eight test pits were performed around the Property to identify the soil type and seasonal high groundwater table ("SHGWT"). Based on this work, CCE made the following findings: The west portion of the Property (near the proposed stormwater detention pond) contained layers of very fine sand and very fine sandy loam. This area also had a shallow depth to the seasonal high groundwater table. In some cases there was evidence of the SHGWT at 20" below existing grade. This elevation does not allow adequate separation to the bottom of an infiltration practice as required by the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The east portion of the Property contained a shallow layer of very fine sand over clay. The clay layer does not have the infiltration capacity for a viable stormwater treatment system. The conceptual stormwater treatment plan for the Project is as follows: Stormwater from parking and roof areas will be collected via a combination of parking island infiltration swales and traditional catch basins. "File infiltration swales will need to have an underdrain collection system as the site conditions will not allow for infiltration into the groundwater. Detention may be a combination of sub -surface chambers in the parking lots and possibly detention tanks. Treatment will be a combination of a wet pond and grass swales. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, GRAVEL, & SHEA PC r Robert H. Rushford LEGEND LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE MEDIUA"DECIDUOUS TREE MULTI- DECIDUOUS TREE LARGE CONIFER TREE SHADE CONIFER TREE SMALL CONIFER TREE ORNAMENTAL TREE 0 ORNAMENTAL SHRUB Q SMALL SHRUB Us Wholesale Club Illustrative Site Plan South Burlington, VT - October 2015 BA Wholesale Club -ii,llill =I ACT r 0' 30' 60, 120' T. J. Boyle Associates N SCALE 1" = 30' landscape architects - planning consk A 9: jNa t r yn� •w W u or fF 2E 4 Xfi v'pp w '� LOADING DOCK5 Es- E3 - E5-1 E2-1 E4 E3-T_ rE2 E4� DI CONCRETE —J � E4 BI —` CONCRETE-` DES 1. EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 0 4 Ic `r.8 __..---- 232 2. WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 04 2 8 32 3. NORTH ELEVATION 1/16' = 1'4r O 4 IL — 2 8 ---_ 32 r rrlU11II111 ES ❑ .0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E LOADING DOCK5-- CONCRETE - E9 4. SOUTH ELEVATION 04 w 2 8 32 E4-1 ES-L E2— E3 E5-r CONCRETE ESBft_ __ E2 17 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ BI , xx- EsL 'NC. Er rE -TIRE CENTER T 1: 1 BJ s mml CONCRETE P1 A j- * Moon P2 Swim Moas NM Cloud Cover #= Crmn FIMOB P3 Bar j I Moao P4 Swim h Moon P5 8wljRnlIM Moog 82008.10RadRode iHC-187ARiwatOry 82OW10R" Tab 0 P8 BwnBY Mono E1 Colood Caloob E2 Cabnd Corwa4a 01238 8a1M boom To Match P1 To Match P2 E3 Colored Concrete, EA ColmW Cor a.r ES Colond Concrete, To Match P3 To Math P4 Toll , , P8 81 Raul C4maab 841dI Canoes To it" P4 UC:T 29 2015 City of So. Burlington MATERIAL KEY MATERIAL MANUFACTURER COLOR a TBD TBO CONCRETE TBD P4 El TBD PI E2 T� BD P2 E3 Too -- P3 E4 ES Too P4 Pi TBD PI BENJAMN MOORE 110% COULD COVER P2 P3 P4 PS BENJAMN MOORE BENJAMN MOORE BENJAMN MOORE BENJAMN MOORE 9233 OREM FLEECE •20OS-IO RED ROCK INC-NT AMHERST GRAY $200310 RAISIN TORETE PL —_ BENJANN MOORE FD3l SORREL BROW TO UJILL15TON ROAD I CD 3 El �N TO KIMBALL AVE ELEVATION KEY Is GARDNER KUDOYNE 147 Allen Brook lane. Suile 103 UUUIWen. Vem orK 05495 Phone 802 655 0145 —,gkamhNects. 00 EoRi- 0: 85 Price R..J P.U. N.453 C.1,4.v .VT Ow 1102-061.141 0 VL Repaa4lion SAXONI Hngtwim m o2043 ot WHOLESALE CLUB COMCAST WAY SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT054M EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & MATERIALS Stlle' AS NOTED Data 11/03115 Rev. Al L L71Q? win fal-r,7 VIEW FROM WILLISTON ROAD SEE KEY PLAN BELOW FOR LOCAnON NOTE LANDSCAPE DEPICTED WITH 35 YEARS OF GROWTH i-- _t...-e- r k r RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2015 City of So. Burlington t�ec�s GAKDNER KIL�- YNE 147 A4n Brook tare, Su1,103 Willson, Vamorlt 05495 Phone 802 655 0145 _ &-urchitects- Gil Er�giixrr O 85 Pnm &.d P.O. Bon 453 " " - . VT 0546 somi-w Vt. Regrstrahon SAXON PARTNERS 25 Reaeatmn Park Dr Suite 204 l kngham, AAA 02043 SITE RENDERING VIEW FROM WILLISTON ROAD Scabe NO SCALE Date 11/03/15 Rev A2 VIEW FROM KIMBALL AVE SEE KEY PLAN BELOW FOR LOCATION NOTE: LANDSCAPE DEPICTED WITH 3-6 YEARS OF GROWTH OCT 2 9 2015 City of So. Burlingto ti"�ec�s C,AR-DNER KIL0OYNE arc 147 Alen Brook Lane. Suite 103 Winston, Vamat 05495 Phone 802 655 0145 w gkarchrtects.corri Lnil Ew,- C fit.. yq T r . 85 Pi. w P.O. Ba 453 (,>t mm Vt M44a 802863 M Vt. Registration SAXON PARTNERS 25 Recreation Park Dr Suite 204 Hingham. MA 02043 T6 WHOLESALE CLUB COMCAST WAY VERMONT 05403 SITE RENDERING VIEW FROM KIMBALL AVE Scale NO SCALE Date 11/03/15 Rev A3 gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com October 28, 2015 Development Review Board City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 R I" 'v OCT 2 CAy of So. Budington Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrusliford@-.ravelshea.com Re: BJ's Wholesale Club, South Burlinl;ton,_Vermont: Response to Sketch Plan Staff Notes Dear Board Members: We represent Saxon Partners, LLC ("Saxon") in connection with its proposed development of a BJs Wholesale Club ("BJs") off of Shunpike Road in South Burlington, Vennont (the "Project'). We are writing in response to the Memorandum regarding Sketch Plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC dated September 11, 2015 (the "Staff Notes") that were prepared in connection with the Project. We have the following responses to the Staff Notes: I. Proposed Uses Based on a review of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, dated September 24, 2013 (the "LDRs"), the Staff Notes conclude that the Project "contains components of four use categories from the Land Development Regulations: Retail Sales, Auto & motorcycle service & repair, Service Station [and] Retail food establishments 5,000 SF GFA and Supermarkets." A. Retail Sales (excluding General Merchandise Stores)/Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair We agree with the determination in the Staff Notes that the Project will consist of "Retail Use" and "Auto & Motorcycle & Repair" as defined in the LDRs. Both of these uses are permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. Retail sales are defined, in part, as: "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption." A BJ's Wholesale Club, therefore, would squarely fit within the definition of retail sales. B. General Merchandise Although "retail sales" are a permitted use in the Mixed IC District, the LDRs specifically prohibit "general merchandise stores" in the Mixed IC District. In addressing whether BJs would be considered a "general merchandise store," the Staff Notes state that "the definition for a general gavel &. s h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 2 merchandise store does not provide great clarity as to how it should be distinguished from retail sales." (Emphasis added). However, the Staff Notes then conclude that "`general merchandise' be treated no different than retail sales." Based on the well -settled rules for interpreting zoning ordinances, we do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of the LDRs. The LDRs do not define a "general merchandise store." Instead, under the definition of "general merchandise store," the LDRs refer back to the definition of "retail sales" where no mention is made of a "general merchandise store." In addition, the LDRs do not further define or describe what a "general merchandise store" may be. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights ... and when exemptions appear in favor of the property owner, the exemptions shall be construed in favor of the owner." Glabach v Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shearer Variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (meth.); Town of Westford a Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland v Keier, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication." Murphy Motor Sales a First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). Rather, "[a]ny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." (Emphasis added). Id. at 124 (citations omitted). Moreover, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated "we will not enforce laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards." In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, 117. Therefore, because the LDRs do not define "general merchandise store" and, in the words of the Staff Notes, do not provide "great clarity as to how [the definition of General Merchandise Store] should be distinguished from retail sales," this "ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." Id. The Vermont Supreme Court has further stated that "[w]ords in a statute without definition are to be given their plain and commonly accepted use." N. Rent-A-Car v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222-23 (1983) quoting Eastern Advertising, Inc. v. Cooley, 126 Vt. 221, 223 (1967). Although the collective term "general merchandise stores" does not appear in dictionaries, the United States Department of Labor does define "General Merchandise Stores" as "[e]stablishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a general line of apparel, dry goods, hardware, housewares or home furnishings, groceries, and other lines in limited amounts." United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Intergrated Management Information System, Description for 5399: Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores. Similarly, the definition of "general merchandise store" on Wikipedial links to "General Store," which is defined as "a rural or small town store that carries a general line of merchandise." WIKIPEDIA, GENERAL STORE, https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_store (last visited October 9, 2015). These two definitions from ubiquitous sources make it clear that the plain and common meaning of "general merchandise store" refers to smaller general store -like establishments. t While Wikipedia is often not a reliable source to support a proposition, its use here, to further define the "plain and common accepted use" of a phrase is appropriate because a broad cross section of the population refers to Wikipedia for information regarding the meaning of words and phrases. gravel &. Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 3 BJs is a members -only club that offers its customers the cost saving benefit of buying retail products in large quantities. Indeed, the bulk scale of the products offered at BJs is one of its defining characteristics. As noted above, the plain and common meaning of general merchandise stores focuses on sales of products "in limited amounts." Because BJs focuses on selling products in bulk quantities, quite the opposite of the "limited amounts" that define "general merchandise stores," BJs cannot be defined as a "general merchandise store." Because the LDRs "delegate standardless discretion" by failing to inform an applicant as to what exactly a "general merchandise store" is, because any ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner, and because BJs falls well outside of the plain and common definition of a "general merchandise store," a BJ's should not be characterized as "general merchandise store" pursuant to the LDRs. In re JAMGoIf, 2008 VT at ¶l7. C. Service Station In order to address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes regarding a service station at the Property, Saxon has elected to remove the fuel pumps from the Project. Revised plans showing the most recent Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. D. Retail Food The LDRs prohibit both supermarkets and certain retail food establishments (those having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area) in the Mixed IC District. However, the LDRs do permit retail food as an accessory use in the Mixed IC District. Specifically, the LDRs state that "[s]uch an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own." The LDRs define "Retail food establishments," in part, as "an establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures pen -nits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." (Emphasis added). In addition, the LDRs define Accessory Use as "a use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot" (Emphasis added.) The Staff Notes state that "[t]he retail food sales portion of this building, based on general information provided by the applicant and a brief review of the BJ's website, appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a full-scale grocery operation." The Staff Notes further state that the "sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BJ's" and concludes that "the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use." E gravel & s he a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 4 As a threshold matter, BJs is not a supermarket. First, while BJs does offer food items, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Unlike a supermarket, BJs focuses on the sale of non-food items. Furthermore, many of the food items that BJs does sell are packaged in bulk sizes that supermarkets, or other retail food establishments, do not carry. Second, supermarkets carry far more items than a BJs store. A typical BJs store only carries six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items (as calculated by the number of "SKUs" or stockkeeping units) whereas a typical supermarket carries forty-two thousand two hundred and fourteen (42,2142) items, nearly seven times as many items as a BJs. Third, entities such as the federal government's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers do not classify BJs as a "supermarket" but rather have distinct classifications for both warehouse clubs and supermarkets. The sale of food at BJs should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. As noted above, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Additionally, the sale of "prepared ready -to -eat food," or those products that are characteristic of items sold at a "Retail food establishments" in the LDRs, represents an incidental and subordinate use to the general retail focus of a BJs establishment. Of the six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items sold at a typical BJs, only 15-19% are the "prepared ready -to -eat food items" that characterize a "Retail food establishment." In addition, the portions of the store that will sell food products will be located "entirely within the principal [BJ's] structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own" as required by the LDRs. As demonstrated by the number of retail food items offered by BJs, retail food items should be considered to be incidental and subordinate to the retail sales focus of the BJs store. Therefore, the retail food use should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. H. Construction of a Commercial, Access Drive through a Property in the R-4 District To address concerns regarding the construction of an access drive through the R-4 zoning district, Saxon has elected to move the access drive to the lands located north of the R-4 zoning district. Therefore, the Project's access drive will now be sited entirely within the Mixed IC District. Saxon has engaged Vanasse & Associates, Inc. ("VAI") a traffic engineer to evaluate the revised Project access from Shunpike Road. As shown on the revised plans, the updated Project access from Shunpike Road will be limited to a right -turn -in only point of ingress immediately south of a seldom -used point of access located on the Imported Car Center parcel immediately north of the Property. VAI has concluded that the revised Project access will not adversely impact traffic circulation on Shunpike Road, 2 The Food Marketing Institute, a trade group, estimates that the "[a]verage number items carried in a supermarket in 2014" is 42,214. FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, SUPERMARKET FACTS, http://www.fmi.org/researcii-rcsourccs/superinarket-facts (last visited on 10/21/2015). gravel & S h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 5 III. Circulation and Traffic The Staff Notes provide that "it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive" and recommends that the "Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent." An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication exists for the private section of Comcast Way, and Saxon would welcome the City's acceptance of this remaining private portion of Comcast Way. However, Saxon understands that the City of South Burlington may not be interested in acquiring Comcast Way and, in such event, Comcast Way would be used and maintained as a private driveway. IV. Lot Layout/PUD Status/Relationship to Buildirt in the Vicinity A. Lot Layout The Staff Notes provide that "the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards." The Staff Notes further state that "[t]he applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project." As a threshold matter, to partially address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes, Saxon has elected to revise the configuration of the Property to exclude the eight (8) foot strip abutting the western side of Shunpike Road. Revised plans depicting the modified Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. Given the development challenges in the Project area as well as the policy goals that the Project design supports, the Project configuration constitutes a creative, efficient and innovative design. As noted on the site plans, the Project is comprised of several parcels all owned by distinct entities. The parcel that comprises the majority of the Project (the "LNP Parcel") is almost completely land -locked as it is located between, but does not abut, Williston Road, Shunpike Road, Kimball Road or Potash Brook. This isolated location, therefore, presents a limitation on ingress/egress. In order to develop this parcel, Saxon approached several surrounding property owners in order to craft a Project configuration that would enable the LNP Parcel to be developed while at the same time reducing expected impacts on adjoining properties. By purchasing all or portions of surrounding properties, Saxon found a creative solution to the problems presented by developing the largely land -locked LNP Parcel. Furthermore, the development of this undeveloped parcel located the Mixed IC District contributes to the City's goal of infill development. In the absence of this innovative Project configuration, the LNP Parcel, a vacant parcel in an otherwise heavily developed area, may continue to be undeveloped. B. Relationship of Structure to Adjoining Area As noted above, the Property is located within South Burlington's Mixed IC District. The LDRs state that the purpose of the Mixed IC District is "to encourage general industrial and commercial activity .... [and to] encourage[] development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies." gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAIC/ Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 6 Section 14.08(C) of the LDRs provides standards regarding the relationship of proposed project buildings to structures in the adjoining area. Specifically, Section 14.08(C) states: (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Staff Notes state that "[t]he proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards." The Project was specifically designed to adhere to Section 14.08(C). For example, the materials and architectural characteristics of the building correspond with those structures located on Williston Road and Kimball Road. The Project was designed to blend in with these nearby commercial buildings. In order to screen and buffer the Project from the residences on Shunpike Road, extensive landscaping has been proposed behind this row of residences as shown on the Project Plans. Therefore, the Project will not be prominent when viewed from the residential portion of Shunpike Road. In addition, Saxon has moved the access driveway on Shunpike Road farther north and will restrict this access to right -turn - in only traffic to further mitigate the impact on the surrounding residences. As shown on the visual simulations provided in the Sketch Plan Application, the architectural characteristics of the Project building will create smooth transitions to nearby commercial buildings. The brick construction of the Project building, as well as the addition of a second row of windows that gives the Project building the appearance of a two-story structure, will blend in with the many brick two-story structures visible from Williston Road and Kimball Avenue. By using similar building materials at similar heights, the Project building will be "harmoniously related" to the nearby buildings. Furthermore, the Project building's distance from surrounding public streets combined with the extensive landscaping planned for the Project will further reduce the Project's presence in the site area. V. Related Applications The preliminary plat application will address the lot coverage for the Imported Car Center or "Cota" parcel. Modifications will be made to this parcel to ensure compliance with dimensional and coverage requirements. VI. Stormwater Based on the recommendation of the Staff Notes, Saxon engaged Champlain Consulting Engineers ("CCE"), which evaluated the existing soil conditions on the Property to determine the feasibility of gravel &- shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 7 stormwater infiltration on the Property. Eight test pits were performed around the Property to identify the soil type and seasonal high groundwater table ("SHGW h"). Based on this work, CCE made the following findings: The west portion of the Property (near the proposed stormwater detention pond) contained layers of very fine sand and very fine sandy loam. This area also had a shallow depth to the seasonal high groundwater table. In some cases there was evidence of the SHGWT at 20" below existing grade. This elevation does not allow adequate separation to the bottom of an infiltration practice as required by the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The east portion of the Property contained a shallow layer of very fine sand over clay. The clay layer does not have the infiltration capacity for a viable stormwater treatment system. The conceptual stormwater treatment plan for the Project is as follows: Stormwater from parking and roof areas will be collected via a combination of parking island infiltration swales and traditional catch basins. The infiltration swales will need to have an underdrain collection system as the site conditions will not allow for infiltration into the groundwater. Detention may be a combination of sub -surface chambers in the parking lots and possibly detention tanks. Treatment will be a combination of a wet pond and grass swales. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, GRAVEL. & SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford BJ's Inner Circle Membership - BJs Wholesale Club http://www.bjs.com/inner-circle-membership.content join circle info.... LUAU Sign In Find a Club Help? Membership Order Status Wish List Cart (0) keyword(s) or item # Electronics &Office Furniture Home I� Outdoor Sports &Fitness Baby & Toys Jewelry & Gifts Health &Beauty Grocery Travel+Services Home > Bl's Inner Circle Membership Join Now Membership Options My BJ's Perks Inner Circle@ Membership Business Membership Corporate Membership Fundraising Memberships One Day Pass Help Members Welcome New Members Online Rebates In -Club Coupons Save More Every Day with a BJ`s Membership BJ's Members enjoy wholesale club prices. You'll save big on leading name brands, from groceries to health and beauty to home goods. PLUS, Bl's Servires save you money on vacations, home Improvements and much more. Join today for just $50* — It's risk -free with BJ's 100% money -back guarantee. FREE Household Card — BJ's Members receive a second card for a household member at no extra charge. You can also add up to three (3) Supplemental Memberships for just $30* each. You'll discover that BJ's is better than ever with everything you need to make life easier: ✓SUPERMARKET SIZES We carry many of your favorite brands in convenient supermarket sizes ✓USDA CHOICE MEATS Cut fresh by our in -Club butcher ✓ ORGANIC & NATURAL FOODS Delicious selection of USDA -certified choices ✓NATIONAL BRANDS The best in electronics, computers, home goods and more ✓ MONTHLY COUPONS Use BJ's coupons and manufacturers' coupons to save big ✓WETAKE ALL FORMS OF PAYMENT Including major credit cards, debit, checks or EBT Don't miss your chance to save every day on the things your family wants the most. Join now! Find a BJ's near you. All BJ's Memberships are subject to BJ's Membership Terms, ask in -Club or go bis.eom/terms. Availability of Items may vary by Club location. Items available only while supplies last. *Plus state and local taxes where applicable or required by law. Customer Care PRIVACY POLICY Memhershjp Opton%lnin In -Club Coupons Contact Lk_ Pmdurt Reralk Career My 81'9 Perks In-CLih C' less Cniipnnq Fnrgnt Ic rname(Pacsword Retum Policy Company Background My Armrrnt Trav 1+Services In ations SReMap Community Relations Cluh N One Day Pasc Mail -in Rehate_s_ Press Room 8J's Journal r Memhershin Terms Order Status Brip Terms of Use My BI's Perks— Warranty Information BJ's Recipes x MacterCardA Terms 40 LiVe Chat © 1997 - 2015 BJ's Wholesale Club,Inc. i l of 1 10/29/2015 3:51 PM gravelshea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street Post Office Boa 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402 0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsinrile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.com October 28, 2015 Development Review Board City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 OCT 2 9 2015 City of So. Burlington Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford®gravelshea.com Re: BJ's Wholesale Club, South Burlington, Vermont: Response to Sketch Plan Staff Notes Dear Board Members: We represent Saxon Partners, LLC ("Saxon") in connection with its proposed development of a BJs Wholesale Club ("BJs") off of Shunpike Road in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Project"). We are writing in response to the Memorandum regarding Sketch Plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC dated September 11, 2015 (the "Staff Notes") that were prepared in connection with the Project. We have the following responses to the Staff Notes: 1. Proposed Uses Based on a review of the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations, dated September 24, 2013 (the "LDRs"), the Staff Notes conclude that the Project "contains components of four use categories from the Land Development Regulations: Retail Sales, Auto & motorcycle service & repair, Service Station [and] Retail food establishments 5,000 SF GFA and Supermarkets." A. Retail Sales (excluding General Merchandise Stores)/Auto & Motorcycle Service & Repair We agree with the determination in the Staff Notes that the Project will consist of "Retail Use" and "Auto & Motorcycle & Repair" as defined in the LDRs. Both of these uses are permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. Retail sales are defined, in part, as: "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption." A BJ's Wholesale Club, therefore, would squarely fit within the definition of retail sales. B. General Merchandise Although "retail sales" are a permitted use in the Mixed IC District, the LDRs specifically prohibit "general merchandise stores" in the Mixed IC District. In addressing whether BJs would be considered a "general merchandise store," the Staff Notes state that "the definition for a general gravel & Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 2 merchandise store does not provide great clarity as to how it should be distinguished from retail sales." (Emphasis added). However, the Staff Notes then conclude that "`general merchandise' be treated no different than retail sales." Based on the well -settled rules for interpreting zoning ordinances, we do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of the LDRs. The LDRs do not define a "general merchandise store." Instead, under the definition of "general merchandise store," the LDRs refer back to the definition of "retail sales" where no mention is made of a "general merchandise store." In addition, the LDRs do not further define or describe what a "general merchandise store" may be. The Vermont Supreme Court has stated that "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights ... and when exemptions appear in favor of the property owner, the exemptions shall be construed in favor of the owner." Glabach v Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shearer Variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (mem.); Town of Westford a Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland a Keier, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication." Murphy Motor Sales v First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). Rather, "jalny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." (Emphasis added). Id. at 124 (citations omitted). Moreover, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated "we will not enforce laws that are vague or those that delegate standardless discretion to town zoning boards." In re Appeal ofJAMGoIf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, 117. Therefore, because the LDRs do not define "general merchandise store" and, in the words of the Staff Notes, do not provide "great clarity as to how [the definition of General Merchandise Store] should be distinguished from retail sales," this "ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner." Id. The Vermont Supreme Court has further stated that "[w]ords in a statute without definition are to be given their plain and commonly accepted use." N. Rent-A-Car v. Conway, 143 Vt. 220, 222-23 (1983) quoting Eastern Advertising, Inc. v. Cooley, 126 Vt. 221, 223 (1967). Although the collective term "general merchandise stores" does not appear in dictionaries, the United States Department of Labor does define "General Merchandise Stores" as "[e]stablishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a general line of apparel, dry goods, hardware, housewares or home furnishings, groceries, and other lines in limited amounts." United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Intergrated Management Information System, Description for 5399: Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores. Similarly, the definition of "general merchandise store" on Wikipediat links to "General Store," which is defined as "a rural or small town store that carries a general line of merchandise." WIKIPEDIA, GENERAL STORE, https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_store (last visited October 9, 2015). These two definitions from ubiquitous sources make it clear that the plain and common meaning of "general merchandise store" refers to smaller general store -like establishments. I While Wikipedia is often not a reliable source to support a proposition, its use here, to further define the "plain and common accepted use" of a phrase is appropriate because a broad cross section of the population refers to Wikipedia for information regarding the meaning of words and phrases. gravel & S h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 3 BJs is a members -only club that offers its customers the cost saving benefit of buying retail products in large quantities. Indeed, the bulk scale of the products offered at BJs is one of its defining characteristics. As noted above, the plain and common meaning of general merchandise stores focuses on sales of products "in limited amounts." Because BJs focuses on selling products in bulk quantities, quite the opposite of the "limited amounts" that define "general merchandise stores," BJs cannot be defined as a "general merchandise store." Because the LDRs "delegate standardless discretion" by failing to inform an applicant as to what exactly a "general merchandise store" is, because any ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner, and because BJs falls well outside of the plain and common definition of a "general merchandise store," a BJ's should not be characterized as "general merchandise store" pursuant to the LDRs. In re JAMGoIf, 2008 VT at ¶17. C. Service Station In order to address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes regarding a service station at the Property, Saxon has elected to remove the fuel pumps from the Project. Revised plans showing the most recent Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. D. Retail Food The LDRs prohibit both supermarkets and certain retail food establishments (those having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area) in the Mixed IC District. However, the LDRs do permit retail food as an accessory use in the Mixed IC District. Specifically, the LDRs state that "[s]uch an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own." The LDRs define "Retail food establishments," in part, as "an establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." (Emphasis added). In addition, the LDRs define Accessory Use as "a use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot" (Emphasis added.) The Staff Notes state that "[t]he retail food sales portion of this building, based on general information provided by the applicant and a brief review of the BJ's website, appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a full-scale grocery operation." The Staff Notes further state that the "sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BFs" and concludes that "the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use." gravel & s h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 4 As a threshold matter, BJs is not a supermarket. First, while BJs does offer food items, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Unlike a supermarket, BJs focuses on the sale of non-food items. Furthermore, many of the food items that BJs does sell are packaged in bulk sizes that supermarkets, or other retail food establishments, do not carry. Second, supermarkets carry far more items than a BJs store. A typical BJs store only carries six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items (as calculated by the number of "SKUs" or stockkeeping units) whereas a typical supermarket carries forty-two thousand two hundred and fourteen (42,2142) items, nearly seven times as many items as a BJs. Third, entities such as the federal government's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers do not classify BJs as a "supermarket" but rather have distinct classifications for both warehouse clubs and supermarkets. The sale of food at BJs should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. As noted above, the sale of food products is not a significant and substantial portion of BJ's business. Additionally, the sale of "prepared ready -to -eat food," or those products that are characteristic of items sold at a "Retail food establishments" in the LDRs, represents an incidental and subordinate use to the general retail focus of a BJs establishment. Of the six thousand one hundred and eighty nine (6,189) items sold at a typical BJs, only 15-19% are the "prepared ready -to -eat food items" that characterize a "Retail food establishment." In addition, the portions of the store that will sell food products will be located "entirely within the principal [BJ's] structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own" as required by the LDRs. As demonstrated by the number of retail food items offered by BJs, retail food items should be considered to be incidental and subordinate to the retail sales focus of the BJs store. Therefore, the retail food use should be considered an accessory use to the retail sales use at the Project. II. Construction of a Commercial Access Drive through a Property in the R-4 District To address concerns regarding the construction of an access drive through the R-4 zoning district, Saxon has elected to move the access drive to the lands located north of the R-4 zoning district. Therefore, the Project's access drive will now be sited entirely within the Mixed IC District. Saxon has engaged Vanasse & Associates, Inc. ("VAI") a traffic engineer to evaluate the revised Project access from Shunpike Road. As shown on the revised plans, the updated Project access from Shunpike Road will be limited to a right -turn -in only point of ingress immediately south of a seldom -used point of access located on the Imported Car Center parcel immediately north of the Property. VAI has concluded that the revised Project access will not adversely impact traffic circulation on Shunpike Road. The Food Marketing institute, a trade group, estimates that the " [alverage number items carried in a supermarket in 2014" is 42,214. FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, SUPERMARKET FACTS, htW://www.fini.orgLresearcii-resources/supermarket-facts (last visited on t0/21/2015). gravel & S h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 5 III. Circulation and Traffic The Staff Notes provide that "it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive" and recommends that the "Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent." An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication exists for the private section of Comcast Way, and Saxon would welcome the City's acceptance of this remaining private portion of Comcast Way. However, Saxon understands that the City of South Burlington may not be interested in acquiring Comcast Way and, in such event, Comcast Way would be used and maintained as a private driveway. IV. Lot Layout/PUD Status/Relationship to Building in the Vicinity A. Lot Layout The Staff Notes provide that "the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards." The Staff Notes further state that "[t]he applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project." As a threshold matter, to partially address the concerns raised in the Staff Notes, Saxon has elected to revise the configuration of the Property to exclude the eight (8) foot strip abutting the western side of Shunpike Road. Revised plans depicting the modified Project configuration are attached to the revised Sketch Plan Application. Given the development challenges in the Project area as well as the policy goals that the Project design supports, the Project configuration constitutes a creative, efficient and innovative design. As noted on the site plans, the Project is comprised of several parcels all owned by distinct entities. The parcel that comprises the majority of the Project (the "LNP Parcel") is almost completely land -locked as it is located between, but does not abut, Williston Road, Shunpike Road, Kimball Road or Potash Brook. This isolated location, therefore, presents a limitation on ingress/egress. In order to develop this parcel, Saxon approached several surrounding property owners in order to craft a Project configuration that would enable the LNP Parcel to be developed while at the same time reducing expected impacts on adjoining properties. By purchasing all or portions of surrounding properties, Saxon found a creative solution to the problems presented by developing the largely land -locked LNP Parcel. Furthermore, the development of this undeveloped parcel located the Mixed IC District contributes to the City's goal of infill development. In the absence of this innovative Project configuration, the LNP Parcel, a vacant parcel in an otherwise heavily developed area, may continue to be undeveloped. B. Relationship of Structure to Adjoining Area As noted above, the Property is located within South Burlington's Mixed IC District. The LDRs state that the purpose of the Mixed IC District is "to encourage general industrial and commercial activity .... [and to] encourage[] development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies." gravel& Shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 6 Section 14.08(C) of the LDRs provides standards regarding the relationship of proposed project buildings to structures in the adjoining area. Specifically, Section 14.08(C) states: (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The Staff Notes state that "[t]he proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards." The Project was specifically designed to adhere to Section 14.08(C). For example, the materials and architectural characteristics of the building correspond with those structures located on Williston Road and Kimball Road. The Project was designed to blend in with these nearby commercial buildings. In order to screen and buffer the Project from the residences on Shunpike Road, extensive landscaping has been proposed behind this row of residences as shown on the Project Plans. Therefore, the Project will not be prominent when viewed from the residential portion of Shunpike Road. In addition, Saxon has moved the access driveway on Shunpike Road farther north and will restrict this access to right -turn - in only traffic to further mitigate the impact on the surrounding residences. As shown on the visual simulations provided in the Sketch Plan Application, the architectural characteristics of the Project building will create smooth transitions to nearby commercial buildings. The brick construction of the Project building, as well as the addition of a second row of windows that gives the Project building the appearance of a two-story structure, will blend in with the many brick two-story structures visible from Williston Road and Kimball Avenue. By using similar building materials at similar heights, the Project building will be "harmoniously related" to the nearby buildings. Furthermore, the Project building's distance from surrounding public streets combined with the extensive landscaping planned for the Project will further reduce the Project's presence in the site area. V. Related Applications The preliminary plat application will address the lot coverage for the Imported Car Center or "Cota" parcel. Modifications will be made to this parcel to ensure compliance with dimensional and coverage requirements. Vl. Stormwater Based on the recommendation of the Staff Notes, Saxon engaged Champlain Consulting Engineers ("CCE"), which evaluated the existing soil conditions on the Property to determine the feasibility of gravel & S h e a ATTORNEYS AT LAW Development Review Board October 28, 2015 Page 7 stormwater infiltration on the Property. Eight test pits were performed around the Property to identify the soil type and seasonal high groundwater table ("SHGWT"). Based on this work, CCE made the following findings: • The west portion of the Property (near the proposed stormwater detention pond) contained layers of very fine sand and very fine sandy loam. This area also had a shallow depth to the seasonal high groundwater table. In some cases there was evidence of the SHGWT at 20" below existing grade. This elevation does not allow adequate separation to the bottom of an infiltration practice as required by the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. • The east portion of the Property contained a shallow layer of very fine sand over clay. The clay layer does not have the infiltration capacity for a viable stormwater treatment system. • The conceptual stormwater treatment plan for the Project is as follows: Stormwater from parking and roof areas will be collected via a combination of parking island infiltration swales and traditional catch basins. The infiltration swales will need to have an underdrain collection system as the site conditions will not allow for infiltration into the groundwater. Detention may be a combination of sub -surface chambers in the parking lots and possibly detention tanks. Treatment will be a combination of a wet pond and grass swales. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC "'�v Robert H. Rushford RHRJop ray From: Dave Wheeler Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 2:20 PM To: ray Cc: Tom Dipietro; Dan Albrecht Subject: RE: BYs - South Burlington Ray, The Stormwater Section has reviewed the "Wholesale Club — Alternative Entrance Plan" sketch plan prepared by Champlain Consulting Engineers, dated 10/02/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The project proposes to create an additional 258,230 square feet of impervious area on the parcel. This results in greater than 1 total acre of impervious area on the parcel. Therefore, the project will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 3. The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. In a future application, the applicant should provide a drainage area map for the proposed stormwater treatment practices. 5. The applicant should show all proposed drainage structures and details for proposed stormwater treatment practices to be constructed on site in a future submission. 6. The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. 7. The City's minimum drainage pipe size is 15". All drainage pipes in proposed future ROW or City easements must be a minimum of 15" diameter. 8. In order to confirm compliance with section 15.13.F(3), in a future application the applicant must submit modeling for the 25 year storm event, including the culverts downstream of the project, up to and including the culvert beneath Kennedy Drive. 9. The project proposes to impact wetlands and wetland buffer areas. a. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City's Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. b. Section 12.02(E)(3) of the City's Land Development Regulations provides restrictions to encroachments into class II wetland buffers, class III wetlands, and class III wetland buffers. The DRB should request information as needed to confirm that appropriate erosion control and construction methods are being utilized so that conditions set forth in this section are satisfied. 10. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the submitted site plan. 11. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A "Permit to Open Streets or Right -Of -Way" can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. 12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave f David P. Alee _ W- r'lssistant 5tormvmter Superintendent Department ,f Pubk orki yr . Cit-v of South € urltraptors Notice - Under Vermont s public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request. unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify its immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Dave Wheeler Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:21 AM To: ray <ray@sburl.com> Subject: Fwd: BYs - South Burlington Ray, The Stormwater Section has reviewed the "Wholesale Club" sketch plan prepared by Champlain Consulting Engineers, dated 6/18/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The project proposes to create an additional 294,848 square feet of impervious area on the parcel. This results in greater than 1 total acre of impervious area on the parcel. Therefore, the project will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 3. The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. In a future application, the applicant should provide a drainage area map for the proposed stormwater treatment practices. 5. The applicant should show all proposed drainage structures and details for proposed stormwater treatment practices to be constructed on site in a future submission. 6. The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. 7. The City's minimum drainage pipe size is 15". All drainage pipes in proposed future ROW or City easements must be a minimum of 15" diameter. 8. In order to confirm compliance with section 15.13.F(3), in a future application the applicant must submit modeling for the 25 year storm event, including the culverts downstream of the project, up to and including the culvert beneath Kennedy Drive. 9. The project proposes to impact wetlands and wetland buffer areas. a. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City's Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. b. Section 12.02(E)(3) of the City's Land Development Regulations provides restrictions to encroachments into class II wetland buffers, class III wetlands, and class III wetland buffers. The DRB should request information as needed to confirm that appropriate erosion control and construction methods are being utilized so that conditions set forth in this section are satisfied. 10. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the submitted site plan. 11. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A "Permit to Open Streets or Right -Of -Way" can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. 12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Dave <image001. png> Notice - Under Verni0nt's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning Citv business, concerning a City official or stall, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify its immediately by return email. Thank you for vour cooperation. From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: Justin Rabidoux <Rabidoux@sburl.com> Cc: Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com> Subject: RE: BJ's - South Burlington Big picture comments: Project is in the Potash Brook watershed which is impaired due to stormwater runoff. Obviously, this project will require a State stormwater permit. We'd strongly prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Based on a quick review of the Chittenden County Soils Survey, the soils in the area may be conducive to practices of this type. Per requirements in the LDRs, be sure to provide information on the project's impact on downstream culverts during the 25 year storm event. Of specific interest are the culverts downstream of the project up to and including the culvert beneath Kennedy Drive. Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:04 PM To: Tom Dipietro Cc: Dave Wheeler Subject: RE: BJ's - South Burlington Correct, it is internal review next Wednesday and then the applicant is coming in on the 15th to the Development Review Committee to give a big picture overview of the project. So at this point, an official technical response from SW is not necessary, but if there are larger concerns please feel free to pass them along. From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:48 PM To: Justin Rabidoux Cc: Dave Wheeler Subject: RE: BJ's - South Burlington Nearly 7 acres of impervious. In Potash. I assume Ray is referring to internal review, not DRB review. Do you want review comments related to SW prior to July 8? Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington 4 Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:13 AM To: Tom Dipietro Cc: Dave Wheeler Subject: FW: BJ's - South Burlington Potentially a whole lot of impervious in a current undeveloped field From: ray Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 3:55 PM To: Justin Rabidoux; Doug Brent; Terry Francis; twhipple@sbpdvt.or; Temp Planner; Paul Conner Subject: FW: BJ's - South Burlington Guys, Attached are the plans for the new retail facility which we will review on July 8th and on July 15th. Let me know if you have any questions. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com 5 Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by anv person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Martin Courcelle [mailto:mcourcelle champlainconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:39 AM To: ray Subject: BJ's - South Burlington Hi Ray, After discussing the project with my client, I have revised the use on the application to Retail. Attached is the revised application. Also attached are the plans and zoning letter from Bob Rushford. Please let me know if you need anything else from me at this time. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Marty Martin E. Courcelle, P.E. Champlain Consulting Engineers 85 Prim Road, P.O. Box 453 Colchester, Vermont 05446 (802)863-8060 (802) 864-1878 (fax) www.champlainconsulting.net N:\sWk\prof\ISVS\ISIYi.CtlY. an IN Oaf 08 7i:bi:04 20'e UVOILL yap jig Am Roil III/ /�1s I, ♦ //, /; s \ - 41tj IBM oe It � . ♦ \♦\ \\ � I , a a \♦ o WT AL' i ♦, ♦♦�' I t <•� � it ,� v I cAR $ ♦♦♦ r'' ♦♦) sly , j�j ' � � � ,mow \\ ' \ + ♦ I — N It M CI • / .ti I g` I I r( q II 41A �� I I I n t I i l 0 Q c 8 � N 4 O U i SAXON PARTNERS, LLC 10, LNP, INC. WHOLESALE CLUB ALTERNATE ENTRANCE PLAN SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT I Ilm now IS IL, i I �N i I i I H lw P Chplain Consulting E N G I N E E R S 65 PRIM ROAD, P.O. BOX 453 COLCHESTER, VERMONT 05446 (802) 863-8060 - 864-1878 FAX ww, tMamD:a�ncon eultinQ, net COPMUM 0 MIS CIIAWMR7CON,VLT➢ai ALL IMM MOVED ray From: genebeaudoin@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:18 PM To: ray Cc: Rahaim, Cliff Subject: South Burlington BJs 9/15 Development Review Board meeting agenda item Ray, After reviewing the staff notes we would like to have this item continued until November 3rd to allow us time to make plan changes and answer some of the staff s questions. Thanks, Gene By cc of this I will have Cliff Rahaim, our CFO, send you the $50 required for a continuation. (I assume City of South Burlington.) Gene Beaudoin Director of Retail Development Saxon Partners 25 Recreation Parr Drive Hingham, Massachusetts 02043 Saxon-Partners.com 860-651-1455 gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0369 Telephone 802.658.0220 Facsimile 802.658.1456 www.gravelshea.corn September 18, 2014 VIA E-MAIL Gene Beaudoin Director of Retail Development Saxon Partners 25 Recreation Park Drive, Suite 204 Hingham, MA 02043 Re: BJ's Wholesale Club South Burlington, Vermont Dear Gene: Robert H. Rushford Shareholder rrushford©gravelshea.com You asked me to determine: (i) whether a BJ's Wholesale Club would be allowed in the Mixed Industrial -Commercial District ("Mixed IC District") under the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs"); and (ii) whether a BJ's Wholesale Club could operate fuel pumps within the Mixed IC District. I. Zoninz Designation Because zoning ordinances contravene common law development rights, the Vermont Supreme Court has created the following special rules for the interpretation of zoning ordinances. First, "zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in view of the fact that they are in derogation of common law property rights ... and when exemptions appear in favor of the property owner, the exemptions shall be construed in favor of the owner."' In light of this standard, zoning regulations and restrictions "may not be extended by implication."2 Rather, "falny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner. (emphasis added). 1 Glabach v. Sardelli, 132 Vt. 490, 494, 321 A.2d 1 (1974) (emphasis added); accord In re Shearer Variance, 156 Vt. 641, 588 A.2d 1058 (1990) (mem.); Town of Westford v Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 126, 300 A.2d 523 (1973); City of Rutland v Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 360, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); see also !n re Male, 151 Vt, 580, 584, 563 A.2d (1989). 2 Murphy Motor Sales v First Nat'l Bank, 122 Vt. 121, 123-24, 165 A.2d 341 (1960) (citations omitted). 3 Id. at 124 (citations omitted). gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 2 The proposed BJ's Wholesale Club is located within South Burlington's Mixed IC District. The LDRs state that the purpose of the Mixed IC District is "to encourage general industrial and commercial activity.... [and to] encourage[] development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City's economic development policies." Based on the definitions in the LDRs, a BJ's Wholesale Club should be characterized as one of two permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. First, under the Use and Dimensional Standards Table in the LDRs, "retail and retail services (excluding general merchandise stores)" is listed as a permitted use for the Mixed IC District:. Retail sales is defined, in part, as: "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption." A BJ's Wholesale Club, therefore, would squarely fit within the definition of retail. Although this category excludes "general merchandise stores" from the list of permitted "retail and retail services" uses, the LDRs do not define a "general merchandise store." Instead, under the definition of "general merchandise store," the LDRs refer back to the definition of "retail sales" where no mention is made of a "general merchandise store." Because the LDRs fail to inform an applicant as to what exactly a "general merchandise store" is, because a BJ's Wholesale Club is not explicitly prohibited in other sections of the LDRs, and because "[a]ny ambiguity or uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner,"4 a BJ's Wholesale Club should qualify as a permitted use as "retail and retail services." Second, even if a BJ's Wholesale Club cannot be categorized as a permitted use as "retail and retail services," the Uses and Dimensional Standards Table in the LDRs also identifies a "Wholesale establishment" as a permitted use in the Mixed IC District. Because BJ's Wholesale Club engages in the sale of wholesale products to individuals and businesses, a BJ's Wholesale Club should also qualify as a permitted use as a "wholesale establishment." Finally, we note that while the general provisions for the Mixed IC District state that "[m]ajor commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted," a BJ's Wholesale Club does not fall under either one of these categories. A supermarket is defined in the LDRs as: "[a]n establishment ... which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready -to -eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises." Because BJ's Wholesale Club offers more than just food, it does not fall within the definition of a supermarket. A shopping center is defined, in part, as: "[a] group of two (2) or more retail establishments or restaurants." Because 4 Murphy, 122 Vt. at 124. gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 3 BJ's would be in a single stand-alone building with one retail establishment, it does not fall within the definition of a shopping center. In light of the foregoing, a BJ's Wholesale Club should be classified as a permitted use in the Mixed IC District under the LDRs as either "retail or retail services" or as a "wholesale establishment." H. Fuel Pump Use You also asked whether BJ's could operate fuel pumps in the Mixed IC District. The use of fuel pumps should be allowed under BJ's primary permitted use ("retail and retail services" or "wholesale establishment") or as an accessory use to one of these permitted primary uses. The LDRs do not prohibit the use of fuel pumps as part of the permitted uses for "retail and retail services" or "wholesale establishments." In fact, the operation of fuel pumps fits within the definition of "retail" in the LDRs. "Retail and retail services" is defined in the LDRs as "[a]n establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods." By operating fuel pumps, BJ's would be selling gasoline, a good, to the general public for consumption; therefore, operating fuel pumps would fit within the definition of retail. In at least one jurisdiction,5 the operation of a gasoline filling station was found to be within the Town's definition of a "retail store.s6 Alternatively, the use of fuel pumps could also be permitted as an accessory use. An accessory use is defined in the LDRs as "[a] use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land." Because BJ's fuel pumps would be incidental or subordinate to its primary retail/wholesale sales, the fuel pumps should be classified as an accessory use. Article 3 (F) of the LDRs, which provides the standards and limitations for accessory uses in the Mixed IC District, does not exclude fuel pumps from accessory uses in the Mixed IC District. Use of fuel pumps is in fact specifically allowed as an accessory use in association with at least one other site use in the Mixed IC District. The "Auto rental, with private accessory car wash & fueling" use, identified as a permitted use within the Mixed IC District, allows for the accessory use of fuel pumps. Furthermore, while the LDRs prohibit the use of fuel pumps in connection with auto repair operations in the Residential Zoning district, there is no such prohibition in 5 83 AM. JUR. 2d § 203 (2013). 6 83 AM. Just. 2d § 203 (2013) (citing C.N. Brown Co. v. Town of Kennebunk, 644 A.2d 1050, 1052, 1994 Me. LEXIS 142 (Me. 1994)). gravel & shea ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gene Beaudoin, Director of Retail Development September 18, 2014 Page 4 association with auto repair operations in non-residential districts, including the Mixed IC District. The implication of this prohibition in the Residential Zoning District and the lack of a similar prohibition in the non-residential districts is that fuel pumps would be allowed as an accessory use in a non -residentially zoned auto repair facility. Because fuel pumps are permitted accessory uses at auto rental and auto repair facilities within the Mixed IC zones, fuel pumps should also be allowed as a permitted accessory use in connection with other permitted uses in the Mixed IC District. Although the LDRs state that service stations are not a permitted use within the Mixed IC District, BJ's operation does not fall under the definition of a service station. Service stations are defined in the LDRs as "business[es] ... engaged in the retail dispensing of gasoline." Here, BJ's does not fall within the definition of service station because it does not primarily engage in the retail dispensing of gasoline as a service station would. Instead, a BJ's Wholesale Club would be principally engaged in the sale of goods within the interior of its store and sell fuel as an ancillary practice. Therefore, based on the above, fuel pumps should be allowed either under an existing permitted use for retail or wholesale or as an allowed accessory use. I hope this information addresses your questions. Please be in touch with any questions. Very truly yours, GRAVEL & SHEA PC Robert H. Rushford RHR:jop f ' / , I / I / I F 1 1 1 I I / Aw I I ✓40aau 1 � , I I ' , Ibry AOPe 1 \ \ �C/` Ar wAwww Nr Ara wrar. g�yWr�. w w N\ i'Ae'-wArrAKwrs N`c qy\�,_ .__. __,�_ �•. / I ` r? '\ wrin .. AmImw— �Arr 4�,F rr yRlrrr \ It }g 1 /{ _1 \\ \\ \1 l I f II I I p 1 141 //i 1 I� r \ Q 4�Iai.n. �i x /I �TP/ I(.•. �,/�..•/ lmAc.Fw ura /mu.e /W++omoNP+ � __,1 I I/ ' I/� ;, EXISTING CONDITIONS � SCALE 1" . 60' Grophic Scole feet 60 0 60 120 180 240 LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY UNE 014ER PROPERTY UNE EXISTING WATER k APPURTENANCES EXISTING SANITARY h STRUCTURE EXISTING STORM t STRUCTURES EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY & PILE EXISTING GAS SUPPLY OR SERVICE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING PROPERTY MONUMENT EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREELIKE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE NRCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOUNDARY EXISTING PAVED AREA EXISTING CONCRETE WALK ENT 12 LOCATION MAP N.T.S. OEM WUIMMAILYU 1_ PROJECT T DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WIROLESALE CLUB a ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENTS TO ADJACENT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT- 2. PROJECT CONTACTS Mae LWN11 31 COMMERCE AVENUE SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMDNT 05403 Oman RIPIIBbITA71Yi SAXON PARTNER$ LL.0 25 RECREATION PARK DRIVE HINGHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02043 CONTACT- GENE BEAUDON (860) 651-1455 CIVIL D1fA®0 CHAMP AN OONNLIMNI DI9NNN6 85 PRIM ROAD. P-0 BOX 453 COLCHESTER. VERMONT 05446 CONTACT: MARTIN E. COURCEILE. P.E. (802) 863-8060 TRAFM E"GM M VANAAE ABSg7ATTEE�L NC. t0 NEW ENOUND BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE SUITE 314 ANDOVER. MASSACHUSETTS 01910 CONTACT. F. GILES HAM. P.E. (9T8) 474-Ww ARLHOIDOr GARDFEt ROLOOM ARO ITEM 147 ALLEN BROOK LANE. SUITE 1D2 WILLISTON. VERMONT 05495 CONTACT: LIZA IULCDYNE (802) 655-0145 SURLELGR FARNSWOR14 SUtVE1! 3460 ROUTE 44. P.O. BOX 66 BROWNSVILLE. VERMONT OW37 CONTACT: ROBERT FARNSWORM, LS. (002) 484-9731 GENERAL MORTA L PRIOR TO COMMENCING CITE WON, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS. THE PROJECT ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMNEDIATELT WHERE DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE PROJECT DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS 2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (I-856-344-7233) SEVENTY TWO HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION TO ACCURATELY ESTABLISH THE LOCATKIN OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON THE PROJECT STE. 3. WHERE 0084SMS ON THE PROJECT DRAWINGS ARE UNCLEAR. CONTACT THE PROJECT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY FOR CLARIFICATION. 4, IT IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT DRAWINGS REFLECT THE LATEST REVISIONS ROEMINCS MAIVI" 1. THIS RAN HAS BEEN PREPARED USING: A ALTA SURVEY PERFORMED BY ROBERT FARNSWORTH• LS TITLED µTA/AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR. SAXON PARTNERS, LLC DATED 9/22/14. NAVD88 DATUM. B. VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, WINIGHT MAPPING PROGRAM. GRTHOPHOTO F81OD216; C. SITE RAN TITLED IMPORTED CAR CENTER/THE MARINE COLLECTION DATED 10/9/13 9Y O'L.EARY_BORCE CIVIL ASSDOAft5 D. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING MAP. E. VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RECOURCES ATA& F. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS DATED 04/24/14W. G. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS DATED 05/19/2012. to p Fn W i-N W On Q Z DO CIS UUI �-+b1 U 4 z O a U1.4 V)� Fa m O 0 Vl z Hz 0 W d U aaa0 p Zz O 0z W W O V) 2 HI I}AN,N' i101' AIRbdN@71R'115ORLEr. ALL tRAR7DMY LINES AyM.� 3. ALL UTIUTY INFORMATION SHOWN R APPROAMATE ONLY. DRAWN CCE CONTRACTOR.K AN SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITIES WINSW OF Y C tN DISTURBANCE. S MEC .SUN Z 6 2015 , .6D O6/1 8/15 ++ Ci/ of So. Burlington 13173 siiter— THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED THE BENEFIT SHOWN A WAR A OF 'DIG SANE' LT OR CO. UTILITLETE. T SIRO NT ACTNO WARRANTED EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR C CBE CONTACT 'DIG SAE' AT 1-688E BE — CSHALLOMM EXISTING COMMENCING ANY WORK AND SHALL SERVE EX HE DERVE UTILITIES WlIC11 ARE NOT PART OF 71E pFyOJ710N PLAN. of 2 9He2n No Text L` - ✓75 1 i Us Wholesale Club Illustrative Site Plan South Burlington, VT - June 19, 2015 p- ; BJs Wholesale Club r 0. M "oo'-1w I%.,"e --"w iLNC - 4. Us Wholesale Club Illustrative Context Plan South Burlington, VT - June 19, 2015 r R likw! Route 2 r Milli I i ):1117 1171 r N r Fr 0' 80, 160' 320 SCALE 1'= 80' —UN" of So. B u Irri T. J. Boyle AssociatesA landscape architects - planning consultants � Permit Number SD- � -�/1`� (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax#) 1) LNP Inc. 31 Commerce Ave., South Burlington, VT (802)862-9369; 2) Imported Car Center Inc.; 3017 Williston Rd., Williston, VT. TEL: (802)878-3391 3) Ezra Spring 69 Shunpike Rd., S. Burlington, VT 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #) 1) Book 517, page 645; 2) Book 1121, page 244 3) Book 768, page 393 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Saxon Partners, LLC 25 Recreation Park Dr., Suite 204, Hingham, MA 02043; P (781)875-3300; F (781)875-3044 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) Option -Purchase & Sale Aqreement 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Gene Beaudoin Saxon Partners, LLC., 25 Recreation Park Dr., Hingham, MA (781)875-3300 5a) CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS genebeaudoin@comcast.net 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 65 Shunpike Rd., South Burlington, VT 05403 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 1) 1560-00065; 2) 1810-03017; 3) 1560-00069 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) General project description (explain what you want approval for): New Wholesale Club and related uses at 65 Shunpike Rd., South Burlington, VT. A boundary line adjustment between the Imported Car Center and LNP Inc will add 37,597 sq. ft. to the LNP parcel. The Ezra Spring parcel will be merged with the LNP parcel. A boundary line adjustment between the Choiniere parcel and the LNP parcel will result in a net add of 61,725 sq.ft. to the Choiniere parcel. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com I b) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) LNP: Vacant, undeveloped meadow area c) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) Retail Store (81,840 SF Base Building, 3,360 SF Receiving Appendage, 3,348 SF Tire Center, 2,052 SF Breezeway) and related uses including ancillary fuel pumps. Approximately 300 total parking spaces. d) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 90,464 Square Feet e) Proposed height of building (if applicable) 35 FT. (flat roof), 40 FT. (pitched roof) f) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) N/A g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable) 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 0 % b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 0 % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing 0 % Proposed 21.3 % Proposed 68.7 % Proposed 22.2 % 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) 37,597 SF purchase of portion of Adjacent Lot from Imported Car Center (Book 1121, Page 244), 13,086 SF purchase of Adjacent Lot from Ezra Spring (Book 788, Page 393) 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.) The project will utilize municipal water and sanitary sewer. All roads & driveways will remain private. Stormwater will be treated on -site then discharged into Potash Brook. Sketch Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 I 12) ESTiMATFI) PROJECT COMPLETION DATE Spring 2016 13) PLANS AND FEE Pkil pl;:rl,'hall he.ubntitted which shows the inibmiatitm required by the City-s Land Development Idr:l!ulation , Fitie (5 ) regular size copies. one reduced copy (I V x 17"), and one digital (PUP-fomiat) %:tlpj' 01 the plan, must be submitted. The application fee ,hall be paid to the City at the time of 4uhinittin rhea app 'cat' tt. See the City;i e schedule for d ,tails. NOTE:i\l)1'11�1 11'I()V rttA t V N(; PRE?PF.RTYf)WNF.R,�: Nttttlrcfltinnofadjoining pr"perl) u\%nr a k:ordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) ol'the South Burlington �► _ � ��� I'and De\elo tmem Repulpiitu)s, is litt: respon ihil'o. of'the applicant. Mier deeming tin application cr>mpletc, rh(• Wministrative Officer will pro% ide tl)e applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing, notice and sample certificate ol`serrice, The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of anv public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has, been submitted and is accurate to the best ofmy knowledge. 51 '. I Ufrly Q1.►a0--S S, T"it k- F IROPERTYOW R Do not write helow this line DATE OI' St1I3141ISSION I have reviewed this sketch plan application and fled it to be: Complete ❑ Incontp lete Administrati ffrcer _ Da The rtlipliccav or permiltee retains else obligation to identify, apply lor, and obtain relevant State 1wrntitV Jun- this project. tall (8021 V9-5676 to Ypeak with the regional Permit'sj)ecialist. Sketch Mar Appitcation Form, Kev 12-2011 ray From: Martin Courcelle <mcourcelle@champlainconsulting.net> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:39 AM To: ray Subject: BJ's - South Burlington Attachments: 13173_Sketch-Set.pdf, 13173_sketch_plan_application_Revised 06-26-15.pdf; Zoning Letter.PDF Hi Ray, After discussing the project with my client, I have revised the use on the application to Retail. Attached is the revised application. Also attached are the plans and zoning letter from Bob Rushford. Please let me know if you need anything else from me at this time. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Marty Martin E. Courcelle, P.E. Champlain Consulting Engineers 85 Prim Road, P.O. Box 453 Colchester, Vermont 05446 (802)863-8060 (802) 864-1878 (fax) www.champlainconsuIting.net ray From: Dave Wheeler Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:21 AM To: ray Subject: Fwd: BYs - South Burlington Attachments: image001.png Ray, The Stormwater Section has reviewed the "Wholesale Club" sketch plan prepared by Champlain Consulting Engineers, dated 6/18/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The project proposes to create an additional 294,848 square feet of impervious area on the parcel. This results in greater than 1 total acre of impervious area on the parcel. Therefore, the project will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 3. The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction Stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. In a future application, the applicant should provide a drainage area map for the proposed stormwater treatment practices. 5. The applicant should show all proposed drainage structures and details for proposed stormwater treatment practices to be constructed on site in a future submission. 6. The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. 7. The City's minimum drainage pipe size is 15". All drainage pipes in proposed future ROW or City easements must be a minimum of 15" diameter. 8. In order to confirm compliance with section 15.13.F(3), in a future application the applicant must submit modeling for the 25 year storm event, including the culverts downstream of the project, up to and including the culvert beneath Kennedy Drive. 9. The project proposes to impact wetlands and wetland buffer areas. a. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City's Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. b. Section 12.02(E)(3) of the City's Land Development Regulations provides restrictions to encroachments into class II wetland buffers, class III wetlands, and class III wetland buffers. The DRB should request information as needed to confirm that appropriate erosion control and construction methods are being utilized so that conditions set forth in this section are satisfied. 10. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the submitted site plan. 11. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A "Permit to Open Streets or Right -Of -Way" can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. 12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Dave <image001.png> Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:33 PM To: Justin Rabidoux <iabidoux@sburl.com> Cc: Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@sburl.com> Subject: RE: BJ's - South Burlington Big picture comments: • Project is in the Potash Brook watershed which is impaired due to stormwater runoff. Obviously, this project will require a State stormwater permit. We'd strongly prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Based on a quick review of the Chittenden County Soils Survey, the soils in the area may be conducive to practices of this type. • Per requirements in the LDRs, be sure to provide information on the project's impact on downstream culverts during the 25 year storm event. Of specific interest are the culverts downstream of the project up to and including the culvert beneath Kennedy Drive. Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington 2 ray From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:08 AM To: ray Cc: Dan Albrecht; Paul Conner Subject: #SD-15-28 Saxon Partners, LLC BYs Retail Store Ray, I have looked at the sketch plans for the referenced project and have the following big picture comments to offer: 1. The main technical component of this project for Public Works is the overall traffic impact of the proposal, including: a. Proposed mitigation measures to provide safe and efficient traffic flow for all modes at the project's three main intersections b. The offset nature of the Kimball Drive intersection relative to Community Drive west c. The reliance of a primarily residential street, Shunpike Road, as an access/egress point d. The offset nature of the US2 intersection relative to Calkins Court especially considering Valley Road is not a public street e. The regional transportation impact of the project f. How will the project provide for and enhance bicycle and pedestrian movements through this area 2. Other staff members have provided comments on the stormwater concept Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802)658-7961 jabidoux@sburl.com www.sburl.com Twitter: twitter.com/sbpubworks Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. if you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. ray From: Terry Francis Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:04 PM To: ray Subject: BJ & Commerce Ave projects Ray Regarding the very preliminary plan for the three structures on or about 7 Commerce, SBFD has no significant issues at this juncture. BJs: Gas islands shall have gas island suppression system installed. LPG storage/dispensary is in a high traffic area and shall be relocated to an area away from the building access for the general public. Coordinate with SBFD. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4134 Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. Cha ain Consulting E N G I N E E R S May 29, 2015 Mr. Paul Conner Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 GREGORY J. BOMBARDIER, P.E. MARTIN E. COURCELLE, P.E. Re: 82,000 s.E Wholesale Club 65 Shunpike Road, South Burlington, Vermont Dear Ms. Weber: Champlain Consulting Engineers has been retained to provide preliminary permitting and engineering services for a new 82,000 s.f. wholesale club building located at 65 Shunpike Road in South Burlington, VT. The project will require approximately 8,000 gpd of wastewater. Can you confirm that at this time the City of South Burlington has the capacity for 8,000 gpd of wastewater treatment? As the project develops and enters the permitting phase a formal allocation will be requested. If you require additional information, please contact me directly at (802)863-8060 or mcourcelle@champlainconsulting.net. Thank you. Sincerely, CHAMPLAIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4 � �'& Martin E. Courcelle, P.E. 85 PRIM ROAD • BOX 453 • COLCHESTER, VT 05446 • PH 802,863.8060 • FX 802.864,1878 • WWW.CHAMPLAINCONSULTING.NET