HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_MS-20-04_105 Swift St_responsesCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
10 Mansfield View Lane Phone:802-864-2323
South Burlington, VT 05403 Fax:802-864-2271
E-Mail: dmarshall@cea-vt.com
August 4, 2020
Ms.Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont
Re:Temporary Fill Placement –Miscellaneous Application #MS‐20‐04
105 Swift Street,South Burlington, Vermont
Dear Ms.Keene:
Please find enclosed our responses to the redlined directives as taken from the Staff
report for the Miscellaneous Application for the temporary placement of fill at 105 Swift
Street.
1. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to withdraw this application.The applicant
is not proposing to withdraw this application as it is a standalone temporary fill
placement request.If the applicant elects to proceed, Staff recommends that the Board deny
Miscellaneous Application #MS‐20‐04 as the proposed activity is a component of what would be
reviewed as a site plan or PUD for development.This application for the temporary
placement of fill is being processed separate of the Site Plan/PUS application because of
the duration of the time it takes to acquire a PUD approval. The goal is to temporarily
place materials so that we can compress the underlying soils approximately 2 inches.
The overburden material will then be removed.
2. If the applicant elects to proceed, Staff recommends that Board require the applicant to
provide a detailed plan for how to return the site to the full parameters of its pre‐existing
conditions in the event that the associated Planned Unit Development is not approved, is
substantially modified by the Board, or is not constructed within a specified period of time.The
applicant proposes to use the existing condition plan Sheet C1.0, submitted with the
application as being the benchmark for how the site is to be restored.Any such plan must
be accompanied by a bond or other security measure sufficient to cover the full restoration of
the site in accordance with subsection 2(b).The applicant proposed to provide a bond in the
amount of $20,000 for the removal and restoration of the property.We are agreeable that
this scope and value of the work can be reviewed by DPW prior to posting of the bond.
Ms. Marla Keene, P.E.
Page 2 of 2
August 4, 2020
3. Staff further recommends that in accordance with subsection 2(a), the Board establish a
maximum duration for the development platform’s existence and timeline for removal and
restoration in the event that the proposed development project does not proceed.The
applicant is agreeable to a term between one and two years.
4.Finally, Staff recommends that the Board establish the pre‐construction grade as the grade
indicated on Page C.1.0. for this and any subsequent or concurrent development proposals in
accordance with subsection 2(d).The Applicant concurs.
This completes the summary of our responses to the red font directives as found in the
Staff report.If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 864 -
2323 x310.
Respectfully,
David S. Marshall, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc:S. Theriault, B. Duncan,CEA File 19130.00
P:\AutoCADD Projects\2019\19130\3-Permitting\1-Local Applications\1-Sketch\Staff Report Response.doc