HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04_SD-20-19_Long Dr_pub comment1
To: South Burlington Development Review Board
From: Residents of Golf Course Rd, South Burlington
Subject: SD‐20‐19 159 Long Drive
Date: 7‐19‐2020
Dear Chairman Cota and members of the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB),
We reside on Golf Course Rd in South Burlington along the west side of VT National Golf Course, within
view of the Long Drive property. We strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the previously
approved Tree Preservation Area on the Long Drive parcel. We believe these changes would be
noncompliant with the Stowe Club Highlands criteria and with South Burlington City Staff’s stated
interpretation of the 2009 Environmental Court decision regarding the Long Drive Development. We
also believe DRB approval of these amendments would create a precedent for future owners of lots in
the development to request further modifications to the “no cut” zone and may be considered arbitrary
and capricious in appellate court.
The proposed amendments do not comply with the Stowe Club Highlands Criteria or City Staff’s
previously stated interpretation of the 2009 court decision.
The purpose of the revised application is to accommodate a pool and patio on Lot 6 while preserving
adequate space in the front of the property to satisfy city vehicle turnaround requirements, according to
the letters submitted by Civil Engineering Associates and Adam Hergenrother, dated 5/8/2020 and
5/16/20, respectively. Initially, a reduced setback was requested to accommodate the pool and patio.
On the most recent application, the developer proposes to reduce the building envelope in lieu of a
reduced setback. However, the new application still proposes a 1,516 square foot reduction in the tree
preservation area along the perimeter of the property. The desire for a pool and patio does not meet
the hardship criteria stated in the 2009 Environmental Court decision, specifically (from page 9):
“The project proposes to retain as many of the trees as possible on the project property, in particular…
on the perimeter of the project, … and proposes to preclude the cutting of trees on project lots adjacent
to the perimeter of the project.”
City staff stated in their comments on the application heard at the 6/16/20 DRB meeting, “… it is clear
that the intent of the Tree Preservation Area is to retain a screening buffer around the approved
development area which is not in the control of private landowners and to preserve the aesthetics of
this area as viewed from an outside perspective. No changes in the approval within the lots should
change the view from without.” The definition of the word “retain” is to “continue to have” and to “not
abolish, discard, or alter;” it is not synonymous with “remove and replace.” Any saplings planted to
replace the mature white pines that are proposed to be removed would take many years to mature and
thus become a ‘screening buffer.’ The proposed changes clearly detract from all the purposes of the “no
cut” area, which are:
“‐maintaining the woodland as a distinct wooded feature in the landscape
‐minimizing views of the houses from public roads and recreation path
2
‐maintaining the peripheral area outside the lots’ lines”
According to the 2009 Environmental Court decision, such changes could be made only if the Stowe
Highlands Criteria were met. According to the Stowe Club Highlands criteria, modifications would
require one of the following justifications:
(1) Changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of a permitee;
(2) Changes in the construction or operation of the permitee’s project, not reasonably foreseeable
at the time the permit was issued;
(3) Changes in technology.
The developer was fully aware of these restrictions in the previously approved application. Clearly, none
of these criteria have been met, and the DRB should deny the application.
Approval of these amendments would create a precedent for future owners of lots in the development
to request further modifications to the “no cut” zone and may be considered arbitrary and capricious in
appellate court.
Clearly the intent of this application is to push the screening vegetation required by the Court decision
off the owner’s lot and onto the common area for the express purpose of maximizing their developable
area. If the South Burlington DRB were to approve this application, it would set a precedent for future
owners of all the remaining lots to request changes to the Tree Preservation Area and leave the DRB
little rationale for refusing such requests without being accused of being arbitrary and capricious.
Within a short period of time large numbers of mature trees could be removed and replaced with
saplings, thereby violating the spirit and language of the Environmental Court decision.
We are requesting the City perform a site visit of the ongoing excavation to ensure compliance with the
terms set out in the Environmental Court decision and to better understand our concerns. We would
also gladly permit City officials to view the site from our own properties.
If the applicant is intent on having a pool and patio on Lot 6, the logical and compliant option would be
to reduce the footprint of the house.
Sincerely,
Beth Zigmund
John Moscatelli
Lisa Angwin
Don Angwin
Allison Maino
Peter Maino