The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMS-91-0000 - Supplemental - 0000 Meadowland DriveCity of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 29, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 1891 Williston Road South Burlingtoi� , DTP, mint n5403 Re: Stream Alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the April 23,1991 Planning Com- mission meetint minutes. Please call if you have any questions. S' cerely, jzeWeith, City Planner JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 1, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres, Drainageway Relocation Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the Finding of Fact, Conclusions and Decision on the above referenced project. Please call if you have any questions. SYAcerely .A .. J e Weith, C ty Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp � � � ztz- PLANNING COMMISSION 23 April 1991 page 4 Consider revised request of Ralph Goodrich to alter and relocate a watercourse located within a Conservation Open Space District, Green Acres property, Hinesburg Road: Mr. Sheahan stepped down from the Commission during this discussion. Mr. Burgess stressed that the Planning Commission does not become the party that enters into any agreement between the city and a developer. Mr. Goodrich then outlined the proposed agreement: He would move the stream now adjacent to Ledge Knoll 50 feet to the north to remove the placing of Ledge Knoll residents' property in the Conservation Zone. The Conservation Zone would then be entirely on Green Acres property. He would eliminate the safety hazard by installing a fence on the property line. He could also refill the ditch. He would stone line the drainageway for about 800 ft, eliminating the turbidity and reducing velocity. Mr. Goodrich stressed he did not want the added water flow on the land, and if it is there, he felt he should have a say as to where it is contained. Cost estimates for the proposed work are as follows: 1200 ft. of ditch excavation .......... $6200. 800 ft. of stone lining ............... $12,440. 2000 ft. x 50 ft. reseeding ........... $4830. TOTAL ........... $23,470 Mr. Goodrich said they are asking the Commission for a time con- sideration to construct. the ditch and not be subject to fines during that time. Mr. Trudell then outlined the drainage area and showed the con- tributions of flow from Ledge Knoll, Butler Farms and Oak Creek onto Green Acres property. Mr. Craig asked if the original stream could handle a big storm why could the original stream not handle an increased on a one-year storm. He also questioned how much of the ditch has to be stone lined. Mrs. Maher noted the Commission was told by the Natural Resources Committee that the current ditch is producing an adverse effect on the wooded area. Ms. Snyder of that Committee verified this. She said the drainage ditch is very close to the wetland and the intersecting water table. She said the cone of depression will PLANNING COMMISSION 23 April 1991 page 5 extend into the wetland and drop the level, having a bad effect on wetland vegetation. She felt the new proposal has not changed this possibility. Mrs. Maher then asked what the applicant will do for the wetland. Mr. Trudell felt the wetland was controlled by the pond backing up. He said they won't change that. Mr. Craig said the applicant will now have two minor streams on this property according to the definition of a minor stream. Mr. Goodrich agreed this will be true. Mrs. Maher outlined what she hoped to achieve in this area: she want to get the Ledge Knoll property out of the Conservation Zone, she wanted safety for the neighbors, she wanted no harm to be done to the wetland, and she wanted a piece of land for Green Acres that will remain commercial and have the potential for commercial development. Mr. Weith said the move 50 ft. to the north would get the Ledge Knoll property out of the CO Zone. The fence would provide for safety. There is, however, still a problem with the wetland and the velocity of the stream. Ms. Snyder added that stone lining reduces the ability of a stream to meander and to infiltrate. Ms. Pugh said she has a problem since in 6 weeks this property is on the agenda for a commercial development, and a letter from Cathy O'Brien says the state exemption for rerouting the stream applies only for agricultural use. Mr. Burgess felt the Com- mission couldn't deal with that issue now. Mrs. Maher asked what would be the benefits of meandering the stream. Mr Trudell said aesthetics and some decrease in velocity. He said they would try to meander it to get the best development potential. Mr. Austin said he would prefer just improving the diagonal stream (called "B") as he felt this was the most natural place for a stream. Ms. Peacock said she would prefer to see the northerly stream improved. Mrs. Maher, Ms. Pugh, Mr. Craig and Mr. Burgess agreed. Mr. Sheahan noted that his back yard is already starting to fall into the ditch due to increased erosion. He asked if the stream can be rerouted to the old channel until a final decision is made. Mr. Weith felt that was a violation the Zoning Board would handle. Mr. Austin then moved that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the document entitled PLANNING COMMISSION 23 April 1991 page 6 "_Res._AP 1ication—at_Green_Acres�Inc-*° and_further_that_it_adot the_fallnwinq_decisian4 �� The_Planninq-Commission-hereby-denies_the_Applicantis-request_to alter-and_relocate_a_watercourse-within_a_Conservation_District f of a r-the -fallow 1-_The _increase_in_velocity_of-the runoff-will_decrease_the eClQa l�ical-value_of_the_Stream,_increase_erosion-and,silLatian and_thi,s_will_result-in_less_chance_for_the cla soil and~ ueqetation-to-.filter_aut,,any_palluLants_ 2�_The_�ro�asedµwatercaurse-may _lawer-the _water -Lab le -in -the adjacent-wetland-which-would-haue-a-detrimental_effect_on _the auna_aad_habitat_in_the_wetlan 3.,_The_increased_turbidity,,and tuunaff_from-adjacent-lawns-will chanle_t�he-chemical -character -of_the-pond -into-which -the -relocated draina�ewar�drains� Or _The -alteration _and _ relocatian_af _the_d raivageewa)z-which-iis_the suplect_of-Lb ia-decision -does—nat_canf arm-w ith _the _goals and palicies_contained-in_bnth _the_198l-i_and-prapasedµ1991_South Hurlinaton_Com12rehensiueµRlans Ms__Peacack_seconded_the4mntian_which_was�then_�assed�unanimausl�� 6. Discuss Southease Quadrant Zoning: Mr. Burgess asked if any members of the audience had questions or comments. Mr. Long questioned the propriety of canceling one -acre zoning. He said he didn't want to develop his land but: wanted the preserve the possibility of his children doing so. Mr. Weith noted that. with one -acre zoning it would be encouraging one -acre lots on Spear Street and this would mean additional curb cuts and the possibility of 17 more lots developed from the Nowland property down. After a discussion, members agreed to move the line to above the Calkins property. Mr. Cimonetti said he had comments of his own to make which did not necessarily reflect the position of the City Council. He said the intent of Interim Zoning was not to let development dictate the zoning concept but to have the concept out front. He didn't like the dividing of the Quadrant into a "northern" and "southern" portions and feared it would hurry along the development of the City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 29, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Green Acres, Drainageway Relocation Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the March 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any ques- tions. S ' cereellyy , �' V-ek Ae Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 25, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich .DULiLii L)Ur1111i;ti011, Vel'11101'0u L154U.3 Re: Green Acres, 12 Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter is to correct an error in my letter to you dated April 15, 1991. Please note that the Planning Commission will be placing your application on their Tuesday, June 4_, 1991 agenda and not June 5, 1991 as previously stated. V1n 0:�k oeWeith, City Planner JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 28 March 1991 page 2 3. Continue consideration and relocate a watercourse Green Acres property: of request of Ralph Goodrich to alter located within a conservation district, Mr. Sheahan stepped down during this discussion. Mrs. Maher read a letter from Mr. Goodrich to the Commission. Mr. Craig said that based on input from the Planning Commission last year, in which the Commission discussed the stream as a watercourse, he couldn't believe Mr. Goodrich didn't think of the stream as a watercourse when he altered it. It has a clearly defined channel with an intermittant water flow, which is the criteria for a watercourse. Ms. Peacock added that it shows on the city map as a stream. Mr. Sheahan said he disagrees with Mr. Goodrich's contention that the "ditch was there." He said there was a swale and now there is a ten foot ditch. He said he and the other neighbors have two main concerns: the issue of safety and the fact that a conservation zone was moved into people's backyards. Mrs. Maher asked if the Commission had heard anything that has changed their opinion in this matter. Members said they had not. Mr. Craig noted there is an option for Mr. Goodrich to come in with another plan for the ditch or with other remedies for his problem. Mr,_Austin_moved_that_the_Plannin�Commission-adopt-the-Eindinos of_Eact-_and-conclusions_in_the_document_sub=headed__&E:_AP= LICATION-OE-GREEN-ACRES,_INN,,_and.further_moued-that_thee followina,decision_be_ado�oted, The_Plannino-Commision-herreb.y.denies_the_Aoolicant_sµreouest-to alter-and-relocate-a-watercourse_within_a-Conservation_District f o r nth elf of l o w ing-re a s o n s,��'�'�'��'��''�'��'�'�� 1-The _diesignation_of-a-oortion_of_the_ad.oini�zresidential ProP_erties-asFa-Con servation _&-Open-Space _District unfairl and unreasonablv_restricts_the_use_of-these`oroperties, 2- _The _increase _in _velocity - of _the-runof f-wil l_decrease-the-eco= laical_value-of the-stream,-increase-erosion-and-sitation_and h this_will_result_in_less_cance_for_theµclav-soil-and_veuetation to —filter —out —any- pollutants_ PLANNING COMMISSION 28 March 1991 page 3 3_ The ad acent wetland -will -be -adversely -impacted - by -the -lower ing of -the _watertable-which -will -have _a_detrimental_effect_on _the fauna_and_habitat_in_th__wetland- 4._The_increased_turbidit,y_and_runoff-from_adlacent_lawns-will change -the -chemical -character-of -the ,coed-into7which-the -relocated draina�ewar drains_ .'��WW�� 5_-The _relocated_drai*naoeya�r_will_cose_a_safetji azard to_the residentsµinµtae_adjo ininc_residential_neiqbtcochoodr 6_,The_alteration_and_relocation_of_the_drainagewav-which-is_the sub ect_of�tbis-decision,does_not_conform-with-_theeoals_and olicies_contained_in_both_the_1985_andzcroPosee_199.1_South Burlin�tonComprehensiue Plans Ms.._Peacock_seconded_the_motion_which-was-then-passed-unanimosulv.. Mrs. Maher stressed that this motion does not stop Mr. Goodrich from coming back with another plan and encouraged him to do this. Ms. Peacock suggested the Commission make a visit to the site, which members agreed to do. Following this discussion, Mr. Sheahan rejoined the Commission. 4. Discuss Zoning in the Southeast Quadrant: Mrs. Maher noted that at its next meeting the City Council will consider extending Interim Zoning until the end of July. Mr. Weith presented a list of considerations for proposed future growth. These included: sewers, previous development, location of open land, topography, and others. He noted the proposed plan hasn't deviated from the 50-acre minimum and is very dependent on the TDR concept. Mr. Austin questioned the dividing line through Van Sicklen Rd. Mr. Sheahan said he didn't think the Commission would let much happen unless that road was upgraded. Ms. Peacock added that no one there has the 50 acre minimum. Mr. Austin said he had a problem with drawing lines according to property ownership. Mr. Scott added he felt that topography should also be considered. He noted there are several thousand acres in active agricultural use. Mr. Austin said he felt the jump from 4 houses on 49 acres to 100 houses on 50 acres was too wide a gap and suggested a sliding scale. Mrs. Maher said that when the current zoning was set up, PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RE: APPLICATION OF GREEN ACRES, INC. This matter came before the South Burlington Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.307 of the South Burling- ton Zoning Regulations on application of Green Acres, Inc., here- inafter "Applicant" for approval to alter and relocate a water- course within a Conservation District, Green Acres property, Hinesburg Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Green Acres", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 2/9/87, with a stamped received date of 4/18/91. The applicant was present at all of the public meetings and as part of the applica- tion the Planning Commission hereby renders the following deci- sion on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Green Acres, Inc. is the record owner of the land which is the subject of this application which is commonly known as the Green Acres property located at 1170 Hinesburg Road. 2. The Applicant has altered and relocated a watercourse on this property located at 1170 Hinesburg Road without first obtaining approval from the Planning Commission as required under Section 3.307 of the zoning regulations. The relocated ditch is approxi- mately 2,600 feet in length and runs in an east -west direction with the water flowing in an easterly direction and draining into an existing pond. This pond drains to the north flowing eventu- ally into Potash Brook. 0 3. The proposed watercourse runs parallel to the northerly ii property line of the Ledge Knoll residential development and is thaws )V!t located 50 feet to the north of the residential properties. 4. This property is located on the easterly side of Hinesburg Road just north of and abutting the Ledge Knoll development. According to the Applicant increased runoff from Ledge Knoll, Butler Farms and Oak Creek developments was flooding his farm, so the watercourse was relocated to control this runoff. 5. According to calculations conducted by the City Engineer, the increased flow from the Oak Creek and Butler Farms developments, based on a ten (10) year storm, is estimated at 2.4%. { 6. Section 3.307 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations requires that input be obtained from the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (NRC) before the Planning Commission can grant approval to alter and relocate any watercourse. The NRC conducted a site visit of the subject property on February 6, 1991 and submitted a report to the Planning Commission dated February 7, 1991. This report states in part the following: "The Natural Resources Committee's concerns relate to the integ- rity of the wetland and pond. Clear water enters the site at the upstream end of the channel disturbance. Within a short distance the channel has obviously high turbidity. This is due to the increased erosional capacity of the new channel. The channel is approximately three feet deep. The concern here is for an inter- sected water table. In the wetland the water table is very close to the surface, or intersecting the surface. A three foot ditch will intersect the watertable, allowing it do drop to the lowest level of the drainage ditch. This would have an adverse affect on the plants in the wetland. Increased turbidity and runoff from lawns (insecticides and pesticides) and road contamination will change the chemical character of the pond that the channel drains into." The above comments are also applicable to the new proposed drainage way. 7. In the 1985 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resource Base chapter, it states that the protection of the City's water resources is an important goal of the Comprehen- sive Plan. It further states that "during development review efforts should be made to minimize potential adverse impacts ... on any of the City's water resources" (page 30). It also states that" ... drainageways, and intermittent streams of the City should be protected from diversion obliteration ..." (page 31). 8. The proposed 1991 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan con- tains the following statements pertaining to the alterations of streams and protection of wetlands: "Alterations to the major rivers and steams [sic) as well as smaller streams and tributaries can often have unexpected down- stream effects. Stream and river protection have long been recognized as the first step in maintaining a quality natural environment" (page 37). "South Burlington's wetlands are a vital link in the mainte- nance of the quality of surface and ground water, erosion and stream flow control, wildlife habitat, and as a critical part of open space preservation. As South Burlington approaches the final stages of the commercial and residential build out into the City's open space, we need to take special care that the remain- ing wetlands are carefully protected" (pages 37-38). 9. The proposed drainage ditch would be relativel i deep, with steep banks. -=:e � ,ems-- ,s--�� ^p^s^a which wool d-&&L&--as a barrier between the ditch and the adjacent residential development. 10. The subject of this decision is not the relocated drainage way which was denied by the Planning Commission on 3/28/91 but a 11C: MI Y+1 Vr:iv C-U U1 ._11.11Uj5C vJ G1/ W111 C:i1 wVt11U 1U11 rQ1i..i11C1 4V 41115 U14i.:I1 and is shown as a yellow line on the plan- submitted and/ referred to above moo( �zc e, �.4� /R - 4,4L /h I �J �%� rc- r" c" fs.i y�, se a ..�..jcu2k� c 11. The proposed drainage way will be stoned lined for approxi- mately 800 feet from elevation 375 to elevation 350. Members of the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee have reviewed the plan submitted and it is their opinion that the stone lining will not eliminate turbidity and reduce velocity. It is their opinion that the stone lining may even increase turbidity. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Planning Commission concludes that the straightening of the ditch will increase the velocity of the runoff which will in turn decrease the ecological value of the stream. It further concludes that the higher velocity created will result in more erosion and siltation which will result in less chance for the clay soil and vegetation to filter out any pollutants. 2. The Planning Commission concludes that the ditch will ad- versely impact the adjacent wetland by intersecting the water table thereby allowing it to drop to the lowest level of the ditch. This lowering of the water table will in turn adversely affect the fauna and habitat in the wetland. a. The Planning Commission concludes that the increased turbidi- ty and runoff from adjacent lawns will include insecticides, pesticides and road contamination which will change the chemical character of the pond into which the ditch drains. 41. The Panning Commission concludes that the drainageway in question wi 1 pose a safety hazard to the residents in the ad- joining residential neighborhood since the ditch'is deep, sub- stantial amounts of water will be in the ditch during heavy runoff] periods and no fence is proposed which would protect the residents in the neighborhood. I The Planning Commission concludes that alteration and reloca- tion of this drainageway does not conform with the goals and policies contained in both the 1985 and proposed 1991 South Burlington Comprehensive Plans. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Planning Commission makes the following decision: The Planning Commission hereby denies the Applicant's request to alter and relocate a watercourse within a Conservation District for the following reasons: 1. The increase in velocity of the runoff will decrease the ecological value of the stream, increase erosion and siltation and this will result in less chance for the clay soil and vegeta- tion to fitor out any pollutants. �� i 2. T A lower• i-ag o& the watertableIwh`ich have a detrimental effect on the fauna and habitat in the wetland. 3. The increased turbidity and runoff from adjacent lawns will change the chemical character of the pond into which the relocat- ed drainageways drainp. Toe- elocated' rainarg y wil Aose a sfety heard `t'c' " "Fie rr sid'ents�e adl g r�,s 1.defitial, npi'ghbothao$. The alteration and relocation of the drainageway which is the subject of this decision does not conform with the goals and policies contained in both the 1985 and proposed 1991 South Burlington Comprehensive Plans. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this , 1991. J / Chairman of Planning Commission day of .6'ji/9 / PC' -T- c-�-I� ems► N��s 14 fo)sws-s' -Yam 0AIII-t -- App -CA,-C -, Il C�r-o Auzas h mi M�xOl, XI-10 Veo 4/23/91 MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the application of Green Acres, Inc. to alter and relocate a water- course within a Conservation District at 1170 Hinesburg Road to a new location which follows the southern property line as depicted on a plan entitled "Green Acres, Quarry Development, Master Site Plan" prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 2/9/87, with a stamped received date of 4/18/91, with the follow- ing stipulations: 1. This new drainageway shall be constructed within 60 days or this approval is null and void. 2. The plan shall be revised to show only the approved relocated watercourse. The plan shall not show improvement to the existing watercourse. 3. The plan shall be revised to indicate that a fence shall be installed along the property line which adjoins the Ledgeknoll residences. 4. This approval is null and void in the event that the applicant appeals the earlier decision of the Planning Commission dated 3/28/91. P, tl.A _Ike, 44,re' C,4v, M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: April 23, 1991 agenda items Date: April 19, 1991 3) LEE ZACHARY, BANQUET FACILITY This application was continued to this meeting. Revised plans have not yet been submitted. I suggest we continue on May 14, 1991. 4) GREEN ACRES, STREAM RELOCATION Ralph Goodrich has submitted a new plan to alter and relocate the watercourse over his Green Acres property. The plan involves moving the existing stream 50 feet to the north behind the Ledge - knoll residences and rip -rapping the watercourse. Ralph has also mentioned installing a farm fence. This alternative would ad- dress the Commission's concern regarding safety, the 50 foot CO District, and erosion. This plan would not address the concern regarding impact to the wetland. I hope to have comments from the NR Committee regarding the ecological value of the proposed watercourse. Ralph has also submitted an alternative in case this plan is unacceptable to the Commission. This plan involves improving the original watercourse. The improvements include trenching the existing stream, installing a culvert and digging a new ditch along the Pollack property line. Enclosed is a letter from Ralph explaining the alternatives and their associated costs and benefits. Also enclosed is the denial motion issued a couple of weeks ago. Ralph's letter indicates that he is requesting the City to pay for the cost of relocating and/or improving the watercourse. City Attorney, Steve Stitzel, indicated to me that the City is not obligated to pay for drainage improvments even if there may be increased run-off from adjoining developments. Steve has recommended that any approval include a time limit for construct- ing the improvement as does any other approval. Also, he recom- mends that a stipulation be included which indicates that the approval is null and void if an appeal is filed regarding the earlier decision dated March 28, 1991. Memorandum - Planning April 19, 1991 Page 2 5) BEVERAGE CENTER, 364-366 DORSET STREET Enclosed is a Site Plan. I will provide comments at Tuesday's meeting. 6) SEA ZONING See enclosed package of SEQ Zoning material. Also, see enclosed letter from Littleton Long regarding the proposal to eliminate one acre zoning along Spear Street. GREEN ACRES FARM Drainage Way Permit Application We are applying for a permit to modify the new drainage way, by moving the stream that is adjacent to Ledge Knoll 50 ft. to the north, so as to eliminate the conservation - open space effect on the Ledge Knoll properties. We will also eliminate the safety hazard the neighbors are claiming. Stone lining the drainage way for approximately 800 ft. (from elevation '75 to elevation 3-50), thereby eliminating the turbidity and reducing the velocity. The pond is serving the purpose of collecting siltation. The VT Wet Lands did not find fault with the drainwa.v near the wet lands. The cost estimate: 1200 ft. of ditch excavation $6200.00 800 ft. of stone lining $12440.00 2000 ft. x. 50 ft. reseeding T-4830.00 $23r470.00 Alt. 1 As an alternative, application for a permit to .Hove the water course back_ to the old location with modification to the existing ditch, so it can accept the increased flow without flooding the land. (The modifications will include deepening, widening, spreading fill, stone lining 2100 ft. of ditch, and reseeding.) The cost estimate: T000 ft. of ditch excavation �15500.00 2100 f t . of stone lining :t-2655. � i0 80 f t . of 60" concrete pipe (cost difference between 24") $6280.00 �000 f t . x �cj ' f t . reseeding $4200. 00 $58415. 00 We need an agreement with the planning commission to allow time to construct the necessary changes to the ditch under either approach, and to enter into an agreement with the city and the developers to pay for the above changes. We would also request that we would not be subject to a fine while the work is being performed. 5 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Green Acres Ditch Work, Hinesburg Road Date.. April 19. 1991 GREEN ACRES DITCH WORK, HINESBURG ROAD I met this afternoon with Ralph Goodrich and his Engineer Dick Trudell to review the reditching on his property. His plan is to move the ditch 50' from the property lines of the residents on Knoll Circle. As an alternate he proposes to reditch the exist- ing drainage course except at the northern boundary where it would follow the property line. I have no problem with either plan. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 19, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Watercourse Relocation, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, April 23, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, W ' Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp GREEN ACRES FARM Drainage Way Permit Application We are applying for a permit to modify the new drainage way, by moving the stream that is adjacent to Ledge Knoll 50 ft. to the north, so as to eliminate the conservation - open space effect on the Ledge Knoll properties. We will also eliminate the safety hazard the neighbors are claiming. Stone lining the drainage way for approximately 800 ft. (from elevation 375 to elevation 350), thereby eliminating the turbidity and reducing the velocity. The pond is serving the purpose of collecting siltation. The VT Wet Lands did not find fault with the drai nwa.y near the wet lands. The cost estimate: 1200 ft. of ditch excavation $6200.00 800 ft. of stone lining $12440.00 2000 ft. x 50 ft. reseeding Z4830.00 $2 3-547i a. 00 Al t. 1 As an alternative, application for a permit to .Hove the water course back: to the old location with modification to the existing ditch, so it can accept the increased flow without flooding the land. (The modifications will include deepening, widening, spreading fill, stone lining 2100 ft. of ditch, and reseeding.) The cost estimate: .3)00 ft. of ditch excavation $15500.00 2100 ft. of stone lining #-2655.00 80 ft. of 60" concrete pipe (cost difference between 24") $6280.00 3s?00 f t . x 30 " f t . reseeding $42,00. 00 58435.00 We need an agreement with the planning commission to allow time to construct the necessary changes to the ditch under either approach, and to enter into an agreement with the city and the developers to pay for the above changes. We would also request that we would not be subject to a fine while the work is hreing performed. -7� Par, _ !w � � �fi .�Ke, ter~ � �� C�r C/� GREEN ACRES FARM Drainage Way Permit Application Alt. 1 Apply for a permit to modify the new drainage way, by moving the stream that is adjacent to Ledge knoll 50 ft. to the north, so as to eliminate the conservation - open space effect on the Ledge Knoll properties. And will also eliminate the safety hazard the neighbors are claiming. Stone lining the drainage way for approximately 800 ft. (from elevation 375 to elevation 350) , thereby eliminating the turbi l i ty and reducing the velocity. //na— % -- — �,..._ The pond is serving the purpose of collecting siltation. The VT Wet Lands did not find fault of the drainway near the wet lands. The cost estimate: 1200 ft. of ditch excavation $6200.00 800 ft. of stone lining $12440.00 2000 f t . x 50 f t . reseeding $4800. 00 $20470.00 Alt. 2 We are applying for a permit to move the water course back to the old location with modifications to the existing ditch, so it can accept the increased flow without flooding the land. (The modifications will include deepening, widening, spreading fill, stone lining 2100 ft. of ditch, and reseeding.) The cost estimate: 0000 f t . of ditch excavation $ 1 5500. 00 2100 ft. of stone lining $52655.00 80 f t . of 60" concrete pipe (cost difference between 24") $6280.00 5000 ft. x 00' ft. reseeding $4200.00 $58415.00 We need an agreement with the planning commission to allow time to construct the necessary changes to the ditch under alternates 1 or 2,[3nd to enter into an agreement with the city and the developers to pay for the above changes Also in this agreement would be a waiver of any fine by the planning commission. Without an agreement, we will have to file an appeal to the original application. � � STATEMENTS I did not know until January 1991, after I spoke with Homer Dubois (by phone in Florida), that any drainage water from Oak Creek Development flowed to Green Acres through the 24" culvert under Hinesburg Road. At the Planning Commission hearing on Feb. 191 1991 and since, the Planning Commission members have stated they did not know that any drainage from Oak Creek left the property. They believed all the storm water flowed to the large stream on Oak Creek. Bill Szymanski thought that all the drainage or storm water from Oak Creek flowed to the large stream on Oak Creek. He commented further by saying he did not want the water from that side of Hinesburg Road to come across and flow through the pipe at VT Heating & Vent which is a bottle neck on that stream (four or five hundred east of Kennedy Drive), Butler Farms was planned and designed to flow 98 degrees of all its drainage or storm water to the large stream on their property. Trudell Engineering confirms that when the development is completed the storm water will all flow to the large stream on Butler Farms. Ledge Knoll Development on the east side of Hinesburg Rd. has some increase in flow added to Green Acres. It appears that the entry road to Ledge Knoll (400 ft. east of Hinesburg Rd.) drains to Hinesburg Rd, rather than install Catch Basins to collect storm water to flow through Ledge Knoll drainage system. Also, storm water from Ledge Knoll Development flows to Green Acres over lots 101 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 to an existing drainage ditch on Green Acres Property. Trudell Engineers have figured the increase in water as it relates to when the land was all farm land, and compared to the development land today using soil conservation method, TR 55 1 Yr. Storm, using this method it show an increase of 50%. This test bears out our experience on the farm for the past 23+ years that we have owned the farm. The ditch was dry for most of the summer, and the little water that did come would flow through a very shallow ditch across the farms to the stream on the Wright's farm (Now Burling- ton Properties, Mr. Pollack). In 1982-3 the farmer thought he could dry the field quicker, and he ditched along the north property of the Wright's and Green Acres from the stream up grade to the west until he intercepted the ditch carrying the water through the Wright farm. He also deepened the ditch for 500-600 ft. toward Hinesburg Rd. and installed a piece of 10" CL water pipe as a culvert in the ditch for his large tractor to cross the lower field. This culvert carried the water most of 0 " I the time until the developments started 5+ years ago. Had he complained at that time, we could have helped, but rather than fight the flooding, he gave up that field and let it grow up to weeds and grass. In 1988 he found other farms to rent and started pulling off Green Acres. In 1989, had corn only on east section from the stream with a pond to the quarry. In 1990, the farmer tried all year to plow, harrow & seed the farm (this was a part of the lease agreement included in the lease for farm). (The land will be left with grass cover.) We worked with him cleaning ditches, leveling the fill most of the summer and fall. Our frustrations over this period of time led us to ask Bill Szymanski if we needed permission to excavate an agricultural ditch along the south boundary to intercept the ditch at Ledge Knoll and continue throught to Hinesburg Rd. intercepting all of the flow through the farm. This we did accomplish in January while we had frozen ground for the equipment to work on. I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 April 16, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Stream Alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the March 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. S a- ey Weith, City Planner JW/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 12 March 1991 page 2 4. Continue consideration and relocate a watercourse Green Acres property. of request by Ralph Goodrich to alter located within a conservation district, Mr. Sheahan stepped down from the Commission during this discussion. Mr. Burgess noted a letter from the State exempting the property from wetlands rules because it is used for agriculture. He also noted that Mr. Goodrich says the problem on his land is caused by runoff from three housing developments. The City Attorney has said that the request is not exempt from local level review. Mr. Craig said he is concerned that if Green Acres comes in for industrial subdivision, the drainageway is now in a new location. Ie said that wheii Mr. Goodrich came in to discuss Lne possible subdivision, the location of the stream would have inhibited de- velopment of lots 2 & 3. At that time, Mr. Goodrich said, "Then we'll have to move the stream." He asked if Mr. Goodrich had done any work on a plan for the industrial park with the stream in the new location. Mr. Goodrich said he had not but the new location of the stream will be on the maps if they decide to develop and/or sell. Mr. Craig asked if Mr. Goodrich had explored alternate methods of controlling the runoff with Butler Farms and/or Oak Creek. Mr. Goodrich said he had not. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Goodrich had not said drainage onto the land had increased 75% since the building of those 2 developments. Ms. Pugh noted that the City Engineer identified only a 2.4% increase. Mr. Szymansky, City Engineer, said that on a 2-year storm, the increase would be 5%. Mrs. Maher said it was her understanding when the two developments were approved across the road that drainage would carry the water in the opposite direction. Mr. Llewellyn said that even before the development drainage/runoff went onto the Goodrich property. He estimated a 7% increase since development. Mr. Reed said he felt Butler Farms was not adding to the drainage problem because water comes across a wide open field. He noted that last year was a particularly wet year and the area is Vergennes clay. Ms. Snyder of the Natural Resources Committee, said there is no question the stream channel has been straightened and that increases velocity and erosion. She felt the pond could become a lake. There is also now a drainage ditch intersecting a wetland PLANNING COMMISSION 12 March 1991 page 3 and the net result of this will and damage to the wetland. She residence time of the water in things such as pesticides from into the lake. be a lowering of the water table said the actions reduces the the clay soil. Clay can't capture water, and these things will now go Mr. Sheahan said he had seen no evidence that would indicate that water flow onto the Goodrich land has been dramatically increased. He said the key issue is safety. The ditch is right behind a res- idential area and that is dangerous. He said he won't let his children in the backyard after a rain. He read from the language of the Comprehensive Plan, indicating that the city is committed to protecting lands from erosion, protecting streams, and pro- tecting wetlands. He felt the Planning Commission should maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Scott said he didn't feel the ditch should have been deepened and the course of the stream altered. He felt the increase in flow may not have been Mr. Goodrich's fault but that whoever created the problem should have solved it, possibly with retention ponds. Mr. Scott said he is also concerned that the land is now better for development. He suggested a possible stipulation that if the land is no -longer used for agricultural use, the stream be put back to its previous location. Mr. Sheahan said there is another consideration. A Conservation Zone has now been moved into people's backyards. This precludes residents from further developing their properties without a variance, and this is not fair. Ms. Pugh asked the City Engineer whether retention ponds on the Butler Farms and and Oak Creek properties could have solved the problems. Mr. Szymanski said it would have helped some. He added that this could still be done. Mr. Llewellyn felt that improving the existing swale would be the logical thing to do. He felt a retention pond on the developed land could reduce runoff a few percentages. Mrs. Maher questioned whether after the fact the Commission could force a developer to put in retention ponds. Mr. Goodricr said that the way the land was before he altered the stream he couldn't even put down seed. Mr. Austin asked if the land could be put back the way it was before Oak Creek and Butler Farms were built would it be OK. Mr. Goodrich said it would. Mr. Goodrich insisted that he did not change the depth of the ditch behind the residents' homes. Mr. Sheahan argued this point and added that the shape of the ditch was also changed so that instead of a gradual slope to it, there are now steep sides. PLANNING COMMISSION 12 March 1991 page 4 Ms. Pugh moved then to close the public hearing. Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Austin said he felt that for purposes of this application the Commission had to ignore the fact that the ditch had already been moved. Based on the safety factor and the moving of a Conservation Zone, he would oppose the request. Ms. Peacock felt that alternatives should have been pursued and agreed with Mr. Austin on the moving of the CO Zone. She was also concerned about safety and the potential harm to the wetland. Mr. Craig didnt feel there was any right to move the CO Zone onto people's property. He was also concerned with safety. He felt that the relocation of a minor stream is a serious matter, and that fhic tq?c ^m?-inr He was to+ally a nnr P t concurred with Mr. Craig. Mr. Weith said he would consult with the City Attorney about a motion and future actions. Members agreed to have a motion heard on 26 March. Mr. Sheahan rejoined the Commission. 5. Public Hearing; Revised Final Plat application of Lochmore As- sociates for construction of a 103-room hotel and 17,000 sq. ft. officeAetail building in conjunction with an existing planned commercial development consisting of office, retail, restaurant and hair salon use, Lakewood Commons, Shelburne Rd. Mr. Austin stepped down from the Commission due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Burgess said some people have questioned why this item is being heard. He noted that the Commission had said that if a sig- nificant change could be made, they would rehear it. The Com- mission had suggested that movement of the Shelburne Rd. entrance to the north would be a significant change. Mr. Giebink said they have moved the entrance toward the north end of the project. This creates a dedicated turn lane for Imperial Drive and a dedicated left turn lane for Lakewood Commons. There is also a 100 ft. deceleration lane. The movement of the entrance doubles the distance from Imperial Drive to the entrance of Lake- wood Commons. Everything else in the plan stays the same. They have moved a few parking spaces due to the relocation, but the number stays the same. Five cars can be stacked in the turn lanes. The entrance drive will be 14 ft. wide, making it unap- pealing to exit onto Shelburne Rd. L�}E : A VE =71--,im- /7 Q77{� 4 d�W/ �&a /J tart J or, C hA•r. /mow- -41 �C 7 41W ts 7t-s s arr/ ✓.e,./ a�- ?: -I. o *4000•07. -ri// eo t-al. V// vler / G� �c � rc.✓-c�.s.� No Text PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 April 2, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Stream Alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision on the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. gcS'erely, Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp No Text South Burlington Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres, Inc. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing as a resident concerns regarding the alteration so-called Green Acres property. discussed at the February 19, Commission and was continued for meeting of March 12, 1991. March 12, 1991 of Knoll Circle to express my and relocation of a stream on the This subject was originally 1991 meeting of the Planning further consideration until the Although not intended to be exhaustive of the issues surrounding the project under consideration, the purpose of this communication is to respond to several points made by the applicant's representative, Mr. Ralph Goodrich, at the meeting of the 19th. These points are as follows: 1. It would be feasible to increase the depth of the original watercourse in order to accommodate any increased water runoff from Hinesburg Road, however, this solution would pose an inconvenience to farming operations. 2. The contention that a permit from the Planning Commission was not required prior to commencement of work. 3. The representation that the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has no reservations regarding the alteration of the stream. As a parent with three young children and a resident in a neighborhood inhabited by numerous children, my primary concern relative to the alteration is safety. Prior to constructing the man made channel which runs immediately adjacent to several Ledge Knoll properties, there existed a natural swale which contained intermittent water of insignificant volume. The new ditch results in not only a severe precipice, but channels previously diverted waters in such volume so as to pose a risk to the safety of resident children. To illustrate, in years past during times of thaw when the swale contained water, the depth of the water would, at most, be ankle deep on our children. Following the alteration, I witnessed, during one thaw, sufficient volume and flow of water to present an endangerment to any child who happened to walk or fall into the ditch. I am not unsympathetic to, in fact I applaud, the laudable goals of Mr. Goodrich to utilize the Green Acres property for agricultural purposes. When, however, issues of safety of children and inconvenience to farming operations are in competition, there should be no question that safety must be of paramount concern. Consequently, I would urge this Commission to fashion a remedy and require appropriate action which will protect the welfare of the children. With respect to Mr Goodrich's apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the necessity of a permit prior to construction, I respectfully submit that Section 3.307 of the City's Zoning Regulations are quite clear as to this issue. In sum, this section prohibits the alteration or relocation of a watercourse without the approval of the Planning Commission and input of the Natural Resources Committee. The necessity for such review is best illustrated by the dilemma now before us. The work, although not permitted, is now complete. As a result of the rerouting, several problems, in addition to the safety issues outlined above, exist. For example: 1. Minor streams are designated as constituting a Conservation and Open Space District. The boundaries of the district extend fifty feet from the centerline of the stream. The relocation of the stream has effectively relocated the district. Pre-existing, permissible structures located in several of the back yards of the adjoining residential properties are now in violation of the restrictions of the district. Any future projects, although perfectly permissible on residential properties, would constitute a violation. 2. Salts, petroleum byproducts and other contaminants from Hinesburg Road will now flow directly to the large pond and wetland to the east adversely affecting water quality. 3. Erosion of neighboring properties will result. Finally, I believe it an unfair characterization to represent that the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has no reservations regarding the alteration of the stream. It is my understanding that the State has reluctantly determined that so long as the Green Acres property is utilized for agricultural purposes it is exempted from the prohibition relating to altering flow of water within a wetland. This exemption, however, terminates at such time as agricultural use ceases. In closing, I would advocate one of two actions by the Commission. One, require that the applicant increase the depth of the original watercourse. In the alternative, locate the new watercourse at a significant distance from Ledge Knoll to both remove the residential properties from the Conservation and Open Space District and provide an adequate buffer to reduce the danger such a watercourse presents to children. Either option would carry with it a corresponding obligation to return the ditch to its original condition. In,requesting such action, I am not unmindful that the applicant has already expended funds for the relocation and will of necessity expend further monies to comply with a permit. This expense, however, would have been significantly less had the regulatory process been followed in the first instance as opposed to proceeding without a permit. Circumvention of the regulatory process should not be rewarded by acceptance of the construction to the detriment of resident safety and environmental degradation. I thank you for your consideration of this communication. Very truly yours, Nancy G. Sheahan 24 Knoll Circle So. Burlington, VT City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont RE: Green Acres, Inc. Dear Commissioners: March 28, 1991 Planning Commission 05403 I understand that the Planning Commission on March 28, 1991 will vote on our request to alter and relocate a watercourse as last discussed at the March 12 meeting of the Commission. The so called relocated watercourse essentially involved digging a new trench from the culvert under Hinesburg Road to an existing ditch along the rear lines of the Ledge Knoll Development which ditch was simply cleaned out and not in any way expanded in size. This work was done because we did not believe that there was an existing watercourse or drainage way "having a clearly defined channel with intermittent or full year flow of water" as stated in Section 21.133 of the zoning regulations. Thereafter I was shown a plan which shows the existence of a watercourse passing from the westerly side of Hinesburg Road over across the Green Acres land and onto the land of Pollock. This watercourse was clearly altered and relocated by the Butler Farms and Oak Creek Developments. It is my understanding that no application was made to the Planning Commission to alter or relocate this watercourse. Consequently, this raises the question of discrimination in the enforcement of the zoning regulations against Green Acres and not the other two developments. It is quite apparent that there is an increase in the quantity of water passing from the two developments on the westerly side of Hinesburg Road through the culvert onto the Green Acres land with the result that the Green Acres land has become wet and unusable for farming and other purposes in several areas. If our application is denied, we will have 30 days in which to consider an appeal raising a number of issues including discrimination and selective application of zoning regulations. We can also consider utilizing what the existing watercourse crossing the Green of Pollock which lies northerly of the watercourse will have to be enlarged in additional amount of water coming developments westerly of Hinesburg Road. a right to do this in view of Section City considers to be an Acres land onto the land Green Acres land. This order to accommodate the across from the two I assume we would have 2.306 stating "the flood carrying capacity within any portion of an altered or relocated watercourse shall be maintained." We interpret this to mean that the purpose of any watercourse is to have sufficient flood carrying capacity so as to avoid flooding of the land. We would like to be sure of this right before making our final decision as to the taking of an appeal. The exercise of this right will of necessity continue the flood carrying capacity and volume of water onto the Pollock land which will also require deepening of the watercourse in order to contain the water and avoid flooding the surrounding lands. We have also been advised that there is an accurate method to compute the additional volume of water imposed upon the Green Acres land from all of the adjoining developments and we intend to utilize that method to calculate the additional burden placed upon our land. Very truly yours, Ralph B. Goodrich M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: March 28, 1991 agenda items Date: March 21, 1991 3) STREAM ALTERATION. GREEN ACRES This application was continued in order to give staff an opportu- nity to prepare a denial motion. City Attorney, Steve St.itzel, is still reviewing the Denial Motion/Finding of Fact prepared by staff. He will have a final denial motion ready for Thursday's meeting. 4) SEQ ZONING I thought we had a very good discussion on this issue a couple of weeks ago. There were a number of good points and questions raised. I have summarized the questions as follows: a) Can Planning Commission require landowner in sending area to come before the Commission for official determination of maximum allowable TDR's to be sold? This would be based on actual "developable land" contained on the sending parcel. b) The approved maximum TDR generation as determined above should run with the land until new regulations are adopted which may affect the property. c) Need to add language which states that maximum allowable density does not mean maximum is guaranteed. Approved density depends on other factors considered during development review. d) What happens to someone who buys TDR's for speculation pur- poses and then City decides to repeal the TDR program before he/she uses the TDR's? Does buyer just lose or must City provide compensation? e) What happens if a buyer purchases 100 TDR's and attaches them to a property in a receiving area and then Planning Commission only lets the buyer use 60 TDR's on that particular property? What happens to remaining 40 TDR's? Are they forever attached to that parcel or can they be sold and used elsewhere? Other questions and issues which need to be addressed: City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 21, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Stream alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Thursday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Thursday, March 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. cere y„ (k)gkv- e Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 22, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Stream Alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the February 19, 1991 Planning Commission minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely}, W Joe Weith,� City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 21, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Stream alteration, Hinesburg Road Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I Enclosed is the agenda for next Thursday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Thursday, March 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. ;ecWeith, ere y City Planner Encls JW/mcp TO: South Burlington FROM: Natural Resources DATE: February 7, 1991 Pla ing Co ission RE: Drainage ditch on land owned by Ralph Goodrich,facing Hinesburg Road The site was walked or. Wednesday, February 6, 1991. The natural drainage pattern has been altered. Flow has been intersected and streamlined in to a man made channel that extends across the meadow. This channel flows in a nearly straight line behind a development, up to the forested region of a neighboring wetland and discharges into a pond downstream of the wetland. The purpose for installing the ditch appears to be to minimize overland flow and concentrate it in the drainage ditch. The Natural Resources Committee's concerns relate to the integrity of the wetland and pond. Clear water enters the site at the upstream end of the channel disturbance. Within a short distance the channel has obviously high turbidity. This is due to the increased erosional capacity of the new channel. The channel is approximately three feet deep. The concern here is for an intersected water table. In the wetland the water table is very close to the surface, or intersecting the surface. A three foot ditch will intersect the watertable, allowing it to drop to the lowest level of the drainage ditch. This would have an adverse affect on plants in the wetland. Increased turbidity and runoff from lawns (insecticides and pesticides) and road contamination will change the chemical character of the pond that the charnel drains into. i M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: Green Acres Drainage, Hinesburg Road Date: March 11, 1991 GREEN ACRES DRAINAGE. HINESBURG ROAD Joe has asked me to investigate the following: 1. What was the increase in the flow onto Green Acres from the Oak Creek development and the Butler Farms development? Area "A" (green) that area contributing from the west side of Hinesburg Road approximately one half from the Oak Creek develop- ment. This area is approximately 34.5 acres in size. The runoff from this area was computed as 27.6 c.f.s. (cubic feet per sec- ond) before development. One cubic foot is 7.48 gallons. The runoff after development as of today, March 11, 1991, is computed as 28.7 c.f.s. an increase of 1.1 c.f.s. Area "B" (red) is that area contributing from the Butler Farms development. This drainage area is approximately 35.9 acres in size. The runoff from this parcel before development has been computed as 38.2 c.f.s. The runoff after development has been computed as 38.7 c.f.s. An increase of 0.5 c.f.s. which is exclusively about 500 feet of the access road. Area 'C" (purple) is an area along the east side of Hinesburg Road consisting of approximately 17.2 acres. The runoff was computed as 24.3 c.f.s. This is for the area as it exists today. The computations were based on a 10 year storm using the so called "Rational Method". A summary of these computations is as follows: Flow Flow Area Before Development After Development A 27.6 cfs 28.7 cfs B 38.2 cfs 38.7 cfs C 24.3 cfs The increase flow from the Oak Creek and Butler Farms development as of today, March 12, 1991, based on a 10 year storm is estimat- ed as 2.4%. Memorandum - City Engineer March 11, 1991 Page 2 2. Could the existing drainage way be improved in essentially the same location? The existing drainage way has an elevation at Hinesburg Road of 384 and ends at Potash Brook at the approximate elevation of 340, a drop of 44 feet in a distance of approxi- mately 3,000 feet. This would result in a ditch with an approxi- mate slope of 1.4 feet in 100 feet (1.4%). This is adequate, however, it would require permission from the property owner to the north. PLANNING COMMISSION 19 February 1991- page 4 shall_not_be_used_for_anyt-puroosein__order_to_meet_trio-genera_ tion_reouirements Article XUIl afµthe�South Burli�ton_Zonino &yeaulatioas, Mrs._Maher_secondedµ-µMotion-oassed_unanimouslV- 5. Consider request of Ralph Goodrich for permission to alter and relocate a water course located within a conservation district, Green Acres property, Hinesburg Road: Mr. Sheahan stepped down from the Commission to avoid possible conflict of interest as an abutting property owner. Mr. Goodrich noted that in January he met with Bill Szymanski to ask advice on a watershed property. Mr. Goodrich noted the loca- tion of the property on the map. He said it was a farm and it was being flooded by runoff from adjacent developments (Butler Farms, Oak Creek and Ledge Knoll). He said they have excavated a ditch along an existing ditch line so the water will no longer flow onto the farm. Mr. Craig said it ,was his belief all the water from those develop- ments drained into Potash Brook. Mr. Weith said it appears that all of Oak Creek is piped to Potash Brook. An area between one street in Oak Creek and Hinesburg Rd. would flow toward the Good- rich property. The plan was approved that way. All other streets have runoff that flows the opposite way. Mr. Burgess asked if Mr. Goodrich was contending the developments were not built according to plans. He said it is also a question as to whether to allow the drainage ditch or to have Oak Creek and the other developments redo their drainage systems. Mr. Craig said he had no knowledge or experience to know if what Mr. Goodrich says is true. He wanted a second opinion as to how much additional water is coming from the developments. Mrs. Maher raised the question of safety with small children in the area. The ditch is close to people's backyards. Mr Craig noted the Conservation Zone now extends into people's backyards, creating non -conforming structures in the yards. He said in essence, Mr. Goodrich moved the CO District from his land to the neighbors' land. Mr. Llewellyn said he didn't believe Oak Creek contributed 75% more flow to the Goodrich property. He also couldn't understand why the swale had to be rebuilt to the south. PLANNING COMMISSION 19 February 1991 page 5 Members of the Commission wanted information from the City Engineer and other. Ms. Pugh asked that Mr. Weith talk directly with people from the State. Mr. Craig also wanted to hear from the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Goodrich contended he didn't need a permit to build an agricultural ditch. Mr. Sheahan said the Comprehensive Plan is very specific about protecting existing watercourses. He said there was a very well established watercourse that no longer exists because of the ditch. He added that Mr. Goodrich is now putting water into a wetlands, and that water will contain salt, etc. In the thaw a few weeks ago, there was so much water churning in the ditch, he wouldn't let his children out in the back yard. Ms. Pennington noted that her 3 year old has had a sled accident into the ditch and could have been very seriously hurt. Mr. Davis expressed concern that abutters never got a chance to participate in any discussion on the proposed ditch. Following the discussion, Mr. Craig moved to continue the item until 12 March. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan application of MBL associates for subdivision of 202 acres of land into 31 residential lots (sizes vary from 1.4 to 3.9 acres) and the remaining approximately 134 acres as open space, Dorset Street: Mr. Milot said this is a concept rather than a formal sketch plan. He said he met with neighbors on two possible approaches, and the one he was presenting was preferred. It is contingent on a TDR vehicle in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located on two sides of Dorset Street. They would develop 1/3 of the total site. The barn now existing would be converted to a horse barn for residents and the town in general. There would be a 250 units TDR potential. Some of the concerns in creating the project included the character of the development. They don't want city streets from an aesthetic point of view. That is also a concern with only 31 lots. Mr. Weith noted that regulations require Allen Rd. Exten- sion to be 40 ft. wide. The City Engineer might allow 32 feet within an 80 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Milot said they want to keep the development rural in character. Mr. Craig felt 24 ft. was a bit too narrow. Mr. Milot said the main concern was curbs and sidewalks. The neighbors don't want a boulevard through a field. SO. B!dp;L I NG TON PLANN I ".EG COMM I SS I L N HEARING ^iARCH 1' . 1991 `i anni rtg Corami ssi on Meeting Feb. IVI 199, SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS Green Acre Farm - Statement & Answers Green Acres Farm has a right to e>'cavate an agricultural drainage ditch on their property to protect their interest from flooding or erosion. Green Acres Farm is asking the city to help solve this prob 1eiii. We believe that the developments involved is this trespass should be getting the permit. This permit shou'd have been in place before they built - Their permit should include an arreement with Green Acres Farm for: 1. Land for ditch right-of-way. �. Pay for the construction cost of the ditch and the clean-up and seeding. '. Agree to maintain. Questions by the Planning Commission. 11 Effect on Wetl ands-L`tter attached from VT Wetlands office Feb.iB.1991 �) Depth of ditch near the abutters properties is very near - the same depth as before the exc.1vation occurred, as mist a cleaning elf tree brush, . --ma=. trees, lawn clippings, and waste were removed from the existing ditch. ?) Safety for abetter from falling into the ditch. Please note that the farm fence al one; the property was removed by the abutters, and now they mow on Green Acre Land as a part of their lawns, and one property owner- has planted trees on Greer, Acres Land the entire wide of their abutting lot. 4) What was the increase in -flow onto Green Acres from the ledge knoll, Butler farms, and Oia lk Creerk Developments? The city engineer is to -figure this flow. Our observations are that before the farm,s were developed all of the small rains that fell soaked into the land. Green Acres would not receive any flow to their property, only when it rained for a day or two at a time. Now, every time it rains water from the paved roadways, driveways, and roofs collect at once and flow across to Green Acres. GREE:•1 ACRES FARM --------------------------------- Ralph S. Goodrich Y� State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Ralph B. Goodrich P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, VT 05407 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05676 Department of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION Building 10 North 802-244-6951 February 18, 1991 RE: Green Acres Farm Drainage, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Mr. Goodrich: Thank you for meeting me on February 6, 1991 at the above referenced property to discuss the recently constructed drainage ditch running parallel to a Class Two wetland in the adjacent buffer zone. Enclosed is a copy of the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory map showing the location of this wetland. Class Two wetlands are "significant wetlands" and therefore protected by the Vermont Wetland Rules. After carefully reviewing this project, I find that the construction of the drainage ditch is not in violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules. Section 3.1 of these rules exempt "such areas as grow food or crops in connection with farming activities". Section 3.1c states "The farming exemption shall apply to all areas used to grow .food or crops in connection with farming activities including areas in ordinary rotation, as of the effective date of these rules. The exemption will expire whenever the area is no longer used to grow food or crops or in ordinary rotation." Thus, digging the ditch in the fields that are now being used as hay fields is exempt. As soon as this land is no longer used to grow food or crops, the exemption no longer applies. The forested wetland was not used for farming activities as of February 23, 1990 (the effective date of the rules) and is not exempt. Ditching, draining, filling, grading, changing the flow into or out of the wetland and other such alterations are prohibited within the forested wetland (unless specifically allowed in Section 6.2 of the Wetland Rules) Regional Offices . Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury Page 2 Mr. Goodrich without first obtaining a Conditional Use Determination from the Agency of Natural Resources. Except for the growing of food or crops, this prohibition applies to the 50 foot buffer zone from the wetlands edge as well. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to call. Sincerely, C-� 0'�-� Catherine L. O'Brien Assistant Wetlands Coordinator Enclosure cc: South Burlington Planning Commission Carl Pagel, State Wetlands Coordinator co\goodrich f 1&4-1 i pfi.A-Le a Att,, tC 1Ire 0', I of t'wC t f-, • r /cad WV/W C40 & 4, c 7, a-*% -/, / ,-P' Ve- (J G c 07- f �n ° G/�r cU�i ��'GrCa3 *4 eco laJtc'2 Vo- l u C a-lM �'/fit• ��1�� ion , �• A((,("/5e- 17 / /% d G A G✓B T 14R h Gr/r�1 �Jwri lAl , VC *c o-Gn t I e c- 4r d 44 li-1,-, # X�" e�ll��Al� �� h rl r oyL�r 1 J ll3T/ ✓ yr e �" A-tP- G AT A71 /0 c� spe4f-� 3lu Cam-=O&L7) 10 h ,'h4e. ho � A``% &� AA5- Aae-,j I;zg Z�- L-�K�L�1D0t`� GaMM0�15 J 2/1/91 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the request of Ralph Goodrich for relocation of a watercourse within a Conservation District as depicted on a plan entitled "Green Acres", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 2/9/87, last revised 1/16/91 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall immediately line the new watercourse with crushed stone in areas where the watercourse is steeper than two (2) feet in 100 feet (2%). 2. The side slopes of the new watercourse shall be seeded and mulched as soon as seasonably possible. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 8, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Watercourse Alteration, Green Acres Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 12, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S ' c e(% r�el y , oe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp C Memorandum - Planning March 12, 1991 agenda items M,--11,ch Page 3 4) WATERCOURSE RELOCATION GREEN ACRES This application was continued pending additional information which is summarized below: a) Status of State review - the Agency of Natural Resources has determined that this improvement is exempt from the Wetlands Rules (see enclosed letter). b) Impact of Butler Farms and Oak Creek Village on runoff - Bill Szymanski is still reviewing. He will have a memo avail- able for Tuesday's meeting. 3 c) Legality of Local Review - It is Steve St.it.7el's pre- liminary opinion that this improvement is not exempt from review at the local level. 24 V.S.A., Section 4495 sets a certain standard of review when agriculture is involved. It basically allows a grounds for variance which might not appear in local regulations. d) Other - A representative of the Natural Resources Committee will be present at Tuesday's meeting. 5) LAKEWOOD COMMONS EXPANSION - REVISED FINAL PLAT The applicant has reapplied for Revised Final Plat approval and has incorporated the Planning Commission's suggestion at the February 5, 1991 meeting (minutes not yet available) that the Shelburne Road access drive be moved to the north. ThF access drive has been moved 150 feet to the north which results in a 310 foot separation between Imperial Drive and the access drive. This increased separation provides for approximately 100 feet of stacking space for left-hand turns into both Imperial Drive and Lakewood Commons. The Planni.no Commission's decision to deny this project on FeL)rt.- ary 5th included six (6) reasons for denial (denial motion en- closed). This improvement would seem to address three (3) of these reasons (reasons c, e and perhaps f). The three (3) rea- sons not addressed by this improvement are as follows: 1. The application does not meet the requirements of Table I of the zoning regulations. 484 parking spaces are required and only 397 spaces are being provided. 3 o ✓C mA4 0� 4rx-�7te�GN� Gw-y,a10 r®*" i t G' "_ ! s+,+/I •-s!v'RP --4e;P1f.1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 15, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Watercourse alteration, Green Acres, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are comments from the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S' cerely, oe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp �r State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Ralph B. Goodrich P.O. Box 2123 South Burlington, VT 05407 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05676 Department of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION Building 10 North 802-244-6951 February 18, 1991 RE: Green Acres Farm Drainage, Hinesburg Road, South Burlington Dear Mr. Goodrich: Thank you for meeting me on February 6, 1991 at the above referenced property to discuss the recently constructed drainage ditch running parallel to a Class Two wetland in the adjacent buffer zone. Enclosed is a copy of the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory map showing the location of this wetland. Class Two wetlands are "significant wetlands" and therefore protected by the Vermont Wetland Rules. After carefully reviewing this project, I find that the construction of the drainage ditch is not in violation of the Vermont Wetland Rules. Section 3.1 of these rules exempt "such areas as grow food or crops in connection with farming activities". Section 3.1c states "The farming exemption shall apply to all areas used to grow food or crops in connection with farming activities including areas in ordinary rotation, as of the effective date of these rules. The exemption will expire whenever the area is no longer used to grow food or crops or in ordinary rotation." Thus, digging the ditch in the fields that are now being used as hay fields is exempt. As soon as this land is no longer used to grow food or crops, the exemption no longer applies. The forested wetland was not used for farming activities as of February 23, 1990 (the effective date of the rules) and is not exempt. Ditching, draining, filling, grading, changing the flow into or out of the wetland and other such alterations are prohibited within the forested wetland (unless specifically allowed in Section 6.2 of the Wetland Rules) Page 2 Mr. Goodrich without first obtaining a Conditional Use Determination from the Agency of Natural Resources. Except for the growing of food or crops, this prohibition applies to the 50 foot buffer zone from the wetlands edge as well. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Catherine L. O'Brien Assistant Wetlands Coordinator Enclosure cc: -'South Burlington Planning Commission Carl Pagel, State Wetlands Coordinator co\9oodrich Z4 is Iq I Fe, I4oeTl tier- ( �+u Ns LRN (Too TJ IS � � �� /J'.K..../t G�� ..y �F=...�- fug �G•-�.-c �.�J Gt. - ,% s� '�=fit lAollf— Colt- we Le— re ?51�? f uy d.S.if � �Yf.t— G`'%r` uk�C'.?w,,.�1 ,�'�"`"'s rd�►'rk.'" . See• /ice" /ovo.06/. a PA /N TER WILES l COFFIN .. _ 707,750 N N r. • .. • WANN"ImIrA Nful .��1 1 jJ_ I A750 N c SHEAHAN • S VIJ � DAVIS DION o , APPROAC R/GLEY °C Y '--WOODED AREA 1 A� pORT BRA/NrWO MORRI8EY PLOOF *CONNER TOUTANT 6,250 N c a DUBOIS o LEDGE NOLL cc DEVELOPMENT 0 m m W ~_ Z FURLONG - I U= _ s' i%t uc.. _ _.y.* few : Oa v e- el Q w is Crr �i s /6w Memorandum - February 19, February 13, Page 3 Planning 1991 agenda items 1991 Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement for this project is $150. The residential portion of the site is present- ly well landscaped with lawn and existing mature trees. Section 19.104a. of the zoning regulations allows the Planning Commission to grant credit for existing trees. Given the amount of existing landscaping and the small amount of landscaping required staff feels that this requirement is being met without additional plantings. Sewer: The previous 5 motel rooms required a sewer allocation of 500 gpd. The 3 residential units require 450 gpd. Therefore, the proposed use fits within the existing allocation. 4) RALPH GOODRICH. DRAINAGE DITCH Ralph Goodrich has altered and relocated a watercourse on his property located at 1170 Hinesburg Road without first obtaining approval from the Planning Commission as required under Section 3.307 of the zoning regulations. The relocated ditch is approxi- mately 2,600 feet in length and runs in an east -west direction with the water flowing in an easterly direction and draining into an existing pond. This pond drains to the north flowing eventu- ally into Potash Brook. This property is located on the easterly side of Hinesburg Road just north of and abutting the Ledge Knoll development. Accord- ing to Mr. Goodrich the increased runoff from Ledge Knoll, Butler Farms and Oak Creek developments was flooding and eroding his farm so this ditch was dug to control this runoff. The easterly portion of the ditch was constructed along the edge of a Class II wetland and within the 50 foot buffer area required for all such wetlands. The State Agency of Natural Resources is aware of this encroachment. The ditch runs along the rear of several residential lots in the Ledge Knoll development. This new watercourse also results in the relocation of a CO District within 50 feet of the centerline of the ditch. The new CO District extends approximately 40 feet onto the adjoining Ledgeknoll properties. There are several sheds and playground structures which are now nonconforming. This new conservation zone places greater restrictions on the use of these adjoining properties. 3 Memorandum - February 19, February 15, Page 4 Planning 1991 agenda items 1991 As required under Section 3.307,the Natural Resources Committee has visited the site and has submitted comments to the Planning Commission (enclosed). The Natural Resources committee is concerned with the impact on the wetland. Enclosed is a memo from Bill Szymanski. It is recommended that the side slopes of the new ditch be seeded and mulched as soon as possible to prevent further erosion and siltation 5) MBL ASSOCIATES. 31 LOT SUBDIVISION. SKETCH PLAN, DORSET STREET This project consists of the subdivision of 202.2 acres into 31 lots. The lots will range in size from 1.4 to 3.9 acres. The project involves land on both sides of Dorset Street, 154 acres on the westerly side and 48 acres on the easterly side. The 31 lots will be developed from the 154 acre lot and will occupy 68 acres, the remaining 86 acres are to remain undeveloped as open space. The 48 acre parcel will not be developed and will remain open space. The new street providing access will have two (2) larger loops with lots being created in each loop. The property is located at the south end of Dorset Street abut- ting the Shelburne Town line and partly lies on either side of Dorset Street. This property is under interim zoning which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The parcel to be developed is bounded on the north by several large lot residences, on the south and west by open undeveloped land and on the east by Dorset Street and 5 single-family homes. Review Procedure: This project will require approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council. Two types of approval are required by the City Council: 1) approval of preliminary Plat and Final Plat as required by Section 6.502(c) of the Zoning Regulations, and 2) approved of substandard lot sizes. The minimum lot size under interim zoning is 10 acres. The City Council can approve substandard lot sizes if it finds that the proposed lot sizes will not adversely affect the goals of interim zoning. The City Council must approve the substandard lot sizes before the Planning Commission can approve the preliminary plat. I suggest the following review procedure: 1. Sketch plan with Planning Commission 2. Sketch plan with City Council - approve substandard lots 4 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning C:onunission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: February 19, 1991 agenda items Date: February 15, 1991 4) GOODRICH PROPERTY DRAINAGE DITCH. HINESBURG ROAD 1. The new ditch will improve the area that has been under cultivation and farmed except for the past year or two when it was too wet for farm equipment. 2. Where the grade of the new ditch is steeper than 2 feet in 100 feet (2%) it should be lined with crushed stone to protect it from erosion. 3. The excavation side slopes shall be seeded and mulched. TO: South Burlington Pla ing Co ission FROM: Natural Resources t DATE: February 7, 1991 RE: Drainage ditch on land owned by Ralph Goodrich,facing Hinesburg Road The site was walked on Wednesday, February 6, 1991. The natural drainage pattern has been altered. Flow has been intersected and streamlined in to a man made channel that extends across the meadow. This channel flows in a nearly straight line behind a development, up to the forested region of a neighboring wetland and discharges into a pond downstream of the wetland. The purpose for installing the ditch appears to be to minimize overland flow and concentrate it in the drainage ditch. The Natural Resources Committee's concerns relate to the integrity of the wetland and pond. Clear water enters the site at the upstream end of the channel disturbance. Within a short distance the channel has obviously high turbidity. This is due to the increased erosional capacity of the new channel. The channel is approximately three feet deep. The concern here is for an intersected water table. In the wetland the water table is very close to the surface, or intersecting the surface. A three foot ditch will intersect the watertable, allowing it to drop to the lowest level of the drainage ditch. This would have an adverse affect on plants in the wetland. Increased turbidity and runoff from lawns (insecticides and pesticides) and road contamination will change the chemical character of the pond that the channel drains into. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 12, 1991 Mr. Ralph Goodrich Ralph Goodrich, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Drainage Improvements at Green Acres Dear Mr. Goodrich: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed, please find a copy of comments from the South Burling- ton Natural Resources Committee to the South Burlington Planning Commission. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �i Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl RJB/mcp January 17, 1991 City of So. Burlington Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer William Szymanski, City Engineer 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Farm Agricultural Drainage Storm Drain Line Dear Dick and Bill, Bill, your permission to excavate an agricultural drainage ditch along the south boundary of the Farm, running from Hines- burg Rd. easterly to the existing farm ditch, was to eliminate the flooding and erosion of the farm as I verbally described them to you. I am enclosing a plan (sketch) showing the new drain ditch and the areas that were being affected by this flooding and erosion. Two areas of the farm were affected: 1. "A" - Water from the Ledge Knoll, Backyards, Roofs, Driveways, etc. 2. "B" - Water from Hinesburg Rd., Butler Farms and Oak Creed: Developments. As you know, I was desperate when I requested your permission to excavate the ditch while the ground was frozen to prevent further damage to the land and take advantage of the frost for the equipment to do the job. I believe that the cost of the land right-of-way, excavating, grading, and seeding the ditch and the areas disturbed by the excavation, and all future additions, changes or maintenance cost shall be borne by those responsible for the increased runoff. Sincerely, 41�e�e�n;Acres Inc. Ralph B. Goodrich, President City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 January 17, 1991 Ralph B. Goodrich Inc. Attn: Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Drainage Improvement at Green Acres Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter will confirm our recent conversations regarding the possibility that your recent drainage project on your Green Acres land may be subject to Planning Commission approval. A certain area of your property is defined as a minor stream. This would be the drainage way which travels in an easterly direction across your land. A minor stream is designated as Conservation -Open Space District. Boundaries of this district are fifty (50) feet from the centerline of the stream. As a result of your recent drainage work it is my opinion that you have altered the stream in question. I have enclosed a copy of a zoning map indicating on the map the area which I believe was altered. Under Section 3.307 from the City's Zoning Regulations no watercourse shall be altered or relocated without the approval of the Planning Commission with input from the Natural Resources Committee. Without this approval the City would consider you in direct violation. I am requesting that you discuss this matter with Joe Weith, City Planner, in order to schedule a review of the project with the Mr. Ralph Goodrich January 17, 1991 Page - 2 Planning Commission. Hopefully we can resolve this matter without further action on behalf of the City. Thanks for your co-operation. Ver truly, ichard Ward ' Zoning Administrative Officer Certificate # 313 382 640 cc: William Szymanski, City Engineer Charles "Chuck" Hafter, City Manager Joseph Weith, City Planner Attorney Steve Stitzel, City Attorney January 17, 1991 City of So. Burlington Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer William Szymanski, City Enqineer 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05405) Re: Green Acres Farm Agricultural Drainage Storm Drain Line Dear Dick and Bill, Bill, your permission to excavate an agricultural drainage ditch along the south boundary of the Farm, running from Hines- burg Rd. easterly to the existing farm ditch, was to eliminate the flooding and erosion of the farm as I verbally described them to you. I am enclosing a plan (sketch) showing the new drain ditch and the areas that were being affected by this flooding and erosion. Two areas of the farm were affected: 1. "A" - Water from the Ledqe Knoll, Backyards, Roofs, Driveways, etc. 2. "B" - Water from Hinesburg Rd., Butler Farms and Oat-, Creek Developments. As you know, I was desperate when I requested your permission to excavate the ditch while the ground was frozen to prevent further damage to the land and take advantage of the frost for the equipment to do the job. I believe that the cost of the land right-of-way, excavating, grading, and seeding the ditch and the areas disturbed by the excavation, and all future additions, changes or maintenance cost shall be borne by those responsible for the increased runoff. Sincerely, Green Acres Inc. Ralph B. Goodrich, President c 'oe I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer a� DATE: January 14, 1991 RE: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road On Monday, January 7, 1991, this office was informed that Ralph Goodrich was involved in excavation along the southerly line of his Hinesburg Road property which abuts Knoll Circle. On Monday, both Mr. Szymanski and myself have discussed this matter with Mr. Goodrich. He informs us that Mr. Dan Pillsbury leases his land for agicultural use. The area is very wet and Mr. Pillsbury wishes to continue using the land, which is the reason for the installation of a second drainage ditch. Both Mr. Szymanski and I have requested that Mr. Goodrich submit a plan of the proposal site work. He 4as contacted Trudell Engineering, and a plan should be available in a few days. Under Section 19.354 of the City's zoning regulation, approval is required by the City Manager. Since Mr. Szymanski has made a site visitation and discussed the plan with Mr. Goodrich the site work seems acceptable and presently seems to comply with all zoning regulations. RW/peh City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 January 17, 1991 Ralph B. Goodrich Inc. Attn: Mr. Ralph Goodrich 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Drainage Improvement at Green Acres Dear Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter will confirm our recent conversations regarding the possibility that your recent drainage project on your Green Acres land may be subject to Planning Commission approval. A certain area of your property is defined as a minor stream. This would be the drainage way which travels in an easterly direction across your land. A minor stream is designated as Conservation -Open Space District. Boundaries of this district are fifty (50) feet from the centerline of the stream. As a result of your recent drainage work it is my opinion that you have altered the stream in question. I have enclosed a copy of a zoning map indicating on the map the area which I believe was altered. Under Section 3.307 from the City's Zoning Regulations no watercourse shall be altered or relocated without the approval of the Planning Commission with input from the Natural Resources Committee. Without this approval the City would consider you in direct violation. I am requesting that you discuss this matter with Joe Weith, City Planner, in order to schedule a review of the project with the P 313 382 640 RECEIPT FOM venTiFn=o M41L NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ISee Reverse) J Sent to 1Fr 0000�C sc Street a P.O. State a Z�IfPhC eee N Postage S Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee In Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered a�i Return Receipt showing to whom, Date. and Address of Delivery d TOTAL Postage and Fees S 0 o E Postmark or Date 01 O L I'A a n ci > 4 n ::� rt O -Ir N• rt m a ►-- O (D " F� 1< :::� (D = G� CA-- N rtCt��' c0 n x N ttttxH• rt tt N ro rt (� (D F- I (D N• F� A) f S rt n (D n rij rt I.Q > :9:(D (t a (D rt �3 f� O Ai Ft � (D (D n F c (D � n tfi LO f i rt 0 > a G ((DD � a � w fA W hj � a W rt W W C 00 N O 71 M A M n (D h E ro O z G H. rt z I'll 0 c n rt (D H. Tn a �• r H. . O .rr � b (D CJ' tt+ (D r- a � O (D M rt N (D fS n (D H. (n rt O • C (D rt to a rt (D n TO: Planning Commission FROM: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative OfficeX DATE: January 14, 1991 RE: Green Acres, Hinesburg Road On Monday, January 7, 1991, this office was informed that Ralph Goodrich was involved in excavation along the southerly line of his Hinesburg Road property which abuts Knoll Circle. On Monday, both Mr. Szymanski and myself have discussed this matter with Mr. Goodrich. He informs us that Mr. Dan Pillsbury leases his land for agicultural use. The area is very wet and Mr. Pillsbury wishes to continue using the land, which is the reason for the installation of a second drainage ditch. Both Mr. Szymanski and I have requested that Mr. Goodrich submit a plan of the proposal site work. He bras contacted Trudell Engineering, and a plan should be available in a few days. Under Section 19.354 of the City's zoning regulation, approval is required by the City Manager. Since Mr. Szymanski has made a site visitation and discussed the plan with Mr. Goodrich the site work seems acceptable and presently seems to comply with all zoning regulations. RW/peh City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 January 10, 1991 Ralph B. Goodrich, Inc. 625 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Drainage Way Dear Ralph: ZONVPI3 ADMINISTRATOR 658-i 958 Having discussed your proposed drainage work with Bill Szymanski, he informs me that you were requested to submit a plan for his review. Since the drainage work involved is intended to improve an area of land which is being used for agricultural purposes I am of the opinion that you are subject to plan review and approval from the City Engineer and Manager. As you are aware some of the Knoll Circle neighbors are concerned about the safety of the drainage ditch. The City has concerns about erosion control, stabiliza- tion and the protection of any Conservation -Open Space areas, which includes any existing drainage ways. As of Tuesday, you were well underway with the ditching, we therefore are requesting a plan by Monday, January 14, 1991. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp • 11 % I -A va %A .71 IV '00004�0 ,00 f 0 m ---------------- - ---1 January 17, 1991 City of So. Burlington Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer William Szymanski, City Engineer 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Acres Farm Agricultural Drainage Storm Drain Line Dear Dick and Bill, Bill, your permission to excavate an agricultural drainage ditch along the south boundary of the Farm, running from Hines- burg Rd. easterly to the existing farm ditch, was to eliminate the flooding and erosion of the farm as I verbally described them to you. I am enclosing a plan (sketch) showing the new drain ditch and the areas that were being affected by this flooding and erosion. Two areas of the farm were affected: 1. "A" - Water from the Ledge Knoll, Backyards, Roofs, Driveways, etc. ?. "B" - Water from Hinesburg Rd., Butler Farms and Oak Creek Developments. As you know, I was desperate when I requested your permission to excavate the ditch while the ground was frozen to prevent further damage to the land and take advantage of the frost for the equipment to do the job. I believe that the cost of the land right-of-way, excavating, grading, and seeding the ditch and the areas disturbed by the excavation, and all future additions, changes or maintenance cost shall be borne by those responsible for the increased runoff. Sincerely, Green Acres Inc. Ralph B. Goodrich, President South Burll*n;d,,t 1'ermont City BURL INGTON W INOOSKI No Text