HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-03-05 - Supplemental - 0007 Beechwood Laner
I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 DECEMBER 2003
Mr. Kupferman asked if the homeowners association will maintain the pond as it is. Mr.
McClellan said the intent is to lower the level and keep it as a storage pond. Mr. Gage, who lives
to the east of the project said there is a flow from the pond down the north side of his property
line. There will be a change in overland flow, and he is concerned with changing the height of
the pond as wildlife may be affected. He asked why it is being done. Mr. McClellan said to
create more storage at the surface. The well that feeds the pond will be shut off. The pond will
become more of a stormwater pond. Mr. Gage said there will be more fluctuation in the pond if
they do that. Mr. McClellan didn't think so.
Mr. Gage also noted the entrance onto Van Sickley Rd. is an issue because there are so many
close calls in that area. He asked where the entrance is. Mr. McClellan said it is after where the
road evens out and starts to come up again. Mr. Gage noted the road has become an unfriendly
place to be. You can't walk or bike there. He felt it will be hazardous. Mr. Dinklage said
residents should keep reporting incidents to the police.
Mr. Gage said clearly Muddy Brook has been altered by the Snyder project. He felt it needs to be
looked at.
Mr. Gage also noted they have a well and he wants an assurance it will not be altered by this
project. Mr. McClellan said they are not injecting anything into the sub -surface. Chances of
surface water getting into the well are very slim. Mr. Belair asked if there will be blasting. Mr.
McClellan said maybe. Mr. Belair said that can affect a well. Mr. Gage said he wanted
assurance that the applicant will solve any problem they are involved in creating. Mr. McClellan
said they would solve any problems.
Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat application #SD-03-73 of A&M Construction Corp.
subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
6. Miscellaneous application #MS-03-05 of James Carris to encroach into a Class II
wetland buffer with a single family dwelling, 7 Beechwood Lane:
Mr. Carris said they want to build a retirement house as the last home on Beechwood Lane. He
referred to letters from Cathy O'Brien saying there would be minimal impact to the wetland and
also minutes of the Natural Resources Committee outlining a stipulation. Mr. Dinklage asked if
any fill will be required. Mr. Carris said no.
Mr. Belair suggested a "before and after" contour plan. Mr. Carris said he will do that.
Mr. Kupferman was concerned with putting houses in buffers. He asked if can be moved closer
to the road and not require the setback. Mr. Belair said a variance would be required, but they
might meet the criteria.
M
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 DECEMBER 2003
Mr. Bolton was concerned with setting a precedent and also with documenting where the wetland
starts. He felt the proposed house is in the wetland, not the buffer. He suggested some
engineering expertise on the city's behalf.
Mr. Dinklage suggested the applicant apply for a variance. He also encouraged members to go
by and look at the site.
Ms. Quimby moved to continue the application to 20 January 2004. Mr. Boucher seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
7. Site pLan application #SP-o3-45 of JCK Investments LLC, for outside storage and
distribution use,14 Lime Rock Road:
Mr. McClellan said this is an existing vacant lot. They are turning a storage lot into a better
storage lot and will upgrade it.
No issues were raised.
Mr. Boucher moved to approve site plan application #SP-03-45 of JCK Investments per the draft
motion. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Public Nearing: Conditional Use Application #CU-02-17 of RCC Atlantic, Inc., seeking
conditional use approval under section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to allow the
replacement of a 90 foot communications tower with a 100 food monopole tower, 2026
Williston Road: and
9. Site Plan Application #SP-03-44 of RCC Atlantic, Inc., to amend a site plan for a 2,605
sq. ft. general office building and 90 foot communications tower. The amendment consists
of: 1) replacing the 90 foot lattice tower with a 100 foot monopole tower, and 2)
construction of a 12'x20' prefabricated equipment shelter to replace the existing Cell -On -
Wheels and the white communications hut, 2026 Williston Rd:
Mr. Dodge said they will move some of RCC's antennas to the top of the tower. They will
replace the equipment shed with a permanent shed surrounded by a chain link fence. This will
improve RCC's coverage in the area.
Regarding the dumpster, they propose to put the dumpster in the equipment compound.
Antennas will be flush -mounted against the pole so there will be a negligible visual impact.
-7—
CaJZVe(-,C. k�,C-Q
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 JANUARY 2004
Mr. Penniman noted that UVM had a meeting with neighbors and the City Manager last
week. The main issue is traffic calming on that part of Spear St. A plan was worked out
with neighbors regarding striped crosswalks. UVM is committed to participate in the
design and building of those crosswalks. The three crosswalks would be at Quarry Hill,
just south of the south drive (where the pedestrian/bikeway is), and on the south side of
the northerly entrance drive. Mr. Penniman requested a change in the wording of
Stipulation 3d to give UVM time for designing the crosswalks and meeting with
neighbors.
Stipulation 3d was amended to include the phrase "prior to permit issuance."
Mr. Bolton said he would like UVM to work with neighbors on sidewalk issues as well.
Ms. Quest asked when the crosswalks would go in. Mr. Penniman said they want to file
the plat as soon as possible, so they would put the crosswalks in this season.
Ms. Kupersmith said she was concerned with the substantial change in the setback. Mr.
Penniman noted it is going to be 60 ft. from the property line, 90 ft. from the center line
of Spear St. Ms. Kupersmith was concerned with the impact of this on the neighbors.
Mr. Towsley said he lives between the 2 entrances and the trade-off for him that is most
important is the reduction in traffic.
Mr. Boucher then moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-03-81 of The University
of Vermont subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Bolton
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
finued Miscellaneous application #MS-03-05 of James Carris to encroach into
a Class II wetland buffer with a single-family dwelling, 7 Beechwood Lane:
Mr. Carris noted he has moved the location of the house which is now not in compliance
with the setback. He noted he will own the adjacent property.
It was noted that acquiring an adjacent parcel that doesn't meet lot size requirements will
result in the two properties being merged.
Mr. Belair noted that the DRB can allow a smaller side yard setback. If they move it to 5
ft., they won't have to come back to the Board.
-4-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 JANUARY 2004
Mr. Dinklage suggested the Board agree to a 5 ft. side setback and then have staff work
out the legal conditions so it can become 3 ft.
Members agreed to eliminate condition " P.
Stipulation #4 was added as follows: The house shall not have a rear basement access.
Stipulation #5 was added as follows: The post -construction plan shall be revised to show
the proposed house at least 5 feet from the south boundary line. Three copies of the plan
shall be submitted.
Original stipulation 44 becomes #6.
Mr. Boucher moved to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-03-05 of James Cams
subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Bolton seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-03-82 of the City of South Burlington to amend a
planned unit development consisting of a 500,000 gallon water storage tank. The
amendment consists of adding a seconded 500,000 water storage tank, 23 Harbor
Ridge Road:
Mr. Elliott asked if they can combine preliminary and final plats. Mr. Dinklage said this
can be done at the applicant's risk.
Mr. Elliott noted they are requesting a height waiver. The new tank will be the same
height as the existing tank.
No other issues were raised.
7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-03-83 of the City of South Burlington to amend a
planned unit development consisting of a 115 ft. high 1,500,000 gallon water storage
tank. The amendment consists of expanding the water tank to 2,100,000 gallons and
increasing the height to 150.5 ft., 1215 Dorset Street:
Mr. Elliott noted there had been a concern expressed with aesthetics. He noted that no
one can see over the tank at this time. They will raise it from the bottom and the new part
of the tank will be on the bottom. It will not restrict views any more than now.
-5-
I
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM. Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
DATE: January 16, 2004
#MS-03-05
Development Review Board
Meeting Date: January 20, 2004
James and Diana Canis, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are requesting
miscellaneous approval for construction of a single-family dwelling that will result in a
wetland buffer encroachment, 7 Beechwood Lane. The proposed construction will
encroach into the required 50' buffer of a Class II wetland, which abuts the Potash Brook.
Approval of the proposed development is subject to review of Section 12.02 of the Land
Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a document from Cathy O'Brien,
his wetland consultant, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02. This document is
enclosed. Staff notes that the subject property was approved as a building lot by the
South Burlington Planning Commission on January 11, 1967, thus "grandfathering" the
property from the Vermont State Enacted Wetland Statutes' requirement of maintaining a
50' buffer around wetlands. A letter from the Water Quality Division of the Department
of Environmental Conservation is enclosed. The subject applicant was reviewed by the
Development Review Board on December 2, 2003 (minutes enclosed), but was continued
until January 20, 2004 to allow the applicant to submit additional information.
DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Table L Dimensional Re uirements
IO Zoning District
Required
Pro sed
Min. Lot Size
9,500 SF
12,865 SF
Max. Building Coverage
20%
16.67%
Max. Overall Coverage
40%
25.95%
Min. Front Setback
30 ft.
30 ft.
Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
>30 ft.
Max. Building Height
40 ft.
30 ft.
zoning compliance
The Natural Resources Committee reviewed the subject application at its meeting on
October 9, 2003 and November 6, 2003 (minutes enclosed). They recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. no mowing shall be allowed in the back yard of the property;
2. gutters shall be installed on the roof to direct stormwater towards the road;
3. no development shall encroach into the wetlands themselves;
4. all disturbed earth shall be stabilized, seeded, and mulched;
5. any vegetation in the wetland or the associated wetland buffer shall not be
removed;
6. no earthwork shall occur within the wetland or the associated buffer;
7. the six (6) conditions listed above shall be included in the deed to be passed
on to future property owners.
During its review of the subject application on December 2, 2003, the Development
Review Board expressed concern about the grading on the lot. In order to get a better
sense of how the development of the proposed project would relate to the site and to
better understand how stormwater would move on the site, the Development Review
Board requested that the applicant submit revised plans that include detailed contour lines
of the property. The applicant is in the process of revising the plans to show adequate
contour lines and they will be presented to the Development Review Board and staff at
the meeting on January 20, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Development Review Board approve Miscellaneous Application
#MS-03-05, conditional upon the applicant complying with the Natural Resources
Committee's recommendations #1-7 above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
2
\ i
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
Permit Number 6rV - a
APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either
on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the
Development Review Board.
I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also
that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the
hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing.
Type of application check one:
( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation)
( ) Request for a conditional use
( ) Request for a variance
ma
PROVISION OF ZONING ORPINANCE IN QUESTION (IF ANY) _ZT SERYATiON14
0—PAR SPA z DIsTRIGr p) RIL4NORy 52RMATWN Of t R6ATED 14v 3,106
WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINIST AT�vE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? 6 P mir
DENIAL REsaLrANf ,KAAtrmum NT Noom SIDE SEr_-&cK Rf_Qt.11REMENT 00 HWPASCO 57acruRE
rNCROACNMFFIr Upm THE 5-6&. WE LAAtD SUArER CR[prED VIA ,AXIMLE 3.104 C0 pfSfKwrz-OK
1) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) /X/GN"L )Q aMoArr
2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) 1(oc 141yt 4JY11 ZOAeE 88--90
3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #
4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) hlldUAEc DUM
-30 0'RR1rN DR1111r_ <6. RiAR L I NftTntJ ✓r i2-!rYD.3 (80A) BLS— X,5
5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:
S'.,,vAivv/,-w .4.gr SuA-Di
6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 1430 — 00 0 / ?
1W.20
►vf-
7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use) A C,qw UN ! td PEE
Burt DING COT
b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain)
S`j Na4 E P'--A�' nm jj. y REAwffAt5,r
c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain)
d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement
and mezzanine) "1 V STORY kyt4r c AyPRorKi/►1gfaY 30fr Mam WTN R ryu 1R'VR1K
e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) QNE .5sN6L f FA UY
RES1 DENT
f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees)
/VDT LE
g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this
please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 7-
gan-D/KC for BY THE S'a.fN B4jA1,WCZ0, p
'ISAAm n rATH CRJA901T F40m rZoWaWT SrWrg
of M,4j q r.41MM C- 4 Sid Ft, &406FtR 091,4
8) LOT COVERAGE
not specifically requested above,
rlaNfp AS !}/V RPfty✓ED
&A/ 9,'aN4t40ZY Z l ?4 9
D STnruzs R eoai eirm ur
e4xnam 10 w e A 1 o r )-AND ARAW.
a) Building: Existing O % Proposed ;;, G 7 % Ale, 7 /r'
b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc)
Existing_% Proposed 2 s 1g r %
c) Front yard (along each street) Existing_% ProposedIV,4_%
(does not apply to residential uses)
9
9) COST ESTIMATES
a) Building (including interior renovations)
b) Landscaping: $ 7-'9 D
c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): r B (%
10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC
a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): %V R
b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): /� p
c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): N14
11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: N,q
12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION:
13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE
U
t�,A
14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet
of paper).
KeV►N & 1<P,ISTJ;,N 1 09huE
✓� B,�r�cN t✓0o p (..yNE
So. BURLMC TON, Y r 05W03
Ro Dim- 9 k,nu R Errf Du r►rn oNr
30 0lge irw DR,
50. $u R U4 6TO N, VT O S'y03
G►TY 0jr 5OUTH BuRLrNGT''0N
S-iS" Doxs,rr 5ro rt r
So . $uRL. iNcTm , Vr 0sy03
I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is
accurate to the best of my k7::
ze.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Do not write below this line
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
! L�
REVIEW AUTHORITY: evelopment Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning
I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be:
❑ omplete ❑Incomplete
il 0 t
q fi d
Directo f Ylhr&ng & Zoning or Designee bate
A
r
State of Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
Department of Environmental Conervation
State Geologist
RELAY SERVICES FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
1-800-253-0191 TDD>VoicE
1-800-253-0195 VOICE>TDD
June 16, 2004
Carol Obuchowski, Esquire
370 Longmeadow Drive
Shelburne,-v ermertc
Dear Carol:
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Wastewater Management Division
Essex Regional Office
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Telephone (802) 879-5656
Subject: James B. Carris and Diana M. Cams; Merging of Two Pre -Existing Lots in
the City of South Burlington, Vermont.
I reviewed the information you provided me regarding the merging of two lots into one for
the purposes of constructing one single-family residence. You explained that the lots are
contiguous and each lot is considered a pre-existing lot as defined by the Environmental
Protection Rules, Chapter 1, Subchapter 2 - Definitions.
The merging of the two contiguous pre-existing lots to Icreate one lot on which to construct
one single family residence will continue to be recognized as an exempt lot as defined by
the Environmental Protection Rules, Subchapter 4, Section 1-403. Therefore, no permits
are required from this office provided construction of the residence occurs prior to July 1,
2007. Please note that certifications of design and installation of the water and wastewater
disposal systems shall be required should construction occur after November 1, 2004 as
explained by Section 1-403(a)(3) of the Rules. Further, a permit by this office may be
required should the landowner decide to re -subdivide the property even into their original
forms. Finally, this decision does not relieve the landowner from obtaining all appropriate
permits and approvals administered by the City of South Burlington.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ernest Christianson
Regional Engineer
C City of South Burlington
-' is ,f;o1rl/Ct .Inhnshury
State of Vermont
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
Department of Environmental Conervation
State Geologist
RELAY SERVICES FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
1-800-253-0191 TDD>VOICE
1-800-253-0195 VOICE>TDD
May 26, 2004
Carol Obuchowski, Esquire
370 Longmeadow Drive
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
Dear Carol:
Wastewater Management Division
Essex Regional Office
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Telephone (802) 879-5656
Subject: Merging of Two Pre -Existing Lots in the City of South Burlington,
Vermont.
I reviewed the information you provided me regarding the merging of two lots into one for
the purposes of constructing one single-family residence. You explained that the lots are
contiguous and each lot is considered a pre-existing lot as defined by the Environmental
Protection Rules, Chapter 1, Subchapter 2 - Definitions.
The merging of the two contiguous pre-existing lots to create one lot on which to construct
one single family residence will continue to be recognized as an exempt lot as defined by
the Environmental Protection Rules, Subchapter 4, Section 1-403. Therefore, no permits
are required from this office provided construction of the residence occurs prior to July 1,
2007. Please note that certifications of design and installation of the water and wastewater
disposal systems shall be required should construction occur after November 1, 2004 as
explained by Section 1-403(a)(3) of the Rules. Further, a permit by this office may be
required should the landowner decide to re -subdivide the property even into their original
forms. Finally, this decision does not relieve the landowner from obtaining all appropriate
permits and approvals administered by the City of South Burlington.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
v,�
Ernest Christianson
Regional Engineer
C City of South Burlington
Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury
ro
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
February 4, 2004
Michael Dumont
30 O'Brien Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Miscellaneous Application 4MS-03-05
Dear Mr. Dumont:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced
project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on January 20,
2004 (effective 2/3/04). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the
applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of this approval or this
approval is null and void.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
Encl.
Cathy O'Brien Wetland Consulting
839 Oak Hill Road, Williston, VT 05495
(802) 878-6022
October 28, 2003
Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: Dumont Property Buffer Zone Encroachment Analysis, South Burlington
Dear Board Members:
I am working for Mike Dumont on the Sunnyview-East Subdivision off of Hinesburg
Road in South Burlington. Mike is currently completing the final phase of an old project.
The South Burlington Planning Commission approved the Sunnyview-East subdivision
on February 10, 1967. They approved 50 lots along four new roads (see attached signed
site plans). Lots 45 through 50 were not approved at that time. Houses were built on all of
the approved lots but seven during the 60's and 70's. Lot 19, 39 through 44 and 51 and the
southern portion of Southview Drive were not built. The Dumonts began instead to build
a subdivision on the opposite side of Hinesburg Road called Sunnyview-East II. Their
intention was that the Dumont children would each get one of the remaining lots in
Sunnyview-East.
Once the Sunnyview-East II project was completed, the Dumonts wanted to finish
Sunnyview-East. Mike began working on the remainder of the project, in accordance
with the previously approved plan, during the building season on 2000. Mike would now
like to sell Lot 20 of the subdivision, located on the corner of Beechwood Lane. In the
attached 1974 aerial photograph, Beechwood Lane and Southview Drive are apparent.
The house on the adjacent lot 19 is shown as well.
Lot 20 of the subdivision backs up to a wetland complex adjacent to Potash Brook (see
attached copy of the approved subdivision plan and National Wetlands Inventory map).
There will be no wetland encroachments from the development of lot 20. 1 have flagged
the wetland boundary on this lot and a house can be constructed on the lot that totally
avoids this wetland. Because there are no wetland impacts, the project will not need to
obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal wetland
regulations. Although this wetland is mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory map
and is therefore a Class Two wetland under the Vermont Wetland Rules, the State has
agreed that no state wetland permit (called a Conditional Use Determination) would be
required for work within the 50 foot buffer zone of this wetland because the project is
grandfathered from the Vermont Wetland Rules (see attached letter from the State
Wetlands Office). This project does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Vermont
Wetland Rules since it had received all necessary permits long before the effective date of
the Wetland Rules and substantial construction commenced prior to 1992 (Section 1.1(2)
of the Vermont Wetland Rules). Therefore, construction of a portion of the house on lot
20 within the buffer zone does not require obtaining a Conditional Use Determination
from the State of Vermont.
Wetland Description
The wetland is a mix of emergent and shrubby vegetation, classified as a Palustrine
Scrub/Shrub/Emergent wetland (PSS/EM1C) by the Cowardin Wetland Classification
system. It is dominated by willow shrubs, elm saplings, reed canary grass, purple
loosestrife, cattails, Joe pye weed, and wooly bullrush. Purple loosestrife, a non-native
invasive species, is now one of the most prolific plants in the marsh. Several trees of
varying sizes occur on the bank on the back of lot 20 and along the bottom the bank
including red maples, hemlocks, elms, yellow birch and honeysuckle. The soils are a
Limerick silt loam with the wetland and an Adams and Windsor loam sand in the buffer
zone (although portion of the buffer zone were regraded back in the 70's during the
construction of the roads). The functions of this wetland include water quality treatment,
erosion control, flood storage, wildlife habitat and open space and aesthetics.
Section 12.02 E (3) Buffer Zone Encroachment
As stated above, this project has been designed to avoid any wetland encroachment. The
following discussion is an analysis of the impacts from the proposed buffer zone
encroachments.
E (3)(a) While the wetland provides the ability to carry or store flood waters at a
significant level, the buffer zone does not provide this function. The buffer zone slopes
up sharply from the edge of the wetland. The hydrology in the wetland is seasonally
flooded and saturated during the rest of the growing season. The buffer zone itself,
however, does not become flooded given the slope. There will be no alterations to the
bank in any case, the house and all associated construction, will occur on the flat area at
the top of the bank, where it is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than the
wetland. The buffer zone encroachment, therefore, will not adversely affect the ability of
the property to carry of store flood waters adequately.
E (3)(b) The wetland on this property does provide water quality treatment of stormwater
entering into it. Wetlands have several attributes that give them the ability to provide
water quality treatment. They have been shown to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows across them. These processes occur
within the wetlands themselves, due to the alternating anaerobic and aerobic conditions
(the wet and dry cycles). Anaerobic conditions do not exist in the buffer zone, so the
same chemical processes do not take place in the buffer zone, as they do within the
wetland. As previously stated, there will be no disturbances of the wetlands on this
property.
Non -wetland areas can also provide treatment of stormwater, such as by grass lined
swales, either natural or man-made, and by overland flow through dense vegetation. Lot
20 does not have these conditions. When the road construction occurred for this project in
the 70's, lot 20 was heavily disturbed. It now consists of a cleared flat area with a fairly
steep bank down to the wetland. The stormwater from the remainder of the subdivision
goes through the stormwater system previously designed and approved. The only
stormwater entering the wetland from this lot is from the precipitation that directly falls
on just this lot. Once the lot is developed, all disturbed earth will be stabilized, seeded
and mulched (the bank itself is already stabilized) and less sediments will flow into the
wetland than has occurred for the last 30 years.
In summary, the buffer zone does not provide effective water quality treatment and the
proposed encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation. The Development Review Board could impose
conditions on the development of this lot that require all disturbed earth to be seeded and
heavily mulched immediately following final grading to ensure that there will be no
sedimentation from the site and that prohibit the clearing of woody vegetation within the
wetland or on the bank, unless such vegetation provides a risk to human health or
property or mowing within the wetland.
E (3)(c). As stated above, the functions and values associated with this wetland include
water quality treatment, flood storage, erosion control, wildlife habitat, open space and
aesthetics and recreation. The wetland functions and values of flood storage and water
quality treatment have already been discussed above. These are functions that occur
within the wetland itself and do not occur within the buffer zone. The construction of a
house at the top of the bank will have no affect on the wetland's ability to continue to
perform these functions.
The wetland provides wildlife habitat for a variety of species. Potash Brook and its
adjacent wetlands provide a wildlife corridor. Unfortunately, numerous encroachments
have occurred in the past that diminish this habitat, including the direct loss of habitat
through filling, draining, grading and sedimentation and indirect impacts. There has been
a change of vegetation due to these encroachments, including the introduction of purple
loosestrife that is now a dominant plant species in this wetland. Purple loosestrife does
not have value for wildlife and it out -competes native species of vegetation that do have
wildlife value.
As a result of these encroachments, the species of wildlife utilizing this corridor are those
species that have adapted to human encroachments or that use the areas that have not
been encroached upon. The proposed buffer encroachment will have minimal additional
impact on the wildlife habitat because the area in which it occurs has been so degraded
already. The additional noise and indirect impacts from one additional house, within an
existing residential neighborhood will be very slight. There will be no additional loss of
wetland habitat from this proposal and no substantial regrading necessary. No
earthworkwork is needed on the bank, this area has been stabilized, seeded and mulched
in the past. The prohibition of clearing of woody vegetation discussed in (b) above will
provide screening and cover for any wildlife utilizing the area. Therefore there will be no
significant adverse impacts to the wildlife habitat from this proposal.
The wetland is significant for providing erosion control. The dense emergent vegetation
along the banks of Potash Brook help to stabilize the soils and prevent them from
eroding. No earthwork will occur within the wetland or anywhere near the brook. As
stated above, the grading on lot 20 has been done. The bank is stabilized. No significant
earthwork is needed. Therefore there will be no adverse impacts to the erosion control
function.
The wetland is significant for open space and aesthetics. Nothing in this proposal will
alter that function, since the wetland will remain undisturbed. The wetland will continue
to be open space and as stated above, there will be no impacts to the wetland. As
proposed, no woody vegetation will be cleared, which currently helps screen the adjacent
housing project to the west of the wetland. As the trees continue to grow, they will
provide greater screening. The wetland can still be easily viewed from Beechwood Land
between lots 19 and 20, from the south side of lot 20 and from the end of Southview
Drive. Therefore, there will not be adverse impacts to the open space and aesthetics
function.
In conclusion, the proposed buffer zone encroachment will have minimal adverse affects
on the functions and values of the wetland, given the past disturbances and the minimal
proposed encroachment. Please call me if you have questions or comments on any of the
information in this letter.
Sincerely,
Cathy O'Brien
Cathy O'Brien Wetland Consulting
enc: Subdivision map
NWI map
1974 black and white aerial photo
Letter from the Vermont Wetlands Office
State of Vermont
�l
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
Department of Environmental Conservation
State Geologist
RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
1-800-253-0191 TDD>Voice
1-800-253-0195 Voice>TDD
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
802-241-3770
September 14, 2000
Cathy O'Brien
P.O. Box 533
Williston, VT 05495
RE: Dumont Violation
Wetlands Project Number 2000-175
Dear Cathy:
Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the above referenced project. If all fill is
removed from wetland areas, then since your client will not need a federal section 404 permit,
this project would be considered grandfathered pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Vermont Wetland
Rules. The Agency would not require a Conditional Use Determination for areas of the
wetland's 50-foot buffer zone that they have filled, in accordance with the previously approved
subdivision plan.
If you have, any further questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
2/eter E. Keibel
District Wetlands Ecologist
100% Processed Chlorine Free
Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct,/Pittsford/Rutland/Springfield/St Johnsbury
f Page 1 of 1
From: "James Pease" <jim.pease@anr.state_.vt.us>
To: RJBelairVJuno.com
Cc: April Moulaert <april.moulaert@anr.state.vt.us>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:57:48 -0500
Subject: 7 Beechwood Lane variance request
Ray:
DEC Water Quality would be very concerned about a variance on the
buffer of Potash Brook off of 7 Beechwood Lane. As you know none of
this residential area south of Southview Drive was subject to
environmental review. There is minimal setback from the city road from
the wetlands and Potash Brook; none of the property was designed
with stormwater controls. There was also a wetland violation in 2000
by the developer. The Mayfair Park wetland complex is a very
important ecological component of the Potash Brook watershed. It is
unfortunate that the development has encroached to the extent already
allowed and further encroachment should be absolutely minimized.
Jim
James Pease
Water Quality Division
Stormwater Management Section
10 North Building
103 S. Main St.
Waterbury, VT USA 05671-0408
(802) 241-2683 Fax (802) 241-3287
jim.pease@anr.state.vt.us
junomsg://05A3A330/ 12/1/03
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2003
The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee met on Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 6:00
P.M.
Members Present. Lani Ravin, Peter Jones, Chris Shaw, Bill Shuele, and Elaine O'Grady.
Others Present: Michael Dumont, James Carris
Clerk Chris Shaw called the meeting to order with a quorum of committee members
present at approximately 6:10 P.M.
Minutes: The minutes from the August 6, 2003 and September 8, 2003 meetings were
discussed amongst the present members. A motion was made and seconded to approve both
sets of minutes. They were approved with a unanimous vote.
Cams Application, Beechwood Lane: Mr. Cams explained why he wanted the property and
what he had planned with it. He wanted to build a one bedroom cape style dwelling as a
retirement home. He explained that he was the applicant and Michael was the land owner. The
sale was conditional upon approval from the NRC and DRB.
Michael explained the wetlands in the area and the history of the land.
Brian explained that the property was not within the 100' buffer zone of the Potash Brook, thus
the applicant only had to comply with Section 12.02 of the LDR's.
Chris asked if any buffer would exist on the property. Mr. Carris said that no back yard buffer
would exist between the lot and the wetlands, but he did not intend to mow the yard and wanted
to keep the entire backyard natural and untouched. He stated that bird watching was a big
reason he wanted the property.
Lani asked if the applicant was planning on using any fill to grade the site before development.
Michael said no and they were planning to build a foundation with a walk -out basement.
Lani expressed concern that there would be no buffer on the lot.
Elaine asked how one could ensure that the next landowners would comply with the not mowing
back yard. Mr. Canis said he hadn't thought about that. Bill stated that was important for the
"no mow" condition be disclosed to future landowners.
Michael explained that the original subdivision was approved in the 1960's for 8 lots. The
subject lot was the last lot available for development.
Mr. Cams attempted to explain how they met the criteria in Section 12.02(E)(3) of the LDR's.
He said that he wasn't clear on what the question was asking. Lani explained how wetlands
1
City of South Burlington
Natural Resources Committee
Minutes of October 9, 2003
Page 2 of 2
and wetland buffers control stormwater and explained that we wanted the applicant to
demonstrate that these functions will not be significantly affected by the proposed development.
Mr. Carris said that the State had reviewed the property and had no concerns about the propose
development. Michael concurred.
Mr. Cams explained that the terrain of the property would cause the stormwater to run to the
road to the stormwater system and gutters would direct stormwater from roof to the road.
Brian suggested having the applicant's wetland expert, Cathy O'Brien, submit responses to the
Wetland criteria in Section 12.02 of the LDR's. He thought this would give the Committee some
more factual information to make a decision. Lani agreed that this would help foster a careful
decision. Because the applicant has to go in front of the DRB, a hearing with the NRC on
November 6, 2003 would not hold up the approval process. Thus the Committee and the
applicant felt it would be a good idea.
The potential conditions to be forwarded to the DRB at this point are:
1. no mowing in the back yard of the property.
2. gutters must be installed on the roof to direct stormwater towards the road.
3. a deed to pass on conditions to future property owners.
Voice for Potash Brook: Lani said that we needed to discuss how the Committee wanted to
leave the request from Fred Koznisky for $1,000 of funding from the NRC's budget to assist with
printing costs of the "Safe Lawn Campaign." Lani stated that the NRC has already given Fred
$500 and wanted to wait until here were more members present to decide on the other $500.
Chris suggested holding off on the second installment of $500 until we have a better idea of
other potential uses of the funds. He suggested having Fred submit a progress report in a few
months to indicate how the project was actually working. Then we could make a decision on
whether or not to give Fred the additional funding.
Vermont Watershed Grants Application: Lani suggested the NRC consider applying for a
project that could be funded under this grant from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Brian had to leave the meeting at 7:45, and was not present for this discussion or the
suggestions resulting from it. Thus, there are not minutes to cover this discussion.
The next meeting was set for Thursday, November 6 at 7.00 P.M. at the South Burlington
City Hall.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
\nrc\min\100903. min.doc
City of South Burlington
Natural Resources Committee
Minutes of November 6, 2003
Page 2 of 3
Elaine asked what the draft policy meant by not using the "most expedient solution". Craig said
that meant they would weight their options to address situations, assessing all reasonable
opportunities to control pests.
Chris asked who would develop the site -specific building and landscape maintenance plans.
Chuck said that would be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works.
The NRC helped to re -worded Section IV and V of the draft policy to make it read more
concisely and clear.
Chris asked where the 72 hour time frame came from in the draft policy, where its states that
abutting landowners will be notified 72 hours prior to the application of pesticides. Fred said it
came from other ordinances and policies that were currently in effect.
Peter asked how much the City spent on pesticide applications per year. Craig said that they
used 1 container of Round -up the entire year so pesticide expenses were minimal.
Lani suggested adding language to emphasize the restriction of pesticides in wetlands or
wetland buffers, and bodies of water.
Z A' of NkAmAll0lummo w
James introduced himself and Michael and stated that this was just a continuation of his
application. He stated that he brought the document from Cathy O'Brien addressing the
regulations in Section 12.02 of the Land Development Regulations.
Lani suggested keeping the conditions developed at the 10/9/03 meeting and adding the
suggestions of Cathy O'Brien.
Chris motioned to approve the project with the following 7 conditions:
1. no mowing shall be allowed in the back yard of the property;
2. gutters shall be installed on the roof to direct stormwater towards the road;
3. no development shall encroach into the wetlands themselves;
4. all disturbed earth shall be stabilized, seeded, and mulched;
5. any vegetation in the wetland or the associated wetland buffer shall not be
removed;
6. no earthwork shall occur within the wetland or the associated buffer;
7. the six (6) conditions listed above shall be included in the deed to be passed
on to future property owners.
Lani seconded and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
\nrc\min\110603. min.doc
State of Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
Department of Environmental Conservation
State Geologist
RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
1-800.253-0191 TDD>Voice
1-800-253-0195 Voice>TDD
September 14, 2000
Cathy O'Brien
P.O. Box 533
Williston, VT 05495
RE: Dumont Violation
Wetlands Project Number 2000-175
Dear Cathy:
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
802-241-3770
Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the above referenced project. If all fill is
removed from wetland areas, then since your client will not need a federal section 404 permit,
this project would be considered grandfathered pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Vermont Wetland
Rules. The Agency would not require a Conditional Use Determination for areas of the
wetland's 50-foot buffer zone that they have filled, in accordance with the previously approved
subdivision plan.
If you have, any further questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
?eter Keibel
District Wetlands Ecologist
100% Processed Chlorine Free
Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jot /Pitts ford/Ru tl an d/S pri ng field/St Johnsbury
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
MEMORANDUM
TO. South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
DATE: November 24, 2003
#MS-03-05
Development Review Board
Agenda #6 Meeting Date: December 2, 2003
James and Diana Carris, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are requesting
miscellaneous approval for construction of a single-family dwelling that will result in a
wetland buffer encroachment, 7 Beechwood Lane. The proposed construction will
encroach into the required 50' buffer of a Class II wetland, which abuts the Potash Brook.
Approval of the proposed development is subject to review of Section 12.02 of the Land
Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a document from Cathy O'Brien,
his wetland consultant, addressing the criteria in Section 12.02. This document is
enclosed. Staff notes that the subject property was approved as a building lot by the
South Burlington Planning Commission on January 11, 1967, thus "grandfathering" the
property from the Vermont State Enacted Wetland Statutes' requirement of maintaining a
50' buffer around wetlands. A letter from the Water Quality Division of the Department
of Environmental Conservation is enclosed.
DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
IO Zoning District
Required
Proposed
4 Mn. Lot Size
9,500 SF
12,865 SF
Max. Building Coverage
20%
16.67%
Max. Overall Coverage
40%
25.95%
Min. Front Setback
30 ft.
30 ft.
C
C
Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
>30 ft.
1
Max. Building Height
40 ft.
30 ft.
zoning compliance
The Natural Resources Committee reviewed the subject application at its meeting on
October 9, 2003 and November 6, 2003 (minutes enclosed). They recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. no mowing shall be allowed in the back yard of the property;
2. gutters shall be installed on the roof to direct stormwater towards the road;
3. no development shall encroach into the wetlands themselves;
4. all disturbed earth shall be stabilized, seeded, and mulched;
5. any vegetation in the wetland or the associated wetland buffer shall not be
removed;
6. no earthwork shall occur within the wetland or the associated buffer;
7. the six (6) conditions listed above shall be included in the deed to be passed
on to future property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Development Review Board approve Miscellaneous Application
#MS-03-05, conditional upon the applicant complying with the Natural Resources
Committee's recommendations #1-7 above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Robertson, Associate Planner
2
\�{
� . /
d<�
} \� 2 \
»y�
} \\2 \
� d�
{ : » \ \
) -
��
� \: »�
�
\
\ � :� \:
\
�
�
.
.�
.
^
. \� \
� �~
}<�
� .
.
. .
.�
� _
<. . . .
\ } ƒ�
»� :�
± � �� :
ulQM"O rRM"
'011�
wo MAW .#fi .oe w umn
M " /r vmbw qpnm ,A09 400ow0 VV
M ern M" rIMM�O Pomdfty
J
3 02 ' E
000
I
L_1
0
Y O O
J
3 19 ►� O
o �
W
GAS MAI
0
SET �y
-�.3�02 E
I = IP SET
x1_1 wet 1
`� LOT 20 THE 9 FOOT CONTOUR IS THE
FLOOD LAIN ELEVATION WHICH WAS
m 1 2864.9± SO. FT. P❑IN ED OUT BY THE FLO❑DPLAIN
Cp 0.30± AC ES ENGINEE CARL JURENTKUFF( STATE OF VT.)
W e T 4 AS E SENT A LETTER TO MICHAEL
30' ETBVCK DUM NT CONFIRMING THIS .................
lb
o I THE NEW WETLAND
o DELINEATI❑N PLOTS
I^ THE CARRIS ON TOP OF THE OLD
CAPE ONE (NEW JULY 2003)
1ST FLR 01 THE SCREENED PORCH AND THE
1 103.0 o o DECK ARE BUILD WITH ENGINEERING
o ) STANDARDS
ATER HUT O.Oft WITH N❑THING EXTENDED TO THE
FFAND SEND ❑F BOTTOM Q� GROUND
ATERA OF F❑O
93,17
wet 5
2 .00' THIS �S THE OLD T- INTERSECTI❑N
SET GARAGE R,❑,W, PREVI❑US TO
0 THE NEW DEDICATI❑N
28.
N 83*02' W W e t 6
75.00
END OF SEWER IP SET
LATERAL W T q
�b <"/
� END OF
o,
Qa
STRE�'fcu
LIGHT �O
�b
NE' t 10
B SET
81 6
TIE-IN DISTANCE
/ CIO
--wet 8
THIS 20" ASEMENT IS CENTERED ON A TRANSITE PIPE
THAT FORPS THE SUBDIVISIONS STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
DISCHARGE OUTLET FOR STORM WATER RUN-OFF,
im