HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-20-41_1302 Spear St_Spear Meadows_PP FP#SD‐20‐41
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐41_1302 Spear St_Spear Meadows_PP_FP_SC_2020‐
12‐15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 25, 2020
Plans received: November 12, 2020
1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street – Spear Meadows
Preliminary Plat & Final Plat Application #SD‐20‐41
Meeting date: December 15, 2020
Owners
Gary N. Farrell, 1350 Spear, LLC & Spear Meadows, Inc.
1350 Spear Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
The Snyder Group, Inc.
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6
Shelburne, VT 05482
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1640‐01302, 1640‐01340, 1640‐01350
SEQ – NR
25.93 acres
Engineer
Andy Rowe
Lamoureux & Dickinson
14 Morse Drive
Essex, VT 05452
Location Map
#SD‐20‐41
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐20‐41 of The Snyder Group, Inc. to amend a previously
approved plan for a planned unit development on 25.93 acres consisting of 18 single family dwellings,
ten (10) 2‐family dwellings, three (3) 3‐unit multi family dwellings, and an existing single family home.
The amendment consists of changing the unit mix to twelve (12) single family dwellings, thirteen (13) 2‐
family dwellings, and three (3) 3‐unit multi family dwellings and an existing single family home, and
relocating the recreation path from off street to on street, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street.
CONTEXT
The subject properties are located in the SEQ‐NR and surrounded to the north and west by other SEQ‐NR
properties, and by mostly SEQ‐NR properties to the east except for a parcel at the southeast corner
designated SEQ‐NRP. That parcel is commonly referred to as the Isham parcel and is limited to the
development of no more than three dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of the NRP. The
southern property boundary is largely SEQ‐NRP conserved as part of the Pinnacle at Spear and Vale Drive
neighborhoods with the exception of the approved ROW connecting to Vale Drive which is SEQ‐NR.
This project includes approximately 20 acres of connected, undeveloped space. It uses 17 transferred
development rights which results in conservation of more than 14 acres of SEQ‐NRP lands.
The Official Map and Comprehensive Plan include a north‐south oriented roadway and recreation path
through the subject property connecting the north end of Vale Drive to Swift Street. The project includes
areas of Class 2 wetland and associated buffer.
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this application was heard on October 6, 2020.
The Board previously approved final plat application #SD‐17‐14 for the project following several iterations.
The #SD‐17‐14 decision was appealed to the Environmental Court for matters pertaining to transferred of
development rights and to Halcyon Lane. The decision of the Environmental division was appealed to the
Vermont Supreme Court for matters pertaining to transferred development rights. Both the
Environmental Court and Supreme Court appeals are concluded. Both of the court decisions upheld the
DRB’s decision therefore #SD‐17‐14 stands as written. None of the issues that were the subject of the
appeals are proposed in this application to be modified.
As the subject application is a new application, any proposed modifications to the approved plans are
subject to current regulations.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as
Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. Numbered
items for the Board’s attention are in red.
The project consists of two significant changes to the previously approved final plat.
#SD‐20‐41
3
1. Relocation of the shared use path from the easterly project boundary to the Vale Drive Right of
Way. The proposed 10‐ft wide shared use path consolidates with and replaces the previously
approved 5‐ft wide sidewalk along Vale Drive within the public ROW.
a. In association with the relocation of the recreation path, the project proposes a no‐cut
covenant for the existing mature trees along the easterly project boundary.
2. Two single family home on shared lots at the northeast corner of the project parcel have been
relocated into the revised layout of duplex homes on the west side of Vale Drive.
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐33 also requested approval for elimination of the northern and
southernmost segments of Vale Drive, and a realignment of the proposed water line easement. Based on
feedback received from the Board at sketch, the applicant is no longer proposing to eliminate any
segments of Vale Drive. The applicant is working with the City on an alternative extension of the municipal
water system to serve the proposed development. This alternative would eliminate the proposed
watermain across the UVM property to Swift Street. Since this alternative can be approved
administratively if it is ultimately determined to be viable, no changes to the approved water system are
proposed as part of this application.
The following staff comments focus on elements of the project impacted by the proposed amendments
to the previous approval
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The project is located in the SEQ‐NR sub‐district. The dimensional standards outlined in Table C‐2 of the
Land Development Regulations are as follows.
SEQ‐NR & SEQ‐NRP Required Provided
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 22,650 sq. ft. min
Max. Building Coverage 15% 13.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 30% 28.6%
@Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 10 ft.
X Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 4.2 ft.
@Min. Rear Setback 20 ft. 39 ft.
Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. 28 ft
@ Waiver approved in SD‐17‐14. No change proposed.
The applicant is proposing footprint lots. This action would create non‐conforming lots (being of
insufficient individual size, and having zero setbacks, and no road frontage) and therefore will not be
considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs, footprint lots contained within each of
lots 49, 50, 51, 53, and 54 shall be considered one lot with the other footprint lots located on their
respective lots. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to record a “Notice of Condition” to
this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan.
The project is approved for 48 dwelling units. No change to the density, or required Transfer Development
Rights, are proposed.
1. The applicant is proposing to reduce the previously‐approved side setback to approximately 4.2 feet on Lot
51, and reduce the spacing between homes on Lot 51 to between 18 and 20 feet. This change is proposed in
order to accommodate two additional homes on Lot 51, resulting in a total of eighteen homes where sixteen
were previously approved on this lot. LDR 15.02A(4)(a) prohibits side yard setbacks less than 5 ft in all cases.
If the Board allows the applicant to locate eighteen homes on Lot 51, the Board may, but is not obligated to,
waive the required minimum side setback to no less than 5‐ft. Without a waiver, the minimum side setback
#SD‐20‐41
4
is 10‐ft. Other impacts of increasing the number of homes on Lot 51 are included in the discussion of
9.08C(1)(d) and 14.06C below.
No information about lot coverage on individual lots is provided. Section 15.02A(4)(b) requires that the
applicant meet lot coverage and building coverage overall. Staff considers this criterion met.
The maximum allowed height is 28‐feet for pitched roofs. Staff notes that height is measured to the
midpoint of the roof from average preconstruction grade for each building. The applicant appears to be
constructing each home without significant alteration of existing grade. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to demonstrate compliance of each building with the maximum height limitation
relative to average preconstruction grade at the time of zoning permit application.
Staff notes the applicant must not exceed the maximum number of stories for each building. Based on
the provided building elevations, the applicant is not proposing more than two stories for any of the
buildings.
B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply
with the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
The applicant received preliminary water and wastewater allocation in 2017. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion are proposed.
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties.
The Applicant either has or will be required to obtain a state construction general permit or individual
permit for the proposed project, and has included an erosion and sediment control plan with their
application. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion are proposed.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
No changes to roadway layout or the total number of units are proposed. The Board found this criterion to
be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.
(A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
There are around 40 mature trees identified along the eastern boundary that will be the subject of the
proposed no‐cut covenant. Staff considers protecting the trees at the eastern edge is complementary to
the treed areas on adjacent properties. At sketch, the applicant testified that the relocated path allows
preservation of mature trees along the eastern property boundary.
2. Based on an examination of the previously approved and the currently proposed plans, it appears the
proposed path relocation will allow the retention of approximately eight 12 to 20‐inch trees. In addition to
the existing trees, there is a proposed line of maple, oak and cherry trees between the proposed homes and
the eastern property line. Staff considers that it may be possible to retain the eight impacted trees if the
#SD‐20‐41
5
proposed trees in this location were eliminated and the rec path shifted slightly to be located along “Private
Drive ‘B’.” Staff recommends the Board discuss this possibility with the applicant.
3. While preservation of mature trees is one priority in designing a project, Staff considers there are a number of
other criteria which apply to the location of the recreation path, discussed throughout this document. Staff
recommends the Board determine whether the mature trees on the eastern side of the property are unique
natural features, and if so, discuss whether previously approved recreation path layout respects and provides
suitable protection to the mature trees. As always, Staff encourages Board members to visit the site
individually to assist in making a determination on this criterion. The Board may also, if it wishes, schedule a
formal Board site visit as part of this hearing.
No changes affecting other elements of this criterion are proposed.
(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant is as follows.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ)
is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource
protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as planned residential
use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character
and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in
the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in
the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this
area shall be encouraged.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as lower intensity principally residential. Staff considers the
proposed changes may have some impact on compliance with this criterion, but do not result in non‐
compliance.
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
Approved open spaces, in the southwestern portion of the property and around the wetland in the southern
portion of the site are unaffected by this application. Staff considers compliance with this criterion to be
unchanged.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on November 25, 2020 and offers the following comments.
FD biggest issue is the extension of Vale Dr to the Tri‐plexes. Scaling the corner out looks like FD can’t
make the corner. Also based on a rather negative experience on Midland St extension two weeks ago
the narrower street profile doesn’t work (looks like an 18” width). One of our Eng Co.s locked mirrors
with a panel truck recently. Fortunately very minor damage to both units. We are going to follow NFPA 1
Chp. 18 for access.
4. At the time that #SD‐17‐14 was approved, the Fire Chief did not identify issues with the proposed Vale
Drive extension. The Fire Chief’s current comments are based on experience with recently constructed
similar roadways. No changes are proposed to the area described by the Fire Chief, but Staff considers
as a new review, the Board does have the authority to require the south end of Vale Drive to be widened
#SD‐20‐41
6
to 20‐feet and to have the curve radius adjusted to better accommodate fire access. Staff recommends
the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to comply with the Fire Chief’s comments.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have
been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to
adjacent landowners.
The findings of #SD‐17‐14 on this criterion emphasized the roadway, sidewalk, and recreation path
connection to the existing system on Vale Drive, as well as extension of the project roadway, sidewalk
and recreation path to the northern property line.
The previously approved plans included a paved recreation path along the eastern boundary. The
revised path configuration crosses eleven driveways where none were crossed in the approved
configuration. At the sketch plan meeting, the applicant stated that the purpose of relocating the
recreation path is to keep people away from the wooded buffer between the project and adjacent
development. While the Board was supportive of minor modifications to reduce tree impacts, they
were not in favor of changes which introduced additional driveway crossings and noted the absence of
commonly accepted evidence that recreational users have undue impacts along the edge of the woods.
The South Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study, prepared by the CCRPC in April, 2020,
assumed the presence of a “high comfort route” in the location of the approved path, connecting Allen
Road with Swift Street. The conclusions of this study, including the assumption that the approved path
would be constructed, drove the City’s decision to not include bike lanes or other bicycle
accommodations along this section of Spear Street.
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee indicated a desire to provide feedback on the proposed relocation.
As the Bike/Ped monthly meeting occurs immediately after this packet will be published, Staff
anticipates they will be able to provide the Board with Bike/Ped committee feedback at the time of the
hearing.
5. Staff considers the weight of evidence is against relocating the path, and therefore recommends the
Board deny the proposal to relocate the recreation path unless heretofore unknown evidence in favor is
presented. Staff considers such a denial does not preclude the applicant from proceeding with the
proposed no‐cut covenant.
6. The driveways the recreation path are proposed to cross are 20‐feet wide and serve single family homes.
Should the Board allow the recreation path to be relocated, , Staff considers a reduction in driveway
width should be required.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
Issues discussed above in PUD Criterion 7 and 8 also apply to this criterion. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion are proposed.
Staff does recommend the Board require the applicant to provide an updated infrastructure cost, to be
approved by the Director of Public Works for bonding purposes, prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit
for the project.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows.
Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas
#SD‐20‐41
7
within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.
Objective 61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that
complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s
remaining agricultural lands.
Objective 62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques,
streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway
profile suited to its intended local traffic function.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this
criterion have been made.
C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall
require site plan approval. The single family homes on individual lots are exempted from Site Plan
Review. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following
general review standards for all site plan applications:
(A) Relationship of the proposed development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit Development
Standard (A)(10) above.
(B)(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure
to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking
areas.
In #SD‐17‐14, the Board found that the proposed pedestrian amenities promoted safe pedestrian
movement. There was limited discussion of transitions between structures, though the Board found the
landscaping to be adequate and that the proposed cedar hedge provided a transition and privacy between
the homes east of Vale Drive and the recreation path on the eastern boundary. This cedar hedge is
proposed to be maintained.
Staff considers the relocation of two homes from the north into the block west of Vale Drive, and the
resulting switch from a mix of single family and duplexes to all duplexes west of Vale Drive, may have some
impact on compliance with this criterion. The Board had limited discussion of the proposed home relocations
at the sketch plan meeting on 10/6/2020, though there were some expressed concerns about the homes
being now very crowded, and the potential for the appearance of three neighborhoods (single families,
duplexes, and multifamily) since the single family and duplex homes are no longer proposed to be
intermingled.
As noted above, the relocated path does have a somewhat negative impact on pedestrian safety, though it is
unlikely that it is outright unsafe.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed project continues to meet this criterion. Further
discussion of the rearranged homes is under 9.08C(1)(d) below.
(B)(2) Parking:
a. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
#SD‐20‐41
8
b. The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or
more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The
Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) – (ii) N/A
(iii) The parking area will serve a single or two‐family home;
The Board found these criteria to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting these criteria have been made.
(B)(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of
each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this
criterion have been made. Height is further discussed under dimensional standards above.
(B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or
building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines
shall be underground. At the time #SD‐17‐14 was approved, locations of transformer cabinets was not yet
determined by Green Mountain Power so they were not shown. These cabinets have now been added to
the plan, along with locations of underground utilities. 13.06C(2) requires screening of utility improvements
to consist of a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees
and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. The landscaping plans provide a typical utility cabinet screening, to include
shrubs selected from the lists of deciduous foundation plantings. It specifically calls out that evergreens
shall not be used.
8. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant if this note was included in error, as the LDR specifically
requires evergreens, and recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the note. Staff notes the
utilities are only screened between the utility and the street, therefore there is maintenance access without
disrupting the screening.
(C)(1) The Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural
characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
The previous finding on this criterion (from #SD‐17‐14) stated the following
The transitions between structures are primarily dictated by the Home Design Guidelines prepared
and proposed by the applicant. Among other items, the Guidelines indicate that buildings should
include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the
next to avoid monotony." The Guidelines state that front porches, stoops, and balconies which are
oriented to the street are encouraged, but are not required.
The Guidelines further state that identical home models cannot be placed next to or across the street
from one another. To be considered sufficiently different, a model "must change any two of the five
variables," which include "mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or
orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines." The Board
concludes that these changes will result in attractive transitions between buildings and avoid
monotony within the development.
9.08C(5) pertaining to development in the SEQ‐NR sub‐district further requires the following
#SD‐20‐41
9
A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged
within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street
and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
9. The provided building elevations only include one duplex home, though the proposed design now locates
seven duplex homes side by side. #SD‐17‐14 was limited to no more than two duplex homes side by side.
If the Board ultimately concludes the rearranged homes are acceptable, Staff recommends the Board ask
the applicant to demonstrate how the Home Design Guidelines can be met with one duplex model, or
alternatively to provide a second model.
(C)(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
Previous findings on this criterion focused on the transition between this neighborhood and adjoining
neighborhoods. Staff considers that no changes affecting compliance with this criterion has been made.
Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
(A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties
whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to
provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in
the area.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this
criterion have been made.
(B) Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground.
Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site.
See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.
(C) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or
other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that
trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
No dumpsters are proposed as part of the Project. Staff considers this criterion met.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements
Aside from minor modifications to accommodate revised driveway locations and the additional utility
screening detail discussed above, no changes to the previously approved landscaping plan are proposed.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall
be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The applicant has revised their
estimated total building cost from $9,950,000 to $8,450,000. This change is shown in the provided
landscaping cost calculation as attributable to an error made in the previous estimate of costs considered as
contributing to the required minimum landscaping value. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below,
is $92,000.
#SD‐20‐41
10
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Cost of proposed project
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $79,500
Minimum Landscaping $ $92,000
Proposed Landscaping $109,325
The applicant has provided typical landscape plans, which describe that 20 deciduous shrubs and 12
evergreen shrubs will be planted for each unit and 136 trees will be planted on common lands. They are
also proposing 104 street trees, for which they have provided a separate budget calculation.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 12/1/2020 and offers the following comment.
Overall, the landscaping looks good. My only suggestion would be to reduce the percentage of
maples so that it is no more than 20% of the street trees. Maples are overrepresented in the
city’s street tree population and reducing the number of maples planted will help start to bring
that back into balance.
10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plant list to comply with City Arborist’s
comment, and to update the landscaping budget worksheet to reflect the proposed plantings.
11. Staff further recommends the Board offer the applicant the opportunity to provide a landscaping cost for
each phase to reduce the required bonding amount. If no phased cost is provided, the applicant will be
required to provide a bond for the full value at the time of the zoning permit for the first infrastructure
phase.
D) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the
provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts
The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the
maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers area not available for
structures with the SEQ zoning district.
Height is discussed in the zoning district and dimensional standards section above.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
#SD‐20‐41
11
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting
this criterion have been made.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at the
average densities provided in this bylaw.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this
criterion have been made.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall
be established by the applicant.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. The applicant is proposing to add to the
previously approved open space covenants a no‐cut covenant for the trees at the eastern property
boundary. The applicant has identified the limits of this area with a callout “Typical ‘No Tree Cutting’
covenant to follow existing treeline on easterly boundary” on the overall site plan. The proposed
language of the covenant is as follows.
The area adjacent to the easterly boundary of the property marked “no tree cutting” on the
Subdivision & Footprint Lot Plat and Overall Site Plan shall be retained in its natural state in
order to facilitate its continued use as a natural wildlife corridor. A lot owner may not cut trees,
brush or other vegetation within the designated area except invasive species (such as
honeysuckle and buckthorn) may be cut or removed.
12. While Staff has no issue with retention of existing vegetation, Staff recommends the Board consider
advising the applicant to include a provision for removal of dead trees, as standing dead vegetation can
present a safety hazard.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on
the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction
issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
See discussion under PUD Criteria (A)(2) above.
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or
primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be
prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is
encouraged.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting
this criterion have been made.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans
that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural
operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for
agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐supported agriculture.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes affecting this
criterion have been made.
#SD‐20‐41
12
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review
Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the
location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public
facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets,
park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs
of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Wastewater and water capacity is discussed under PUD Standard (A)(1) above.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall
be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with
the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,
minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions
where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of
hydrants.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.
E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for
pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between
neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a
traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or
consultants.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance
that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.
9.07 Regulating Plans
#SD‐20‐41
13
A. ...
B. General Provisions
(1) …
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district
shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
C. …
D. Parks Design and Development.
(1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park
Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000
square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.
Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free
destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of
life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the
neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,
local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and
there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.
(2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐
NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts:
a. Distribution and Amount of Parks:
i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to
meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the
outdoors, and active recreation.
ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the
heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by
development.
iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be
provided within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by
an existing City park or other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.
b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be
approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained
permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
c. Design Guidelines
#SD‐20‐41
14
i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to
make them sociable, safe and attractive places.
ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle
connections.
iii. To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to
natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and
public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource
and not extended yard areas.
The Board found these criteria to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting these criteria have been made.
9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear
feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or
longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See discussion immediately above.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow
for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed
200 feet in length.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5
to 1:5 recommended
See discussion under 9.07 above.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are
intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are
safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(2) Sidewalks.
#SD‐20‐41
15
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional
minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the
street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.
With the revised recreation path along the street in lieu of the proposed sidewalk, this
criterion continues to be met.
(3) Street Trees
(a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet
wide.
(b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the
City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to
3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center.
Comments of the City Arborist are noted above pursuant to 14.07D. Otherwise Staff
considers these criteria continue to be met.
(4) On‐street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided on
all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. This
requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds
sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the
uses adjacent to the street.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances
and to slow traffic.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall
illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and
character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots)
and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building
entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to
arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent
windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, residential
buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.
#SD‐20‐41
16
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be
varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies
that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.
As noted above, Staff is concerned that the Home Design Guidelines can be satisfied with the
proposed home configuration.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is
critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back of
sidewalk.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks.
#SD‐17‐14 approved buildings to be set back ten (10) ft from the nearest street line and garages
to be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk. Compliance with these
criteria continues to be provided.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front
lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum
of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.
(a) For the purposes of this subsection:
(i) The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,
shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary
entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not
including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)
(ii) The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line
may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(b) …
(c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and townhouses.
The applicant is not proposing any alleys.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,
and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be
mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
Along Vale Drive, the applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that all of the
single family homes are grouped, all of the two‐family home are grouped, and all of the three
family homes are grouped. Homes along Elm Street and Halcyon Lane represent a mixture.
See discussion of home variability under 14.06C(1) above.
#SD‐20‐41
17
E) SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion
control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
The applicant received State Wetland Permit #2538 in 2017. They are proposing two wetland
crossings. They’re also encroaching onto the wetland buffer at three other locations throughout the
development. No changes to the previously approved wetland impacts are proposed. Staff considers
these criteria met.
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
No changes to the culverts approved in #SD‐17‐14 are proposed.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment
system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made.
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the
field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
The Board found this criterion to be satisfied in #SD‐17‐14. Staff considers that no changes
affecting this criterion have been made
Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐
half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the application on August 11, 2020 and offered the following
comments.
1. The project is located with the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
2. The project is subject to Section 12.03(C) of the City’s Land Development Regulations, which
requires the Water Quality Volume to be treated by stormwater treatment practices meeting
the Water Quality Treatment Standard as described in the most recently adopted version of
the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM). The VSMM has been updated since
the date of the last DRB approval of Spear Meadows. As the proposed stormwater ponds are
not currently constructed, the VSMM would require the applicant to utilize a Tier 1 or Tier 2
#SD‐20‐41
18
practice to treat the water quality volume from the site. The applicant will be required to revise
their stormwater plans to meet these updated requirements.
3. Additionally, the Water Quality design storm has increased from 0.9” to 1”. All calculations
should be carried out accordingly.
In other words, if the applicant proceeds with the proposed changes, they will be required to modify
the stormwater management system to meet current criteria. The applicant has acknowledged
understanding of and willingness to address these comments, likely replacing the approved ponds
with gravel wetlands, but has indicated they would like to defer making these changes until they have
a sense from the Board of whether the proposed project changes will be approved.
13. If the Board denies the proposed project modifications, Staff considers they should also find
compliance with the stormwater management criteria of 12.03 not met. However, if the Board does
accept the proposed project modifications, Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing to allow
the applicant to make the requested stormwater modifications, and that any such continuation should
allow sufficient time for the City Stormwater Section to review. Staff therefore recommends the Board
provide clear direction to the applicant on whether they should invest the time to address these
criteria.
F) OTHER
E911 Addresses
The applicant has not yet provided E911 addresses for the proposed homes. Further, the planning
commission must approve street names. Staff recommends the Board require planning commission
assignment of street names and an E911 address plan as conditions of approval.
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and aresubject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes,structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.)
Nov 2017Spear Meadows
Page 1 of 3
HOME DESIGN GUIDELINES
Spear Meadow Subdivision
Revised 03/30/17
OBJECTIVES:
In order to promote a rich and interesting neighborhood, Snyder Homes adopts the following design
guidelines governing the design of homes within the subdivision.
REQUIRED DESIGN ELEMENTS:
Homes in the Spear Meadow Subdivision must comply with requirements found in the City of South
Burlington, Land Development Regulations, Effective: April 11, 2016, Article 9.08, Section C. Residential
Design
For the purposes of these Guideline, the duplex and triplex buildings shall be considered one building.
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single
family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto
garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A
minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented south.
Garages should be located on the northerly side building, allowing southerly orientation of the living
space for optimization of solar gain.
(2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach.
Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one
building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private
space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.
Buildings may have more than one facade that face an immediately adjacent street. In these cases, each
façade shall be designed as a front façade with architectural and/or site elements that are oriented to
the street.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the
ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings must be set back between ten feet (10’) to twenty five (25’) from the street right of
way
(b) Garages shall be set back at least twenty five feet (25’) from the back of the sidewalk when
facing the street
(c) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages where the vehicle entrance is parallel to the front
building line of a house, the front building line of the garage must be set behind that front building line of
the house by a minimum of eight feet (8’). The portion of the building nearest the front line may be a
covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than 8 feet wide.
Page 2 of 3
The building width of a single or two family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than 12
feet. For a duplex with side by side primary entries, the building width of each unit in the duplex, not
including the garage, shall be no less than 8 feet.
The DRB may waive this provision for garages with the vehicle entries facing a side yard, provided that (i)
the garage is visually integrated into the main house and (ii) the front building line of the garage is no
more than eight feet (8’) in front of the front building line of the house. Rear alleys are encouraged for
small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.) sizes, and
affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within
blocks, along the street within neighborhoods rather that compartmentalized into sections of near-
identical units.
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS:
Potential homeowners in the Spear Meadows Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide
variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the
following limits apply:
1. Any given Home Model can be varied by mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising
the placement or orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the
roof lines.
2. Identical Models (without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots,
or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the five
variables to be determined sufficiently different.
3. A home’s color palate is comprised of its primary siding color, accent siding color, roofing color,
trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames. An identical color
palate may not be repeated on adjoining home sites, without regard to Model. No single color
palate shall be repeated more than 3 times in the subdivision without variation of one or more
of these color variables.
4. Snyder Homes reserves the right to disallow a proposed design if they determine that it fails to
comply with the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, these design control
standards or the overall design intent of the subdivision.
5. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City
of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section C
of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards.
Page 3 of 3
6. Snyder Homes shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the Home
Model, Color Scheme and any Variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11x17 inch
color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by the zoning
administrator in checking compliance with these requirements.
7. The decision of the Administrative Officer may be appealed to the Development Review Board
within fifteen days (15) of the date the Director’s or Administrative Officer’s decision is reported
to the Development Review Board. Notice of an appeal shall comply with the provisions of 24
VSA, Section 4465. The Development Review Board shall review an appeal in accordance with
the standards and procedures applicable to the type of review in question.
1
Marla Keene
To:Paul Conner
Subject:RE: Placing of Recreation Path at Spear Meadows
From: Michael Scollins <michaeljscollins@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 6:43 PM
To: Daniel A. Seff <DSeff@mskvt.com>; Diane Chamberlain <dgchamberlain@gmail.com>; Liam Murphy
<LMurphy@mskvt.com>; Marley and Bob Skiff <mnsras@comcast.net>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Placing of Recreation Path at Spear Meadows
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Paul Conner (please circulate to DRB)
Matt Cota, Chair, and fellow DRB Members
I’m Michael Scollins, an abutter to Gary Farrell’s Spear Meadows proposal.
We accept that the disconnection between Vale Drive and the development will not occur, but greatly appreciate your
willingness to consider the placement of the rec path as a separate matter. At the meeting several weeks ago the
discussion seemed to suggest that all facets of our proposal would be rejected, yet most of the objections were directed
at the road access from the south.
I’ll start by repeating a portion of my October 4, 2020 letter. The recreation path was planned for the eastern border of
the property from the initial proposal. I was a strong supporter, as I anticipated that the path would subsequently
connect to the south with a similar off street path. As Vale, Pinnacle and Four Sisters have evolved, they have all settled
on wide sidewalks, allowing paths to traverse driveways, and avoid the additional and unnecessary cost of off street rec
paths.
This approach has proven to be safe and popular, allowing interactions with neighbors, and avoiding the safety issues
that traversing driveways was feared to pose.
The rec path along the easterly border was initially expected to afford westerly views of the Adirondacks and sunsets,
but the tight alignment of the row of houses immediately to the west of the path, typically just 25 feet away, would
block the views, and compromise the privacy of home occupants as .well as rec path users.
Our realization, since the current plan was finalized, that construction of a paved path close to the roots of the many
large (18 to 30 inch diameter) red and white oak trees that hug the property line, and well within the trees’ drip line,
would jeopardize their long‐term survival. Placing the path close to these trees would also compromise the integrity of
the path. For all these reasons, the path should properly be placed well away, ideally at least 20 feet, from the property
line, which would put the path far too close to the houses.
We had hoped to see a small park, or at least a sitting area,in the southeast corner of the property, from which the
Adirondack views, including Whiteface and Giant Mountains, were optimal, but when the three triplexes were added to
the plans for that corner, the sitting area—indeed the whole off street rec path—no longer made sense.
2
In our last meeting, Mark Behr mentioned that the developer had proposed a “meandering” path to address our
concerns. That term, to which I strongly objected when it was mentioned years ago, is misleading and totally unhelpful:
The narrow area between the tree line and the houses allows no room for meandering! I have walked this area typically
several times weekly for 44 years, and would be happy to do a site visit with anyone who is interested.
Gary Farrell has done little to endear himself to his neighbors during this process, but to stand by and see him compelled
to spend the money to build this off‐street path would make no sense. Neither the recreation community, nor the
development’s homeowners, would benefit. Indeed, this could be regarded as a path from nowhere, to nowhere!
Please allow the on‐street placement of the rec path—this by far makes the most sense, is most cost‐effective, and will
provide contiguity with the sidewalks to the south.
Respectfully,
Michael J. Scollins
214 Meadowood Dr, South Burlington, VT 05403