HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06B_SD-20-40_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_PP_SC_2021-02-17
1
1 of 34
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-20-40_500 Old Farm_OBrien
Eastview_PP_staffcomm.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: February 10, 2021
Plans received: October 26, 2020
500 Old Farm Road
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-40
Meeting date: February 17, 2021
Owner
O’Brien Family Limited Liability Company, Daniel and
Sandra O’Brien, Stephanie O’Brien
1855 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
O’Brien Eastview, LLC
1855 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0970-00255
Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD and
Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning Districts
Traffic Overlay District Zones 1 and 3, Transit Overlay
District
102 acres
Engineer
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.
164 Main Street
Colchester VT 05446
Location Map
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
2
2 of 34
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC to create a planned unit development of
six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6
acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings
on nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (19) commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one
existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Board reviewed sketch plan application SD-20-10 for this project on April 7 and 28, 2020. Topics on
which the Board provided feedback at those meetings were as follows.
• In general, the three zoning districts should be integrated and connected, including vehicular
connectivity.
• The north end of Old Farm Road should be compatible with the scale of Kimball Ave
• There should be more than one point of connectivity between Hillside and Eastview
• There should be connectivity between the industrial/commercial area and the residential
neighborhood
• The applicant should provide proof of concept that the lots near the intersection of Kimball Ave
and Kennedy Drive can work as proposed to be subdivided
• Roadways should align at 4-way intersections not staggered 3-way intersections
• The Board emphasized retention of existing trees, suggesting tree removal should not be taken
lightly
• Walking paths and unprogrammed recreation spaces should be open to the public
• Construction of recreational elements should be phased to complement the development
• The manner in which Hillside and Eastview phasing will interact should be considered
• Inclusionary housing should be well integrated into the development
The applicant has chosen not to pursue a master plan for this development. Staff notes that there may
be elements of this application which the Board is more familiar with reviewing at a master plan level,
but there is no requirement that there be a master plan and many of the things that would be part of a
master plan, such as waivers or specifying levels of review for future applications, can be incorporated
into a preliminary and final plat.
CONTEXT
The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD, and Mixed Industrial-
Commercial Zoning Districts. The project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 1 and 3 as well as the
Transit Overlay District. The fraction of the project in each of the applicable zoning districts, and the
allowable coverage in each district, follows.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
3
3 of 34
Zoning District Fraction of Project Area Allowable Lot Coverage
R1-PRD 38% 30%
C1-LR 23% 70%
R12 1% 60%
IC 38% 70%
The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the standards of the
applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses. The project is also required to provide inclusionary
housing. While there are no permanent wetland or wetland buffer impacts proposed as part of this
preliminary plat application, the applicant is proposing to subdivide lots containing wetlands, therefore
wetland protection standards are addressed to the extent applicable.
These staff comments address the applicable criteria of the LDR, but are organized beginning with those
criteria for which Staff considers the Board’s feedback will most impactful to the project design,
therefore the order of criteria may be somewhat unfamiliar to the Board. Zoning district and
dimensional standards are included at the end; Staff considers that if the Board finds the project to be a
good design meeting the LDRs, the waivers required to achieve the proposed design should be granted.
The project is adjacent to the Hillside phase of the O’Brien development, referred to in the sketch plan
staff comments as MP1 (Master Plan 1). It will be referred to interchangeably as MP1 and Hillside
herein. Hillside includes 508 homes, of which 390 units have as yet only received preliminary plat
approval.
As noted in the project description, this proposed preliminary plat consists of the following elements:
• 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings as well as a resident club. These
homes are centered along Old Farm Road.
• nineteen (19) commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres. These development lots are
located in the C1-LR and I-C zoning districts, which have different allowed uses but similar
dimensional standards. No development of these lots is proposed at this time, but the road
network serving these lots, including connectivity to the currently proposed residential phase, is
presented for approval.
• one existing single family home and associated lot. This single family home is located at the
southern end of the development and is included because the applicant may wish to
incorporate it’s redevelopment at a later phase.
• 25.1 acres of spaces for passive and active recreation and stormwater management. These
open spaces consist of recreational lots as well as lots reserved for stormwater treatment and
lots preserved for their natural resource features. A detailed breakdown of this open space is
included in these notes.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on October 26, 2020 and offer the following comments.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
4
4 of 34
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) GENERAL COMMENTS
Phasing
The Applicant has submitted a phasing plan as part of their application package, but has specifically
stated that the phases are not proposed in any sequence. Staff assumes therefore that the roadways
and buildings shown on the provided plans are requested for approval as part of this preliminary plat.
Limitations on what Staff recommends the Board approve are included herein.
Despite the applicant’s comment that the provided phases are not proposed in any sequence, the
applicant then goes on to describe the proposed general sequence for the project at the end of page 54
of their application narrative.
In terms of the planned phasing, it is Applicant’s intent to start with the Meadow Loop Phase. This
will provide a mix of townhome and single-family product, and also includes the proposed
inclusionary units. In this manner, the inclusionary units will be some of the first built in the
development, and the Board can feel confident that they are happening concurrently, as required.
Applicant would then proceed with Village Green Phase, and the Legacy Farm, Mountainview and
North Slope Phase, working its way back south to complete the Legacy Farm loop road. As
mentioned above, construction of the Open Space phases can be timed with unit count triggers in the
residential phases. Keeping in mind that we would want to complete construction on surrounding
areas prior to opening the parks for safety reasons.
Additional discussion of inclusionary units is included below.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a specific proposal for phasing,
including triggers for specific features to include the recreation path network, park land and
amenities, trail connections to Hillside, temporary gravel access to the exercise loop, the exercise
loop itself, improvements to the south end of Old Farm Road, and traffic improvements including
signal installation, prior to concluding the hearing for this application. Such a proposal should
include timing of each element and group elements in a logical manner.
Lot Coverage
The majority of the portion of the project proposed for development at this time is in the R1 district,
limited to 30% lot coverage1. The Board is prohibited from granting a waiver of this maximum coverage
by 15.02A(4)(b). While Staff considers an entirely different design may take better advantage of the
available lot coverage, within the constraints of the applicant’s desired development patterns, the
applicant has demonstrated that lot coverage is the limiting factor in their design; adding coverage
anywhere within the R1-PRD requires removal of coverage somewhere else in the R1-PRD.
1 including increased coverage for accommodation of required inclusionary housing units
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
5
5 of 34
B) RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
14.06A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
15.18 Criteria for Review of PUDs, Subdivisions, Transect Zone Subdivisions, and Master Plans
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.
Goals of the comprehensive plans include the following.
• affordable & community strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors.
• walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
• green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington
• opportunity oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
The project is located in the both the northwest quadrant and northeast quadrant land use planning
areas, with Old Farm Road being the dividing line. Specific objectives of the northwest quadrant include
the following.
48. Maintain existing affordable diverse residential neighborhoods and access to neighborhood
parks and other amenities.
49. Allow for infill development, including parks and civic spaces that serves and supports the
character of existing neighborhoods; with a focus on the replacement of small single-family
affordable homes that have been bought and demolished under the Burlington International
Airport’s “Property Acquisition Plan” in association with its adopted Noise Compatibility
Program.
50. Create transitions from the Burlington International Airport in areas identified for redevelopment
that serve or buffer nearby neighborhoods; establish a community vision for the future of this
area.
51. Ensure continued compatibility of University land uses with existing development and
conservation patterns.
Objectives of the northeast quadrant are as follows.
52. Allow opportunities for employers in need of larger amounts of space, provided they are
compatible with the operation of the airport.
53. Provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource conservation, and business park opportunities in
the south end of the Quadrant, to include the conservation of open space resources, including
riparian corridors along the tributaries of Muddy Brook and Potash Brook.
The Plan also includes a strategy specific to this area:
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
6
6 of 34
120. Promote the effective transition from rural residential and agricultural land uses along Old Farm
Road to more dense housing and mixed uses in highly serviced areas along Kennedy Drive and
Kimball Avenue. Such transition should incorporate interconnected greenways and forested open
space.
Land use policies in this area are identified in the comprehensive plan as medium intensity residential to
mixed use west of Old Farm Road, and medium to higher intensity principally non-residential east of Old
Farm Road, with a small pocket of medium to higher intensity – mixed use near the intersection of
Kimball Ave and Kennedy Drive.
2. Staff considers the Board should let these goals and objectives guide their decision making in review
of this project.
C) TRANPORTATION AND CONNECTIVITY
15.18A(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB 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.
15.12F(1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have
an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the
fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement
on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout.
The applicant has provided an 18-page traffic study (Exhibit 014), with 150 pages of appendices
(excluded, available upon request), discussing the project’s proposed impacts on outside roadways.
They’ve also provided two conceptual road widening drawings (Exhibit 015 and 016).
In general, Staff considers the applicant’s proposed intersection improvements to be conservative
and not entirely responsive to the recently-completed 2020 Kimball Ave-Tilley Drive Land Use and
Transportation Study, prepared by VHB for the City and CCRPC. Specific instances are discussed
below under each intersection.
The Study assessed the transportation improvements that would be needed to serve the buildout of
the area in the vicinity of Community Drive, Kimball Ave, Old Farm Road, Tilley Drive, and
Meadowland Drive. The study coupled buildout projects provided by landowners in the area with
the City’s transportation goals and developed a series of recommended improvements. These
improvements were parsed into “thirds” of the overall buildout in order to provide a level of
prioritization.
The study concluded the following: “Although the full build out of the study area is likely to occur
over multiple decades (and may likely never hit the full build out levels evaluated in this study), the
incremental development approach employed in this study allowed for the identification and
evaluation of improvements at various phases of development to foster a compact, multi-modal, and
mixed-use development pattern. As shown through the analysis summarized in this report, the trips
generated under the full build-out scenario can be accommodated with the construction of several
connector streets, moderate intersection upgrades, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
improvements, and transit enhancements totaling approximately $45 million.” [emphasis added]
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
7
7 of 34
3. Staff considers the Board should let the conclusions of the Tilley Drive study guide their decision
making in review of this project.
The discussion that follows briefly addresses each point of intersection.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to have a meeting with their traffic consultant
and City Staff to review the proposed traffic improvements in the context of the Kimball Ave/
Tilley Drive Study prior to issuing findings on this application and to report back to the Board.
5. Staff recommend the Board invoke a third-party technical review for compliance with the
Regulations and consistency with the Kimball Ave / Tilley Drive Study.
14.06B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(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.
The applicant is proposing a roadway network to serve the residential and commercial areas. The
applicant is proposing to construct the roadways in the commercial areas, including the roadway
separating the homes on Lot 30 from the commercial area on Lot 28, at a later stage. At this time
there is no development proposed in those areas.
6. Staff recommends the Board explicitly limit their findings for the roadways in the commercial
areas to the locations of the rights of way, access points, and the bicycle network except in
specific circumstances as noted herein, while deferring findings on plantings, pedestrian
movement, and adequacy of parking for those roadways to such time as the roadway is
proposed for construction. Staff considers that since no concept of the development of the lot
served by the future roadways has been presented, it would be premature to make findings on
the adequacy of plantings, pedestrian movement, or parking in those areas.
Staff has carried this recommended approach for the commercial roadways throughout this
document.
Staff considers all elements of these above criteria apply to the residential area, and has addressed
each element of this and related criteria in detail below.
Transitions between outside neighborhoods and Project
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
8
8 of 34
Kimball Ave and Kennedy Drive (1): The applicant is proposing five lanes at the intersection of
Kimball and Kennedy, where three lanes exist today. City goals do not support intersection
widening without careful consideration. The 2020 Kimball-Tilley Drive Land Use and
Transportation Study, further, identifies no need for widening at this Intersection. Further, the
applicant’s traffic study concludes that the intersection, without widening, will perform at Level
of Service (LOS) D and will have a volume/capacity ratio below 1 (1 indicating the intersection is
at capacity) at all but the full build PM peak hour, where full build includes all of the commercial
lots being developed. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant be required provide for
signal timing improvements at Kimball and Kennedy, rather than widening. Staff further
recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to provide an updated
evaluation of this intersection at the time of application for development for more than 50% of
the commercial lots, being either the 10th lot or 22 acres.
Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road (2): The provided plans propose five lanes on Kimball Ave and
three lanes on Old Farm Road at this intersection, and a signal. The applicant has concluded
that even with additional lanes, a signal is needed. Staff concurs with the need for a signal (as it
also identified in the Kimball/Tilley Study) but recommends the Board require the applicant to
work with the City to develop a less impactful design for this intersection.
Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road (3): The traffic study concludes that this intersection is
already operating below acceptable levels, and recommends a short dedicated right turn lane
on Old Farm Road to alleviate those issues. The applicant has provided a rough sketch of what
those improvements could look like but has not provided detailed civil engineering drawings.
Staff preliminarily supports the conclusions of the traffic study at this intersection and
recommends the Board require the applicant provide a detailed design of the proposed
improvements at the next stage of review.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
9
9 of 34
Old Farm Road (4): The traffic study does not specifically address proposed traffic calming
measures on Old Farm Road. At sketch, the Board expressed a desire to see Old Farm Road be
modified to slow speeds, not necessarily through retrofit measures but through good design.
The applicant has submitted a “Old Farm Road Traffic Calming Measures” exhibit, dated
5/28/2020, which proposes raised intersections at both ends of Legacy Farm Ave2 and a raised
crosswalk with flashing beacon at the mid-block crosswalk between the ends of Legacy Farm
Ave. The applicant has also proposed a “New Gateway” south of Legacy Farm Ave, described
but not illustrated in Exhibit 009. At sketch, feedback from the Director of Public Works was
against a one-way segment on Old Farm Road.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to make the “gateway” two-way and
incorporate a detailed design into the civil engineering plans for the project at the next stage of
review.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee provided a number of comments on 1/29/2021
pertaining to Old Farm Road. In summary, the Committee has recommended that a shared use
path be installed along the entire west side length of Old Farm Road, from Kimball Ave to
Hinesburg Road. The applicant’s plans show a recreation path from Kimball Ave to O’Brien Farm
Road, a sidewalk from O’Brien Farm Road to Legacy Road, and no improvements south of that
point.
Staff notes that in addition to being strongly recommended by the Committee, this shared use
path is identified as an important connector in the Kimball Ave / Tilley Drive study as a means to
meet the overall transportation needs of this area.
It should be noted that, whenever possible, driveways should not intersect with a shared use
path as this presents a safety issue (see link to photo of Hillside Phase 1 on O’Brien Farm
Road). However, a shared use path on one side of a more heavily used road like Old Farm
Road is better than only having sidewalks on both sides of such a road.
The Bike-Ped Committee recommends avoiding bike lanes running parallel to on-street
parking. The City should strive for separated bicycle facilities whenever on-street parking is
made available. When this is not possible, bike lanes should not be used. Instead,
“Sharrows” indicating that the vehicle lanes need to be shared by bicycles and vehicles
should be used in place of bike lanes.
For the most part, the applicant has created a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. The
Committee recommends that traffic calming mechanisms such as bump outs and speed
tables be employed to reduce the speed of traffic on Old Farm Road to assist residents in
safely crossing the road. To best create a pedestrian friendly streetscape, the Committee
recommends the addition of park benches, street trees, public art features, etc. along
sidewalks and shared use paths.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a shared use path on the west side
of Old Farm Road from Kimball Ave to Hinesburg Road.
2 Here and throughout the document, Staff has used the road names provided by the applicant for clarity. The
Planning Commission is the authority which determines road names, therefore road names referenced herein are
subject to change.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
10
10 of 34
8. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a greater number of
parallel parking spaces to act as “guest parking” for residents, as the residential streets have
limited or no on-street parking.
Staff reminds the Board that there are a number of elements of traffic calming, including a
thoughtfully designed road cross section, and home placement resulting in a neighborhood feel,
that can greatly contribute to lowered speeds.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide typical sections of Old Farm Road
prior to issuing a decision on Preliminary Plat, including a depiction of the proximity of homes to
the street, and to demonstrate that the provided measures, taken as a whole, result in Old Farm
Road acting as the central feature of the neighborhood, with low speeds and accommodations
for all users.
The applicant has specifically requested they not construct the realignment of Old Farm Road
until the commercial development at the north end of the project. The applicant’s traffic study
concludes realignment of the north end of Old Farm Road is not needed until development in
the C1-LR zone at the north end of the project occurs. Staff recommends the Board defer a
decision on the required phasing of Old Farm Road until 1) after the applicant has submitted a
proposed phasing plan, 2) after the applicant’s traffic consultant has met with City Staff, and 3)
if technical review of the traffic study is performed, after the results of that technical review are
available. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to keep the north end of Old Farm
Road in continuous service throughout the construction of the realignment
Old Farm Road and Obrien Farm Road
The Kimball/Tilley Drive study identified a long-term need for a signal at this intersection.
Staff recommends that the applicant demonstrate that the intersection geometry can
accommodate a future signal, that conduit be designed and installed and that mast stand
locations be identified on the plans.
10. Taken as a whole, all the above transportation comments point to the concept that this is a
transportation system, not a series of intersections, that need improvement. Staff recommends
the Board direct the applicant to look at the traffic network comments holistically.
Lot 31 (5): The applicant has designed the western homes on Lot 31 with rear, alley-served
garages in order to enhance their presence on Old Farm Road. Staff supports this configuration,
though the applicant has expressed reservations about the marketability of detached garages.
Staff considers the detached garages create a rear yard space and degree of privacy that other
proposed homes do not have, being either through lots or having rear yards facing the rear
yards of other homes or common lands.
11. Because of the advantageous street presence created by this rear-loaded configuration, and the
unusable space created by the proposed configuration between the eastern homes and the alley
(there is a short section of steep grade immediately behind the eastern homes on Lot 31), Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide rear-loading for the remainder of the
homes on Lot 31. If the Board has concerns about feasibility of this configuration, Staff
recommends the Board invoke technical review. The applicant has indicated concern about
sloped yards, but if the alley were central to Lot 31, Staff considers both sets of homes could
have larger rear yards with a gradual slope.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
11
11 of 34
Other Intersections: In addition to the above-described intersections and roadways, the provided
traffic study evaluates the project’s impacts on the following more remote intersections and
concludes no physical improvements are needed, though in some cases signal timing improvements
are recommended.
• Williston Road and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road
• Williston Road and Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive
• Williston Road and Gregory Drive/Palmer Court
• Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road
• Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Dr
• Kimball Ave and Gregory Drive/Community Drive
Staff preliminarily considers there are no obvious concerns with these intersections at this time, but
recommends that this be confirmed as part of the review with the Kimball Ave/ Tilley Drive Study.
Connections/Transitions between Project and Hillside
Feedback from the Board at sketch was to improve connections (and by extension, transitions)
between the first Master Plan area (Hillside) and the currently proposed development. As
proposed, there is only one vehicular connection between the properties, located at the north end
of the development area, and two off-road sidewalk connections.
12. The Board should discuss whether they want the connection to Hillside occur via Split Rock Court
as part of this project or whether the applicant must demonstrate that the connection via Ledge
Way can work in the future.
Relevant considerations are:
• Hillside contains 158 homes in the single family, duplex and triplex development area to the
south (Hillside Phase 1).
• Development in the Industrial-Commercial zoning district could potentially result in 910,000
sf of commercial space3.
• If a southern connection is required for this phase, the community open space on Lot 18
would have to be moved north, and Meadow Loop reconfigured to accommodate it. The
Recreation & Parks Committee should be involved in any required redesign.
Connections Industrial-Commercial area to Tilley Drive area
The Official Map shows a north-south connection between approximate mid-point of Tilley Drive
and Kimball Ave, roughly where the applicant has shown the central walking path and open space
area between the proposed homes and the Industrial-Commercial Area. 24 V.S.A. § 4421 requires
reservation of lands designated for roads on the official map, but allows the Board to make minor
changes to locations of roads at the time as the parcel containing the future roadway is reviewed.
3 for scale, the recently approved FedEx warehouse on Community Drive is 144,000 sf. There is the potential for
more than six FedEx sized developments in the I-C zoning district.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
12
12 of 34
LDR 15.12D(4) requires that roadways be constructed to the property line if the DRB finds that a
connection to the adjacent may or could occur in the future.
With consideration of the comments of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee that the
official map roadway is located in an area well suited for wildlife connectivity, Staff supports
relocation of the road, but considers any relocation must continue to support a connection to Tilley
Drive as required by the official map.
13. The Tilley Drive PUD has recorded an easement to the subject property line, which Staff considers
does not appear to connect to the proposed I/C Road. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to modify their proposal to provide a viable collector roadway connection to the
dedicated easement as required by the official map, and demonstrate coordination with those
responsible for the Tilley Drive PUD. Any such modification should provide access to each of the
proposed lots in the I/C area, and accommodate the Board’s direction as pertains to connection
between the residential phase and the I/C phase of this PUD.
Transitions within Project between Zoning Districts
Residential to Industrial-Commercial
Feedback from the Board at sketch was to improve connections between the residential and
industrial-commercial areas of the development. There are currently no proposed vehicular
connections between these areas. East-west connections have been identified as a need in
South Burlington comprehensive plans since before zoning existed. In the larger context, the
Official Map shows a north-south connection between approximate mid-point of Tilley Drive
and Kimball Ave, roughly where the applicant has shown the central walking path and open
space area between the proposed homes and the Industrial-Commercial Area. The Official Map
also calls for an “appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O’Brien farm
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
13
13 of 34
property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or
an immediately adjacent are.”
14. Staff recommends the Board undertake a similar discussion to connections between Hillside and
the current project by asking the applicant to describe how residents will travel between the
residential area and the industrial-commercial area to the east, and then provide feedback to the
applicant on whether the provided non-vehicular connections between the two areas are
adequate for the currently proposed design.
15. If the Board considers that additional connectivity between the residential and industrial-
commercial areas is not required now, Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring
that such connection be provided prior to development of the industrial-commercial area in the
decision on this application to facilitate the applicant’s planning of those areas. Staff
recommends the Board leave whether the connection is to be vehicular or non-vehicular for
future determination.
Residential to Commercial-Limited Residential
Staff considers connections between the residential and commercial areas to the north to be
appropriate in terms of their general locations.
Because the commercial areas are not yet programmed, Staff considers the specific transitions
between structure and site should be reviewed at a later stage.
16. Since the applicant is presumably seeking approval for the proposed roadways in the R1 and C1-
LR zones, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a pavement marking
plan, or show pavement markings on the civil site plans, to allow evaluation of the proposed
roadways. Further, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide as many typical
roadway cross sections as necessary to allow evaluation of the proposed roads. The applicant
has provided an exhibit showing non-vehicular path type, but the spacing between road and
sidewalk, and whether the roads include a shoulder, bike lane, or other, is not known at this
time. Staff notes the Director of Public Works has also requested a signage plan to accompany
the pavement marking plan.
Internal Roadways
Industrial/Commercial Road
As noted above, Staff recommends the Board specifically include a condition indicating that only
the location of the right of way for this road is reviewed, as the specific design needs will be
driven by the type of development proposed on the lots in that area. Further discussion of the
location of this road is included below under 14.07(A) Access to Abutting Properties. Should
the Board choose to instead consider approval this road, Staff considers additional review is
needed prior to closing the hearing.
The applicant is also proposing an east-west easement in the I/C district, between lots 42 and
42. This easement is proposed to be 50-feet wide and is presumably to address the fact that
Lots 40 and 41 otherwise have no access to a road. This easement is located where the Board
previously directed the applicant to provide a connection between the residential and
industrial/commercial portions of the development. Staff recommends if the Board accepts the
proposed subdivision of land in the IC zoning district as part of this application, then the
applicant should be required to simultaneously provide this road as a ROW rather than an
easement, and meet the minimum ROW width for a commercial road of 60-ft.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
14
14 of 34
Legacy Farm Ave
This local road is proposed to be 20-ft wide with a short section at 28-feet with parking on one
side. The standard dimension for local roads is 28-feet with parking, though the Board is
authorized to allow modifications that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff
recommends the Board accept the proposed road width and alignment.
Legacy Farm Ave Extension
This local road is proposed to be 15-feet wide with a flush 5-foot sidewalk on one side.
15.12 requires a minimum roadway width of 20-ft. It allows extension and the addition
of homes to the west between it and Old Farm Road. This road could potentially
connect to the Tilley Drive area to the south or to Old Farm Road to the west. The
Board approved similarly narrow roads with the potential to connect to other residential
roads in the Hillside neighborhood.
17. However, Staff recommends the Board require a minimum 20-ft road in this instance
because this roadway connects to an adjacent commercial area.
Meadow Loop
At sketch the Board asked the applicant to align the ends of this road to be 4-way intersections.
The road is proposed to be 20-ft wide with no on-street parking. While this has not been done,
it has been improved to no longer have intersections which are “almost” 4-way intersections.
Staff recommends the Board accept the proposed road width and alignment.
O’Brien Farm Road East
This road is proposed to be generally 20-feet wide with a section at 28-feet with on-street
parallel parking. The applicant has proposed to end this road in a cul-de-sac with a small parking
area with access to walking trails and a dog park 4. Culs-de-sac are only allowed in residential
districts. The applicant has requested a waiver of this restriction.
The LDR discourages creation of dead-end roads. No concept of how the commercial lots north
of this road could be developed is provided (noted above as a request of the Board at sketch),
therefore Staff considers it premature to determine whether the proposed roadway is
appropriate. For example, it may be more appropriate to have a 24-foot road for commercial
vehicles, parallel parking along the entire length of this road or a different location for the
roadway all together. If the Board considers accepting the proposal for a dead end road in this
location, Staff underscores the importance of other internal and external connections as
discussed herein. See also discussion of homes on O’Brien Farm Road East below.
18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to refine the design of the roadway at such
time as they seek development of the commercial lots.
19. Since the amenities at the end of the road are for residents, Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to provide a temporary gravel parking lot near Old Farm Road and extend the
walking path to the parking lot prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the 60th unit
(representing the mid-point of homes exclusive of those on O’Brien Farm Road East).
4 Of note, the minimum (and proposed) radius of 48-feet does not allow for a central planted island. If the
applicant wishes to provide a central planted island, the radius must be larger.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
15
15 of 34
As noted above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose phasing of other
recreational spaces prior to closing the hearing.
Traffic Overlay District
The north end of Old Farm Road presently is in the Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. The applicant
may not generate more than 15 vehicle trips per PM peak hour per 40,000 sf of development area
at the Old Farm intersection without access management, additional connections between
properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access that produces “a net benefit for traffic
flow in the immediate vicinity of the project” (LDR 10.02H(1)). This calculation allows for a trip
budget of 1675 trips. The currently proposed 135 homes are projected to add 127 trips. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant verify that their development build-out projections are
consistent with the traffic overlay district and confirm the development remains in compliance with
the traffic overlay district at each subsequent phase of development.
15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways
With the exception of the proposed alley on Lot 31, Staff considers all proposed roadways are
required to be public. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring a title report and
draft irrevocable offer of dedication for proposed public roadways as part of the final plat
application.
Transitions from Structure to Structure
Resident Club to Homes (1)
The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the existing barn on Lot 32 into a resident club with
associated swimming pool. The club features are described on page 38 of the applicant’s
narrative and architectural plans are included as Exhibit 13. Staff considers the front elevation
of the resident club could be better designed to complement the proposed home architecture
and recommends the Board direct the applicant to refine the design to incorporate
complementary elements at the next stage of review.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
16
16 of 34
Staff has worked closely with the applicant on the layout of Lot 32 and 33. While Staff believes
the configuration presented is close to the best configuration available given the applicant’s
desire to construct single family, duplex, and triplex homes, the rear of the homes on Lot 33 are
only 70 to 75-feet from the center of the proposed recreation area. Given human nature to give
people space, this proximity significantly reduces the effective area of the recreation area.
20. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to shift the east-west sidewalk on Lot 32
south to be along the Lot 32-Lot 33 property line, and design the homes on Lot 33 to have the
appearance of fronts from both Legacy Farm Ave and from the sidewalk to the rear. Staff
recommends the Board discourage a heavy buffer in this area, and instead encourage the homes
on Lot 33 to use Lot 32 as their neighborhood play area.
Homes on Meadow Loop (2)
The applicant is proposing the homes on Lot 20 face Old Farm Road and have garages facing
Meadow Loop. While Staff recognizes the challenges of this configuration, the presented
elevations begin to have the feeling of a very closed façade.
21. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to improve this aesthetic to create an attractive
transition from one side of Meadow Loop to the other, perhaps to include split garage doors
instead of large two car garage doors, fenced front yards, or other features as the Board may
suggest or the applicant envision. See additional discussion of building street presence
throughout.
22. At the North end of Meadow Loop the applicant is proposing six smaller units in what
approximates a “cottage court” configuration with rear loaded driveways. What makes
something a cottage court is a central common space that is clearly defined and made inviting
for use by the residents. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a
thoughtfully designed central common space, and demonstrate that the architectural design of
these homes is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Further, Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to add a sidewalk connection from the cross-lot sidewalk south of
the cottage court to Old Farm Road, as the sidewalk currently dead ends at Meadow Loop.
Homes on Legacy Farm Ave (3)
23. Of the available single family home types, SF-5 is the only one which has a garage protruding
past the front of the home. While the LDR’s prohibition on protruding garages is only applicable
with the SEQ, Staff considers that these homes would detract from the street presence and
activated feel the applicant has worked so hard to achieve elsewhere in the development, and
recommends the Board require the applicant to rework these home types to have either side
facing garages or garages which do not protrude.
Homes on O’Brien Farm Road East (4)
The applicant has provided a rendering of these homes as “Exhibit 33.” These homes have no
street-facing presence, and no back yards. The rear of the homes face a 5-foot retaining wall
and steep slope. Staff considers a different building format, such as 4-unit multifamily buildings
without garages, may be a better fit in this area, as may a different alignment of O’Brien Farm
Road East.
24. Staff considers these homes have much room for improvement and recommends that the Board
direct the applicant to provide a plan for how the north and south sides of the road can be built
out in a coordinated manner prior to closing the hearing. Buildings should be designed which
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
17
17 of 34
create a street facing presence and interface with the as-yet unplanned buildings within the
commercial area on the north side of this road. Staff reminds the Board that buildings must face
on streets. Alternatively, Staff considers that the applicant may remove these homes from this
stage of review.
Adequacy of Planting
The applicant at this stage has shown only trees in the linear recreation areas, and no supplemental
plantings shown around the natural features or stormwater features. Staff considers it does not
appear the minimum required landscaping budget has been programmed, leaving room for the
Board to direct where plantings should be focused to support transitions. The Natural Resources
and Conservation Committee reviewed the project on 1/11/2021 and recommends the following.
A new fifty-foot-wide hedgerow to connect the hedgerow to the south with the wetland corridor
to the north creating a complete protective wildlife habitat corridor across the middle of the
property. Such a corridor could be parallel and adjacent to the planned recreation path. Such a
corridor would utilize the culvert under Kimball Avenue for road crossings.
Separately, the NRCC offers this comment.
The paths and green corridors would be excellent areas to plant native trees species and native
flowering plants for wildlife & pollinators. Has this been considered, or are the
developers/managers planning to mow along the paths and green corridors?
Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to prioritize plantings in the manner the NRCC
recommends, with a strong emphasis on native species. If the applicant wishes to plant non-native
species, their use should be limited to along the roads and the parks within the developed area.
Safe pedestrian movement
As quoted above, the Bicycle and Pedestrian committee recommends “the addition of park benches,
street trees, public art features, etc. along sidewalks and shared use paths.” Further, they offer that
“the committee is fine with the internal connectivity except as noted [pertaining to Old Farm Road].
This assumes that all stairways include ramps for ADA uses, bicycles and strollers.”
25. Staff recommends the Board require all stairways include ramps and direct the applicant to
prioritize the use of landscaping dollars to create attractive “pause places” along bike and
pedestrian routes in appropriate locations.
Adequacy of parking areas
The applicant is proposing seven parking spaces near the dog park and recreation trail, discussed
above pertaining to O’Brien Farm Road East, and twenty-four parking spaces at the “Resident Club.”
Staff considers these spaces adequate. Driveways are proposed to be approximately one car length
long, and the rear-loaded homes have two car garages and one “guest” space. There are a handful
of places on-street parallel parking is proposed. Staff considers all of these parking features to be
adequate.
There is no parking proposed at the Lot 18 open space. While this space is not large enough for a
regulation sports field, Staff recommends the Board require parallel parking along Old Farm Road in
this location to allow a drop-off zone for residents bringing sports equipment or grills, and to
provide parking for those with limited mobility.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
18
18 of 34
D) OPEN SPACES
15.18A(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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural
resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to
the City of South Burlington.
As indicated on the provided “Open Space Plan,” (exhibit 31), the applicant is proposing 24.4 acres of
open spaces, though 5.9 acres are wetlands and buffers and 1.8 acres are dedicated for stormwater
management, leaving 16.65 acres of open spaces available for the enjoyment of residents. Staff
assumes some of this acreage is contained in the perimeter of stormwater management features and
in the densely wooded area to the far east of the I/C zone.
Connectivity of natural areas has been discussed above under transitions and connectivity.
The Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed the project and provided comments on 12/21/2020.
The committee encourages the concept of the natural playground elements as they are
appealing to multiple ages and promote free play exploration
Recommendations for Dog Parks is a minimum of 1 acre (though additional space is always
appreciated) with rounded corner fencing and sections for both large and small dogs. There
should be both pedestrian connectivity and parking access at the dog park that is sufficient to
support the neighborhood population. If this is deemed to be an amenity of the city, larger
parking should be considered to welcome others from the greater community.
Green spaces are highly desirable and the variety of size and locations of the green spaces is
nicely laid out through the scattered design. Keeping this network of open spaces is encouraged
as the overall design is refined.
The project should consider a policy and management plan around invasive species throughout
the development; removal of buckthorn and other invasive species should occur as part of this
project development.
Connectivity of trails (both walking and biking) is crucial. While the Bike and Pedestrian
committee may have more critical points to review, the overall flow and connectivity of
pathways is pleasing and should add to the overall recreation potentials of the project. The
Recreation and Parks Committee is highly supportive of the concepts of fitness equipment or
stations installed along one of the circular walking trails and would be a unique element for
South Burlington.
The Committee would like to be involved with further discussions around the recreation assets of
the development if there is consideration to turn them over to the city or to allow for greater
community access. Additional parking at the dog park, trailhead and playground area may be
necessary for this to happen. The committee would highly encourage a staff level conversation
with Recreation and Parks and DPW to ensure there are human and financial resources to
support any notions of allowing and promoting broader South Burlington population access.
While these comments are generally favorable to the proposed design, Staff recommends the Board
ask the Recreation and Parks committee to review any significant changes to the provided open space
areas.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
19
19 of 34
Regarding ownership of the recreational spaces, there is no established procedure for which shall be
public and which shall be private. Staff recommends the following ownership scheme.
• Park on west side of Old Farm Road: Public
• Park at O’Brien Farm / Old Farm Road: private, open for public use
• Resident club: private, with grounds open for public use
• Dog park: solicit feedback of Dog Park committee
• Exercise loop: private, open for public use
• Green at cottage court: private
26. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to work with City Recreation and Parks Staff to
develop a proposal on ownership prior to closing the hearing.
E) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
The following section addresses additional general (14.06) and specific (14.07) site plan review
standards.
14.06 General Review Standards
B(2) Parking
The Board is prohibited by 15.02A(4) from granting waivers of this criterion even in the case of a
PUD.
(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.
(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 or of the following criteria are met. The
Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirement of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ii) the parking area will serve a single or two-family home
Most of the parking falls under this exemption.
(iii) and (iv) Not applicable
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation
27. Staff considers this exception applies to parking at the terminus of O’Brien Farm Road
East, but recommends the Board discuss whether they can consider it applicable to the
parking at the Resident Club. Since no waiver is allowed, Staff considers the Board may
find the applicant is required to make “the principal use” of the Resident Club lot, Lot 32,
available for public rather than private recreation. This would not prohibit a portion of
the lot, including the building and pool, from being private.
(c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all
parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one
half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
20
20 of 34
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of
the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic.
Staff considers (b) and (c) apply to the parking for three-family homes and that the parking
meets these criteria as proposed.
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 anticipated adjoining
buildings.
28. Staff has no concerns about the height or scale of the proposed buildings. The applicant has
requested a height waiver and accompanying setback waiver or framework or criteria for height
and setback waiver for the buildings on the commercial lots. Since no design is provided, it
would be premature to grant a height waiver, but Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to provide such a framework for a waiver. A framework could include elements of design such as
stepped back upper story facades where adjacent to single, two family and three family homes,
awnings or stoops, a minimum amount of fenestration, maximum height relative to proposed
grade at any point along any front facade, and should also include a ceiling on total maximum
height allowed.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
All buildings are proposed to have the same architectural style. Staff considers this criterion
met.
(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.
See discussion of buildings under 14.06B(1) above.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
See additional discussion above under Transportation.
Staff recommends the Board find there shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm
Road between Kimball Ave and O’Brien Farm Road and no additional curb cuts beyond that for I/C Road,
and those needed for infrastructure maintenance, onto Kennedy Drive or Kimball Avenue be permitted.
There is an existing dedicated pedestrian easement across the northern side of Business Park Lot 4. This
easement is a “placeholder” for a future trail network. At this time, some parcels have formalized
pedestrian access through this area.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
21
21 of 34
29. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to include an off-road footpath across this lot, though
it need not go in the location of the existing easement so long as it can be demonstrated that it connects
to pedestrian easements on adjoining parcels.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Staff notes that utility services have not been reviewed in detail at this stage of review, but are proposed
to be underground as required. More detailed feedback will be provided at final plat. Staff considers
this criterion enforces the requirement for utility cabinets to be screened.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, 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).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
No solid waste disposal areas are proposed at this time. Staff notes this criterion will continue to apply
if the applicant determines a dumpster facility is needed at the Residential Club.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
As discussed above, only a very high level concept of landscaping is provided. Staff notes landscaping
standards applicable to parking lots will apply to both off-street parking areas and the plans must be
revised to show compliance at final plat.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review
Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure
less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land
development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.
The applicant is requesting several waivers beginning on Page 51 of their application narrative.
Waiver requests 1-10: The applicant is requesting setback waivers on the residential lots. Staff
considers if the Board otherwise finds the proposed development program to be satisfactory, the
requested waivers should be granted, except where the waiver requests less than a 5-ft setback, which
the Board is prohibited from granting. The granting of these waivers should be done once other
concerns described herein are addressed. Staff notes the applicant is requesting a complicated set of
waivers which apply differently to different lots. Staff instead recommends the Board require the
applicant to simplify their requested waivers so they apply uniformly across the residential lots.
30. Waiver Requests 11-12: the applicant is requesting setback waivers on the commercial lots. Since no
concept of development is proposed on the commercial lots, Staff recommends the Board instead offer
the applicant the opportunity to propose a framework which, if satisfied, will result in this waiver request
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
22
22 of 34
being automatically granted when the commercial lots are developed, as discussed in relation to
14.06B(3) above.
31. Waiver Request 13-14: the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to screen between
residential and commercial lots and a waiver of the requirement that building heights on commercial lots
be no more than one story higher than adjacent residential buildings. Staff recommends the Board not
grant such waivers at this time offer the applicant the opportunity to develop a framework for these
waivers.
Waiver Request 15: the applicant is requesting that minimum required landscaping be allowed to be
provided anywhere within the master plan. Since no actual master plan is proposed, Staff considers the
Board cannot grant this waiver. Staff instead recommends the Board allow landscaping to be placed
anywhere within the lots proposed for development (including the recreation loop and park lots) as part
of this application, but not outside these lots, and further that landscaping required in the future be
applied on the lots proposed for development at the time it is required.
Waver Request 16: the applicant is requesting waiver of the requirement to maintain landscaping in
perpetuity in the single family, duplex and three family home area currently proposed for development.
They note this is because the lands will be maintained by individual homeowners. The applicant has not
shown individual lots therefore Staff considers all lands are proposed to be common lands and
recommends the Board not grant this waiver and instead require landscaping to be maintained in
perpetuity. If the applicant wishes to propose individual building lots for the single family and duplex
homes, Staff considers such a waiver would not be necessary as there is no requirement for minimum
landscaping on single family home or duplex lots.
Waiver Request 17: the applicant requests that all single family, duplex and three family homes may
convert their porches to covered porches with only the issuance of a zoning permit. Staff recommends
the Board defer review of this request until such time as issues related to transitions are addressed.
32. Waiver Requests 18-20: the applicant requests that sketch plan and preliminary plat not be required for
subsequent applications within the PUD, and that site plan review be allowed instead of final plat review
for single buildings on single lots. This is a waiver Staff would consider as part of a master plan but has
strong reservations about recommending with the current proposal, as no concept of the commercial lots
has been provided and therefore no framework for under what circumstances such a request may be
acceptable can be developed.
33. Waiver Request 21: “Applicant requests a finding that parking may be permitted with only site plan and
conditional use review in the context of site plan review for a building on any approved lot in the PUD.”
Staff doesn’t understand this request and recommends the Board ask the applicant to rephrase it to
allow its review.
Waiver Request 22: This waiver request pertains to bonding requirements. Staff recommends the
applicant work with City Staff, including the director of public works, to develop a specific proposal for
presentation to the Board at final plat. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to not provide adequate
surety for the City, but some alternative proposal may be acceptable.
Waiver Request 23: the applicant is requesting the Board extend the time the applicant has from the
issuance of final plat to issuance of the first zoning permit from 6 months to two years. Staff considers
this to be unnecessary as the applicant has the ability to request a one-year extension, therefore
allowing 18-months between final plat and the first zoning permit. The applicant has made this request
because of concerns about issuance of other required permits. Staff considers the issuance of other
permits to be a consideration for all projects, without any issues specific to this project. Staff further
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
23
23 of 34
considers this timeline to be in place to protect the City in the event of dramatic regulation changes
between the time of final plat issuance and construction of the project.
Waiver request 24: pertains to cul-de-sac, addressed above.
34. Waiver request 25: the applicant requests waiver of the requirement that construction in the IC zoning
district be exempt from the requirements to have common elements with the remainder of the PUD.
Staff recommends the Board deny this request. If the applicant wishes to consider the IC lands as a
separate PUD, they should remove it from this application.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is
required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The City Stormwater Section provided the following comments via email on February 5, 2021.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Hillside at O’Brien Farm – Eastview” site plan prepared by
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 1/22/2021. We would like to offer the following comments:
1. The applicant should ensure that there is adequate maintenance access to proposed
infrastructure.
2. Will the rec path adjacent to Gravel Wetland #4 have reinforcement that will allow access by
maintenance equipment, such as a vactor truck and other machinery?
3. Ensure there is adequate maintenance access to any sewer lines, sewer manholes, storm lines
and storm drains located outside of the road right-of-way. This includes providing 10’ wide
setback on either side of any pipe that runs between buildings (such as Unit 31-21 & Unit 31-22)
or adjacent to buildings (such as Unit 31-25), resulting in a 20’ wide maintenance access.
4. For the Kimball Ave expansion, new shared use path and new sidewalk, where will the
stormwater from these impervious areas be treated?
5. For the new storm line running parallel to the Kimball Ave Road widening area, is there a reason
this was not located in the roadway?
6. Any footing drains that connect into the stormdrain system should be installed with a backflow
preventer.
7. Gravel Wetland #3 is currently designed to drain back into the stormwater drainage system on
O’Brien Farm Road. Has the collection system been analyzed during various storm events to
ensure it is adequately sized to handle the inflow from this system? Where do flows from the
100-yr storm event discharge to? No emergency spillway is shown.
8. On Gravel Wetland #4, can the outlet pipe be extended under the rec path, so that discharge
from the system is not flowing over the path?
9. Provide all required elements from §12.03 of City’s LDRs, including a narrative, drainage area
maps, and HydroCAD models for review in a future application.
10. Comments on the Gravel Wetland Detail on Sheets D-8 & D-9 will be discussed directly with
engineer as final design plans are developed.
11. Site specific EPSC sheets will need to be developed for this project.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
24
24 of 34
Staff considers comments #3 and #4 may have an impact on the project design. Staff considers the
applicant should address these comments without additional waivers beyond those already sought. In
other words, if a 10-foot drainage easement is required, setbacks should not be further reduced to
accommodate it.
The Natural Resources and Conservation Committee offers the following comment specific to low
impact development.
Minimize production of impervious surfaces. Use light colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement
areas to minimize warming of runoff waters. Consider minimizing impervious surfaces on the
project site and use rain barrels, rain gardens and swales where practical to slow runoff. Utilize
light-colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to decrease the warming of runoff, which can
degrade downstream waters and Lake Champlain.
The applicant has provided a written response to this comment, focusing on the minimization of
impervious surfaces. Stormwater management is proposed to occur in gravel wetlands, which have a
limited amount of surface storage and therefore a lower impact on the warming of runoff than surface
ponds.
35. Nonetheless, Staff recommends the Board consider whether to include a condition requiring the use of
light-colored roofs. Staff considers the Board may wish to request either the Board or the NRCC provide
a specific metric.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See above under transportation
F) SUBDIVSION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
These criteria apply to both the portion of the project proposed for development at this time and the
commercial lots proposed for subdivision but not development.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water
allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has provided an estimate of preliminary water and wastewater flows for the currently
proposed homes. Staff agrees that no allocation for the commercial lots is necessary at this time.
The South Burlington Water Department provided the following comments on 1/29/2021.
Good Afternoon
Here are the SBWD Technical Plan Review comments for SD 20-40 500 Old Farm Road O’Brien
Eastview. I have discussed my two larger concerns (looping) with the engineer who agrees with
my assessment and will forward that information on to the developer. The remaining points are
general.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Jay Nadeau
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
25
25 of 34
1. Sheet C-3: General note: Service taps must not be any closer than 36” from a hydrant tee
or fitting.
2. Sheet C-3: General note: No service lines or curb stops may be placed under driveways
or in sidewalks (curb boxes).
3. Sheet C-3: Continue 12” DI water main to connect to south entrance at Meadow Loop
and Old Farm Road (looping requirement).
4. Sheet C-4: Add third valve at tee in front of building 16-15.
5. Sheet C-6: Extend water main from end of cul-de-sac to Legacy Farm Road (looping
requirement).
6. Sheet C-14: Tie in line between cul-de-sac and Legacy Farm Road.
7. Sheet C-15: Show where water main size changes from 12” to 8” on plans.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate these comments into the final plat
application.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized 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 DRB may rely on evidence that the
project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation.
As noted above by the City Stormwater Section, compliance with this criterion will be reviewed at
final plat.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB 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.
See above under Transportation for the lots proposed for development.
C1-LR lots west of Old Farm Road (lots 17, 21, 22 and 23)
Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring these lots be accessed via Old Farm Road
and O’Brien Farm Road and not via Kimball Ave or Kennedy Drive.
36. The proposed configuration results in lots which have two fronts. Parking is required to be to the
side or rear of buildings. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a concept of
how an adequate amount of parking can be provided on these lots while meeting the required
location standards prior to approval of these lots.
C1-LR lots east of Old Farm Road (Lots 25 – 29)
Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring these lots be accessed via Old Farm Road
and O’Brien Farm Road East. Staff further recommends the Board include a condition requiring these
lots be designed to have an attractive and active street presence facing the residential area to the
south, as alluded to above.
I/C lots (Lots 38 – 46)
Unless an alternative conceptual design is presented, taff recommends the Board require that Lots 38
and 39 share a driveway and lots 40 through 43 share a driveway. Lot 38 has around 260 feet of
frontage on I/C road. A driveway in the center would result in a driveway around 130 feet from the
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
26
26 of 34
intersection, which is not desirable. As discussed above, the configuration of I/C Road must be revised
to allow connection to the Tilley Drive PUD, therefore Staff considers no detailed findings on this
criterion are appropriate for these lots.
(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. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to
wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with
respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
It appears as though wetland impacts are limited to the I/C road, though no wetland buffers are
shown on individual site plans therefore it is not possible to ascertain the extent of temporary buffer
impacts due to grading. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their site plans
to show wetland and buffers on all sheets where present.
Comments of the Natural Resources Conservation Committee are embedded in this document.
37. Pertaining to the I/C road, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to consider an
alignment which minimizes wetland impacts while still providing the required connection to the Tilley
Drive PUD. It appears this would result in the road moving further west.
(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.
This criterion is addressed under 14.06B(2) above for the lots proposed for development.
38. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a framework for assurances of
continuity of architecture and scale within the C1-LR lots and also within the I/C lots. This would be
to prevent circumstances where individual site plans propose dramatically different types of
development from adjoining lots, a circumstance which has been an issue in other industrial
commercial districts. Should the applicant consider such a framework premature, Staff notes there is
no requirement that these lots be part of this PUD.
(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. For
Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources
identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City
of South Burlington.
Discussed above.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that
adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be
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. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with
applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect
Zone subdivisions.
This criterion will be reviewed at final plat.
(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
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
27
27 of 34
to adjacent properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location
and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
See above under Transportation.
(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, absent a specific agreement with
the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone
subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and
sidewalks.
39. For the C1-LR and I/C Lots, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to propose triggers for
construction of roads, including a scheme with which they will reserve funds with each lot to fund
construction of off-site improvements. Staff considers roadway construction should not be done on a
lot by lot basis but should rather be done one whole roadway at a time.
Preliminary comments of the Director of Public Works were received on 2/2/2021. Many of these
comments are incorporated herein. Other specific comments are as follows.
1. One of the supplements showed a ‘special paving’ at the base of Old Farm at Kimball. Please
provide details.
2. The applicant should provide a pavement marking and signage plan. That’s where most of
our comments usually end up.
3. Street light plans should be provided at the next stage of review.
Staff recommends the Board undertake a detailed review of compliance with this criterion at Final
Plat.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
See above under Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff
from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as
possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only
to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations.
See discussion of similar criterion under 14.07F above.
G) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Staff recommends the Board only consider setback and height standards for the lots currently proposed for
development. Lot size should be reviewed for all proposed lots.
Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout.
• Density
• Setbacks
• Heights
• Lot Size
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
28
28 of 34
Staff has not provided a detailed review of these elements as Staff considers that if the project meets the
objectives and considerations discussed elsewhere in this document, these more specific criterion will be
met. Where minor modification of specific dimensional standards is needed to provide the well thought out
and activated neighborhood design discussed herein, Staff recommends the Board grant the necessary
waivers to do so.
H) 18.01 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
B. Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered
for rent. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered
for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative
ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of
Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or
Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition:
(a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional
dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than
n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but
less than n+1.00 are rounded up).
The applicant is proposing to construct 135 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the
applicant must provide 13.5, rounded to 14, inclusionary units.
The affordable housing committee provided comments prior to the applicant submitting some
modifications to the proposed plan. Below is the motion from the 12/15/20 Affordable Housing
Committee meeting that the committee approved.
40. Staff recommends the Board ask the Affordable Housing Committee whether they have any
additional feedback after the above comments pertaining to transitions are addressed.
Mike moved and John seconded motion that committee commend the O’Brien Brothers for
their approach to incorporating inclusionary units in its permit application for the Eastview
component of its Hillside Master Plan and applaud the fact that homeownership constitutes
the entirety of the Eastview component; while simultaneously encouraging them to give
serious consideration to Planning and Zoning staff’s input regarding additional variety in
block layouts and housing types, and broader distribution of the inclusionary units.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b)
(Off-Site Construction) of this Article.
The units are proposed to be constructed on site.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall
layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in
a single building or multiple buildings.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
29
29 of 34
41. The units are proposed to be the middle unit in the three-family buildings. There are only
eight three-family buildings proposed at this time, where 14 units are required. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will provide the remaining
inclusionary units. Staff recommends the Board require the remaining inclusionary units be
provided in different home types to satisfy this criterion.
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and
architectural design details quality of those of the market rate units in the
development. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ
from those of the market rate units.
As long as no architecture specific to inclusionary units is developed, Staff considers this
criterion will be met.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
42. O’Brien Brothers has touted energy efficiency as in important element of this
development in the past, though based on Staff recollection, some of the energy
efficiencies may have an additional up-front cost to home buyers. Staff recommends the
Board as the applicant how they propose to meet this criterion if there is an additional
up-front cost of energy efficiency measures.
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior
amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area
of inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-
bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three
(3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the
market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of
inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less
than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units.
The applicant is aware of this criterion. Staff recommends the Board defer demonstration of
compliance with this criterion to the final plat stage of review.
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly
market rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types.
Inclusionary units developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling
units that have the appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing,
and architectural style.
Staff considers this criterion as restricting inclusionary units to buildings with no more than
four units and with the appearance of single family homes. Staff considers this criterion met.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary
units.
At this time, with the proposed units, Staff considers this criterion met. Staff considers this
criterion should be reevaluated when the required number of units are provided.
(vi) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer
than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects
involving 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
30
30 of 34
to the Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised
estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative
Officer has not issued a zoning permit.
The applicant has stated that they do not believe compliance with this criterion will be an
issue because the preponderance of homes selected in Hillside have been two-bedroom. Staff
recommends the Board require demonstration of compliance with this criterion at final plat.
If the number of bedrooms in the available home types differs thus preventing precise
documentation that this criterion will be met, Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to develop a worst-case scenario estimate for review at final plat.
(vii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially
constructed as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a
bedroom. No more than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be
counted in this manner.
43. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether they intend to provide
unfinished space within inclusionary units.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units.
The applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development
and occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review
Board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based
on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints,
approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
As noted above, the order of the phasing has not been specified; the applicant has only indicated
which pieces of the development are proposed to be built as a phase.
44. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that 25% of the inclusionary units be
constructed and made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on
for each additional 25% construction, or similar scheme with a different percentage.
D. Affordability Requirements The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for
inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary
units under this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and
purchase prices is updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The Vermont specific data is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the
Vermont Housing Finance Agency, in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability
thresholds by income and household size”. Refer to this table in administration of this section.
This section pertains to monthly housing, which may not exceed one twelfth of 30% of the targeted
Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit as measured in number of
bedrooms. It also requires utility costs to be included. Income eligibility must be determined based on
Annual Median Income of no more than 100% Area Median Income targets as measured by HUD.
Administration of continued compliance with these criteria is delegated to the City Manager or their
designees. Staff considers that the Board should require the applicant to provide the required deed
restrictions for continued affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
31
31 of 34
I) 13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS
The applicant is proposing a “gravel extraction area” on Lot 38. This is currently the steepest portion of
the Industrial/Commercial zone and is presently wooded. This area abuts a large area of Class II
wetland. Without any plans for development, the applicant is proposing significant regrading of this
area, including blasting to remove ledge. The applicant has provided extensive equivocation of why they
believe this ledge blasting is advantageous beginning on Page 40 of their narrative, including that the
blasting “will facilitate a much more level and aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create
a buildable site shielded from view of Old Farm Road.” Since no commercial development is proposed
at this time, Staff considers the Board should review this proposed ledge removal through blasting
through a very critical lens. This ledge removal falls under 13.16 pertaining to resource extraction, as
well as the specific noise and vibration standards of LDR Appendix A, as well as separate Public Nuisance
Ordinances.
The comments of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee on the area of ledge removal are
included as Item #1 in their letter, and conclude this area contains “important brushy habitat” but “its
value as resident wildlife habitat suffers from lack of species diversity.” They go on to indicate “the tree
island borders the central wetland and provides vegetated buffer zones important for protecting the
wildlife corridor provided by the wetland drainage brook.” Staff encourages the Board to read the full
comment of the NRCC. In summary, however, this area has value but is not realizing it’s full potential as
wildlife habitat at this time.
45. Since this area is not presently proposed for development, and there are other sources of fill in Vermont,
including quarries in Williston and in South Burlington, Staff has serious reservations about the Board
directing the applicant to further pursue this proposal. However, if the Board chooses to allow the
applicant to proceed, Staff considers detailed ledge removal information should be provided, including
mapping of extents, methodology of removal, and mitigation measures to minimize impact and
demonstration of how the below resource extraction, performance standards, and standards of the City’s
public nuisance ordinance will be met.
13.16 Earth Products
A. General Requirements. The conduct of a resource extraction operation that involves the
removal of loam, gravel, stone, fill, topsoil, sod or similar substance, except when incidental to
or in connection with the construction of a building on the same lot, shall be permitted in any
district, except as limited by the Surface Water Protection Standards and Interstate Highway
Overlay District, subject to site plan approval by the Development Review Board after public
notice.
Staff considers these standards apply.
B. Site Plan Requirements. An application for the removal of more than twenty (20) cubic
yards within one (1) calendar year period shall include the submittal of a site plan showing the
area from which earth products are to be removed. Also, the application shall include specific
information pertaining to the following factors and such other information as the Development
Review Board may require. At minimum, the following information shall be required:
(1) Depth of excavation, in proximity to roads or adjacent properties.
(2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material.
(3) Effect upon public health and safety.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
32
32 of 34
(4) Creation of a nuisance.
(5) Effect upon the use of adjacent properties by reason of noise, dust or vibration.
(6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical
damage on public ways.
(7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover.
46. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit this information prior to approval of
any application which involves work on the parcels in question. Staff considers if the applicant is
not ready to provide this information now, they may exclude this area from the application.
C. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting its approval, may
impose conditions on the following:
(1) Duration of the permit for any length of time that the Development Review Board
deems appropriate.
(2) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of
the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other
appropriate measures.
(3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed.
(4) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15
adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations.
Staff considers any review of the proposed ledge removal should include findings on these
criteria.
Appendix A Performance Standards
A.2(a) No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernable
without the aid of instrument at or beyond the lot lines, nor shall any vibration produced exceed
0.002g peak at up to 60 cps frequency, measured at or beyond the lot lines using either seismic or
electronic vibration measuring equipment.
Staff considers the proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits.
A.3 Noise
(a) The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises and shall be
deemed detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of the City of South Burlington.
(vi) Noise in general. Any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume, frequency
or beat and is not muffled or otherwise controlled.
(b)(i) The creation of, permitting or operation of any of the above sets, instruments, devices or
vehicles causing said noise in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet (50’)
from the building, structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of
a nuisance and a violation of these Regulations.
(c)(iii) Temporary actions benefiting the public, including but not limited to roadway construction,
sewer and water line construction, and special public events, are specifically exempt from the provisions of these Regulations upon approval of such an exemption by the City Manager.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
33
33 of 34
Staff considers the proposed blasting will violate this section of the LDR, and is not likely exempt as a
temporary action benefiting the public.
J) OTHER
The Energy Committee provided the comments on 1/5/2021. While there may not be specific criterion
in the LDR requiring energy efficiency, Staff considers the comprehensive plan goal related to “clean and
green,” woven throughout the Comprehensive Plan, supports these comments. Staff notes that it is
within the Board’s authority to impose certain conditions related to energy efficiency on the project if
there is sufficient nexus to do so.
• Comprehensive Plan Goal: Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a
clean and green South Burlington
Excerpts from Comments of the Energy Committee (full comments included in the packet):
The City of South Burlington has committed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of all of South
Burlington by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The City is not on track to meet that goal and it is
very difficult to see how the City would meet this goal if new homes in the City continue to be built
with fossil fuel infrastructure. It is critically important for the City, the State and the larger global
community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible to avoid the worst effects of
climate change.
• The SBEC’s first and very strong recommendation is that all the homes to be built be fully
electric (and not built with any fossil fuel infrastructure). Since the electric grid in South
Burlington is already very “clean” (94%+ carbon-free), and is targeted to be 100% carbon fee
by 2025, such homes will generate no (or few) greenhouse gas emissions.
• We also recommend that all new homes be built with 240v lines into each garage to
facilitate electric vehicle charging, or better yet that level 2 chargers are pre-installed.
• The residential stretch code already requires that new residential homes be built “solar
ready”. We would further recommend that attention be paid to the orientation and roof
lines of each home to maximize solar potential.
• Consideration should also be given to constructing a community solar array.
• Finally, the SBEC would appreciate if the applicant would provide a submission that
demonstrates how each of the homes will comply with the residential stretch code,
particularly the elements set forth in Table 5.6 of the 2020 Vermont Residential Energy Code
Handbook (attached).
47. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the final comment of the Energy
Committee, and further consider whether they will incorporate any other recommendations of the
Committee as requirements of the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Board and Staff to address the issues identified herein.
#SD-20-40
Staff Comments
34
34 of 34
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner