HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-21-06_550 Park Road_Blackrock_FP
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD-21-06 550 Park Road Final Plat Application
DATE: April 6, 2021 Development Review Board meeting
Blackrock Construction has submitted final plat application #SD-21-06 for the 6.91-acre “Wheeler Parcel” phase
of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf Course and 354-unit residential development. The
planned unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22
dwelling units in two-family homes, and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road.
The Board began review of the application on March 3, 2021 and continued the hearing to complete review of
the staff comments from that date and to allow the applicant to prepare responses. The applicant has
provided updated materials to respond to the comments reviewed on March 3, which are addressed below.
Since the applicant has also provided written responses to the comments NOT discussed by the Board on
March 3, Staff has incorporated the remaining staff comments from the March 3 report into this memo, along
with the applicant’s responses. Staff refers the Board to the full March 3 report for additional regulatory
context if needed. Comments for the Board’s attention are in red. Numbered comments 18 to 20 preserve the
numbering from the March 3 memo.
SC1 & 2 re: Pre-construction grade and height: At preliminary plat, the Board included the following condition
Single family homes shall have a height of no more than 18-20 feet measured to the midpoint of the
roof when measured from average preconstruction grade. No adjustment of average preconstruction
grade is granted for homes in the single story areas.
Staff considers this condition was intended to apply to only to the heights of homes in the one story building
areas, which is not an issue raised by the applicant, but Staff considers the Board should correct the condition
at this final plat stage of review.
The applicant is requesting the Board modify the conditions of the preliminary plat approval by allowing heights
of 28-feet in the eastern (bottom of page) one story building area. At preliminary plat, the applicant had asked
for an adjustment of preconstruction grade for the same reasons they are presenting now.
The SEQ-NRN zoning district specifies areas where buildings are limited to one story but does not mention
height. The one story building areas in the SEQ-NRN were intended to create transition areas of lower profiles
at the most visible points of the project from adjacent streets and recreation paths to better integrate the built
environment into the landscape and form. The height limitations, along with the landscape buffer areas, were
the primary tools used to implement the following provision of the settlement agreement:
#SD-20-37
2
“The City and Developers agree to cooperate and work together to ensure that the amendments contain
provisions that allow development of residential structures consisting of 1-4 dwelling units similar in
type and size to those presently existing in the Project, that include site and building design standards
similar to those applicable to the Southeast Quadrant, Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict in the
version of the Land Development Regulations with amendments that took effect on May 7, 2012, and
that include site design standards that require compatibility with adjacent natural areas.” [emphasis
added].
The Board included the above-referenced preliminary plat condition to ensure buildings have the appearance
of one story. At this final plat stage, the applicant has requested that the heights of the homes in the eastern-
most one story area (units 17 and 18) be allowed to be 28 feet, which is the max allowable height in the zoning
district. They explained that they intend to place around 8-feet of fill in this area, and therefore the preliminary
plat condition would result in homes being limited to 12-ft from the adjusted grade.
Since the purpose of this single-story area is to avoid an abrupt change in the land & building massing at these
high-visibility locations, Staff recommends the Board decline to change the condition of preliminary plat and
instead require the applicant to adjust their proposed development plan for these homes to allow them to meet
the condition. Staff considers that this should be done prior to closing the hearing, otherwise the record
drawings will not reflect a grading which facilitates construction of units 17 and 18.
SC3 & 4 re: Management of Open Spaces. These comments recommended the Board allow invasive species
removal in the central wooded area. The Board asked a number of related questions, which Staff shared with
the City arborist. These questions and responses are provided below.
Board Question 1: Should the applicant remove invasive species in the central wooded area? Would
removing invasive species have a significant benefit (ie are they species that would otherwise spread),
and would it have a significant impact on the short or long term appearance of the wooded
area? Would it have a significant benefit for the long term health of the wooded area?
a. If the applicant removes invasive species, should there be a long term requirement for ongoing
invasive species removal, keeping in mind the neighborhood will be turned over to the
HOA? The perspective they’re looking for is whether ongoing invasive species management
will have a significant ecological or aesthetic benefit
Arborist Answer: Since the wooded area is a relatively small area within the development, removal of
invasive species will be primarily of aesthetic benefit. Very rarely are invasive species controlled in one
shot, so it is likely that periodic treatments would be necessary to provide control. In addition to the
invasive species, there are a number of young ash trees which will likely succumb to Emerald Ash Borer
in the near future so removal of them would be prudent. The vast majority of the woody vegetation is
Buckthorn and Honeysuckle so it may look a little sparse if the invasives and Ash saplings are
removed. The invasives will likely resprout so it will be an ongoing battle.
Staff recommends the Board allow (but not require) removal of invasive species in the wooded area.
Board Question 2: In the proximity of the oak tree, they’ve eliminated all earth cuts, but are proposing
some amount of fill over the western portion of the canopy. Is this potentially acceptable, and what
measures do they need to take to ensure there is no lasting impact? Alternatively, should they be
required to provide a written proposed methodology for your review?
b. Are there any other concerns about how the proposed construction may impact the oak?
Arborist Answer: Tree Protection measures should be included on the plans. As general rule, grade
changes and soil compaction should be avoided within a radius of 1 foot for every inch of diameter for
a mature tree. So for a 32 inch DBH tree, the site should be left undisturbed within 32 feet of that
#SD-20-37
3
tree. Because the planned grade change is only on the west side of the tree they could probably get
away with 20-25 feet on that side. I’d recommend fencing off the entire wooded area so that there will
be no construction activity in that area. There are some other issues to consider with that Oak :
a. The tree splits into two large codominant leaders at about 14 feet and there is a large crack
that runs from that crotch to the ground. This is a potential point of failure. It is possible
that this defect could be mitigated by installation of support cables but that should be
further investigated by an arborist hired by the developer
b. If the Oak is to be retained there are several dead limbs which should be pruned to reduce
risk
c. an arborist should be hired to more fully assess the structural integrity of the Oak and
implement any corrective actions
Staff has discussed this question and the arborist’s response with the applicant, who has requested
that the Board include either comments a. and b. of the arborist, or comment c. , but not all three, to
prevent a situation where they may have conflicting recommendations. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to keep the tree, retain an arborist to assess the tree, provide a written report of
recommended measures to improve and support the long term health of the tree to the zoning
administrative officer prior to issuance of a zoning permit, and complete the recommendations prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
Question 3: Similarly, can the two shagbark hickories in the vicinity of the oak tree survive the proposed
construction? If not, can minor modifications be made to save them?
Arborist Answer: There is no reason the Hickories can’t be retained as long as a tree protection zone is
set up around the wooded area.
The applicant has stated that they have modified the tree protection zone to include a 14-ft radius
around the two shagbark hickories. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the
EPSC plan to show the location of those trees.
Question 4: Is there anything specific we should request they include in the ledge removal plan to
ensure tree survival?
Arborist Answer: I’d just recommend keeping the blast zone as far from the tree as feasible
SC5 re: water and wastewater allocation: At this time, the applicant has received both preliminary water and
wastewater allocation. Staff considers this criterion met.
SC6 re: comments of the water department: The applicant has shared two rounds of revised plans with the
SBWD. The SBWD indicates their comments have been addressed and asks that the contractor to reach out to
the department at least 7 days in advance to review department requirements and expectations for water
infrastructure installation. Staff recommends the Board include this as a condition.
SC7 re: width of the recreation path: The applicant has reduced the width to 10-feet and removed its designation
as an emergency lane.
SC8 re: comments of the Fire Department: The Fire Chief requested mountable curbs at the pedestrian bump-
outs and a demonstration of fire truck turning movements, which the applicant provided on 3/24. Staff has
shared the turning movements with the Fire Chief and anticipates being able to provide feedback to the Board
at the hearing.
SC9 no follow-up needed
#SD-20-37
4
SC10, 12 & 13 re: appearance of the homes from Dorset Street: The relevant criterion include the following.
9.07C(2) Building Facades. Building facades are encourage to employ a theme and variation approach.
Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one
building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private
space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. In the SEQ-NRN sub-district, residential buildings
with rear facades that orient towards a public recreation path should employ rear porches, balconies,
or other features to enhance their architectural detail.
14.06C(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.
Exterior Duplexes
On March 3, the Board provided feedback on the appearance of the four single-story duplex homes (units 3
– 10) from Dorset Street. The applicant has provided revised elevations, included in the packet and replicated
below. Staff has included small images to allow the Board to evaluate the overall effect of the homes being
side by side. In this iteration, the applicant has modified four of the eight units to be two stories. The below
discussion first addresses the appearance from outside the development, then considers the appearance
from within the development.
Appearance from Without
#SD-20-37
5
Staff considers these homes will be highly visible from a number of points along Dorset Street and in
Wheeler Park, even taking into consideration the required vegetative buffer. The homes are located
nearer to Dorset Street than existing homes within the corridor, other than those under construction to
the South at Medalist Drive, and therefore their consistency with the aesthetic standards of the area is
of particular importance. In particular, the rear of home “Stowe” is located near the height of land and
will be visible from the Wheeler House. Staff considers this home to have retained the appearance of
the homes that the Board was critical of on March 3.
#SD-20-37
6
Staff recommends the Board provide direction to the applicant on the overall appearance of the homes,
as well as the elevation of home type “Stowe” in particular.
Appearance from Within
Staff considers that there is insufficient differentiation between the front side of the homes, especially in
the context of the requested flexibility in design discussed under Staff comment #15 below. Staff
recommends the Board discuss whether the necessary “parts” to meet the relevant criterion are all
present and, if so, recommends the Board require the applicant to better intermingle the “parts,”
particularly the garage rooflines and porch configurations to generate sufficient architectural interest to
meet the above-excerpted criterion.
#SD-20-37
7
Interior Duplexes
Regarding the interior duplexes (units 19-32), Staff has replicated the proposed elevations below.
Staff considers there is insufficient variation between units and recommends the Board require the applicant
to modify the homes to better meet this criterion.
SC11 re: south-facing translucence: On March 3, the applicant testified that only the southernmost four homes
will have south exposure, and they are requesting to only provide 30% or 35% translucence on the southern
façade of four units, with no minimum translucence on the remaining 28 units. The applicant provided testimony,
but the Board did not respond.
Staff considers that if the Board is not going to accept the applicant’s request for waiver of the translucence
criteria, the applicant may need to revise their buildings so the interior layout can accommodate additional
glazing, therefore Staff recommends the Board provide feedback on whether they will accept the applicant’s
request.
SC14 re: stepped back garages: The applicant has corrected the two footprints which did not meet this criterion.
Staff considers this criterion met.
SC15 re: flexibility in design: The applicant is requesting that the administrative officer have the ability to modify
the approved elevations. As requested, they have provided a draft condition, as follows.
The City Zoning Administrator shall have the ability to modify the building elevations from those approved
in regards to exterior colors, siding/trim types, roof slope/pitch, variations of porches/decks, window
placement, and foundation type.
As discussed above under comment #13, the applicant is proposing limited differences between the duplex
homes along the interior of the road (UNITS 19-32). The only differences are in color and siding type. Staff
concurs that the design of the homes should be allowed to vary, but that allowing the suggested range of
variation could result in non-compliance with the facade design criteria of 9.08C(2) as excerpted above. Staff
considers a better solution would be to allow variation between the homes, but to provide a requirement for
variation between the homes, similar to what has been recorded as a “Design Review Requirements” document
for other projects in the SEQ. Such a document could include requirements that no more than two homes shall
be identical, identical homes shall be no nearer than separated by two units, and require that at least three of
the characteristics the applicant wishes to vary must differ in order to be considered non-identical.
Staff recommends the Board determine whether to require such an approach in lieu of the approach proposed by
the applicant, and discuss with the applicant whether they find it acceptable.
SC16 & 17 re: limits of clearing: The applicant has modified their limit of clearing around the oak and shagbark
hickories in response to the recommendations of the City Arborist.
The applicant has provided the following request pertaining to tree preservation, generally.
#SD-20-37
8
Due to the amount of proposed greenspace, required earthwork and ledge on the property, at this time,
the Applicant does not want to commit to saving any further trees within the project area by making
minor grading revisions. As recommended by the City Arborist, a general rule of thumb is grade changes
and soil compaction should be avoided within a radius of 1 foot for every inch of diameter for a mature
tree. If the Applicant was to retain more mature trees on the property, for long term survival, trees would
likely require more than minor grading modifications. The Applicant wants to blast the ledge on the
property to reduce the timeline, noise and overall impact of the development construction on nearby
property owners. If single trees are proposed to be saved around the site, it may inhibit blasting
operations and require unnecessary more impactful means of ledge removal. In addition, the Applicant
is proposing to remove about 82 trees 6” or greater, however, the project will plant nearly 200 trees and
170 shrubs throughout the development.
The project does not propose to preserve any trees around the site perimeter due to grading, though the
applicant has proposed a dense vegetative perimeter be subsequently planted as required. As a result, there will
be a period of time during construction when the site is void of perimeter landscaping. Landscape bonding
requirements will assure that the replacements are planted and maintained in a thriving condition.
THE ABOVE IS THE LIMIT OF THE ITEMS DISCUSSED ON MARCH 3. The applicant has provided a written
response to the remaining staff comments. In order to preserve the context of the remaining comments, Staff
has included the remainder of the March 3 staff comments document below, with minor modifications as
noted to include & respond to the written responses of the applicant.
9.08D. Landscape and Fence Buffer Standards, SEQ-NRN sub-district
(2)(a) Existing vegetation that can effectively serve as landscape buffer to potentially incompatible uses
and/or are significant, heathy trees shall be retained to the maximum extent possible, while
accommodating the permitted level of development.
As anticipated and mentioned above, the applicant’s plan to retain trees to the maximum extent practical
results in the proposed central recreation path being removed. 9.06E, addressed above, includes in part
the following requirement:
The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies… sufficient to create
connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles
between neighborhoods.
18. At preliminary plat, the Board noted that there are existing recreation paths that go around the project and
the proposed central recreation path would only shorten the route slightly. Staff supports the removal of
the central recreation path is acceptable and recommends the Board approve the modified design. Staff
considers the Board must, in making this determination, weigh preservation of trees against additional
connectivity.
Applicant’s Response: The Applicant agrees with Staff that the construction of the rec path in the center of
the development is redundant and allows for the preservation of vegetation (including a prominent Oak
tree). The vegetation to remain in the center of the development will also provide screening for the interior
units, which will be far more beneficial to future homeowner’s than a public recreation path.
Staff Update: Staff considers the Board has already accepted the proposed configuration and considers no
additional discussion to be necessary.
#SD-20-37
9
(3) Landscape Buffer Types
(a) Type 0 – Low Height Vegetation. A Type 0 landscaping typically includes grass or meadow
area with foundation screening at the buildings. This type of buffer is intended to provide
separation between new buildings and the existing land uses.
(b) Type I - Dense Plantings. A Type I landscaped buffer must be composed primarily of
continuous dense screening vegetation / hedge that will be at least five (5) feet in width and grow
to at least six (6) feet in height.
(c) Type II – Informal Plantings. A Type II landscaped buffer must be composed of a split rail
fence (or equivalent approved by the DRB), major trees, a partial understory of small trees, and a
berm with a mixture of shrub type plantings. The minimum amount of planting per 100 horizontal
feet of buffer shall be a full ground cover, two trees of at least 3” caliper, three ornamental or
understory trees of at least 2” caliper, and any combination of shrubbery that occupies at least 50%
of the area at the time of planting, all of which shall be distributed throughout the minimum buffer
width described in Table 9-2A. With approval of the City Council, up to 10 feet of the green space
between a recreation path and a property line may be used to enable the installation of the split rail
fence and a portion of a berm.
The applicant has proposed Type I and Type II plantings where allowed in Table 9-2A below.
At preliminary plat the Board found the open space management plan must include specific language
detailing the required upkeep of these landscape buffer areas. The applicant has proposed the
following.
Type I Landscape Buffer: Dense screening hedge to be maintained by the HOA with annual
mulching and shrub care maintenance.
Type II Landscape Buffer: Informal planting area comprised of major trees, a partial understory of
small trees, and a mixture of shrub type plantings. Area to be maintained by the HOA, which shall
include, necessary pruning plant health monitoring, weeding, and mulching.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Use of Berms. Earthen Berms. An earthen berm may be required to increase the effectiveness of a
landscaped buffer. The landscaping plan shall show the contours of the proposed berm and one or
more cross-sections detailing its construction. The required buffer width may be reduced by the
height of the berm, up to a number of feet that shall not exceed 25% of the required width, as
provided in Table 9-2A.
(a) Berms shall not exceed six feet (6’) in height.
(b) No berm shall have a slope greater than 3:1, except where a retaining wall is used in
accordance with these Regulations.
No berms are proposed.
(5) Delineation Fences. Any development proposed adjacent to a City park shall include a fence
delineating the separation of property lines, as depicted on Figure 9-2A. Such fence shall be of a split-
rail or similar variety.
A split rail fence is provided.
(6) Permissible impervious surfaces in landscaped buffers.
#SD-20-37
10
(a) Crossings. Landscaped buffers may be crossed by driveways, roads, sidewalks, trails, and
utility lines, including necessary risers and boxes, serving the development. The width of these
crossings should be minimized.
(b) Light Standards. The bases of standards for approved outdoor lighting may be placed in a
landscaped buffer.
(c) Miscellaneous. Landscaped buffers may include retaining walls, planters, minor impervious
surfaces that are part of runoff and erosion control works; and sculptures or other works of art.
A portion of the southern landscaped buffer contains a three-foot deep stormwater conveyance swale.
At preliminary plat the Board found the applicant must modify the grading to the right (north) of the
low point to redirect stormwater runoff to enter the storm pond upstream of the landscaping buffer. It
appears the swale has been rerouted as required.
(7) Supplemental setback standards, SEQ-NRN sub-district. In addition to the standards set forth in Table
C-2, Dimensional Standards and this section, the requirements of Table 9-2A shall apply.
#SD-20-37
11
Table 9-2A Supplemental landscape buffer and setback requirements, SEQ-NRN sub-district
Adjoining Use Minimum Buffer Widths Minimum setback
(5)
Type 0 Type I (5) Type II
High Use Rec Path (1) n/a n/a 30' 50'
Lower Use Rec Path (2) 70' n/a 27' 30'
Resource Protection Area (3) 40' 5' 27' 35'
% Reduction for Use of Berm (4) 25% n/a 25% n/a'
(1) The section of recreation path running along the west side of the SEQ-NRN sub-
district, as shown on Figure 9-2A.
(2) The section of recreation path running along the south and east sides of the SEQ-NRN
sub-district, as shown on Figure 9-2A.
(3) The area located at the north boundary line of the SEQ-NRN sub-district, as shown on
Figure 9-2A
(4) Plantings are to be placed on top of berm for added vertical screening effect.
Reduction not applicable to High Use Recreation Path.
(5) Setbacks apply to all principal structures.
At preliminary plat the Board required the applicant to modify their plan to explicitly show compliance with
the minimum setback requirements. The applicant has done so. Staff considers this criterion met.
(8) Supplemental Height Standards, SEQ-NRN sub-district. In addition to the standards set forth in Table
C-2, Dimensional Standards, residential structures shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) total
story within the areas marked as “1-Story Building Area” on Figure 9-2A.
Heights are discussed above.
C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
The general standards applicable to this subdivision are as follows.
(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.
This Criterion was found met at a master plan level. See discussion under 9.06D(1).
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual
phases. See discussion under 9.06B(4).
#SD-20-37
12
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual
phases. See discussion under 9.06E.
(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.
See discussion of open space management plan under 9.06B(3).
(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.
Staff considers the residential design criteria of 9.08C ensure compliance with this criterion.
(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.
These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval
was also required. See 9.06B(1).
(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 criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual
phases. See discussion under 9.06D(4).
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been
designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to
adjacent properties.
(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.
These criteria were found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual
phases. See discussion under 9.06D(2) and (3).
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval
was also required. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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
#SD-20-37
13
land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits
the ground.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans and supporting documentation on 1/28/2021. The
applicant responded to those initial comments, and the Stormwater Section provided updated responses
on 2/19/2021. Those updated comments are included in the packet.
19. Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing to allow the applicant to address the remaining
comments of the City Stormwater Section.
Applicant Response: SH 2, 3, S1 and S2 have been revised in response to the comments from the South
Burlington Stormwater Department, see attached for email confirmation dated 3/19/21.
Staff update: Staff considers this comment has been addressed.
D) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards
A. 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.
The project is identified in the comprehensive plan as an area of very low intensity to lower intensity land
use. However, this zoning district was established to allow for development of this parcel consistent with
the settlement agreement. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
B. 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 Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
(2) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable.
This criterion does not apply to single family and duplex homes.
(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.
The Board found at preliminary plat that the height and mix of housing types requirements of the SEQ-
NRN to ensure compliance with this criterion.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or
building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Utilities are proposed to be underground.
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.
#SD-20-37
14
(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.
The Board found at preliminary plat that the SEQ standards, if met, will result in these criteria being met.
14.07 Specific Site Plan Review Standards
(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.
At preliminary plat the Board found no such access is necessary for the subject property, as it is bounded
on all sides not facing a street by a public park.
(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.
Aboveground elements of wire-served utility services (ie pull boxes, transformers) are not shown at this
stage of review. These features are required to be screened, as discussed below.
(C) Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with
any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque
fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). 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.
The Board found this criterion not applicable at preliminary plat.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
Section 13.06 standards do not apply to single and two family homes on their own lots. However, since the
applicant is proposing shared lots, these standards do apply, including minimum landscape budget. The
minimum required landscape value for the Project is based on an estimated building construction cost of
$7,039,0001.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $65,390
Total $77,890
The applicant has proposed $51,000 in buffer plantings, $8,600 in foundation plantings, and $24,000 in
greenspace area, for a total of $83,600 in plantings. All of these plantings are proposed to be trees and
1 The applicant has erroneously included the roadway cost in estimating their required minimum landscaping budget.
However they have provided enough information for Staff to recalculate the required minimum landscaping budget.
#SD-20-37
15
shrubs. Street trees, which do not count towards the minimum required landscaping budget, are proposed
at $25,000, and utility cabinet screening is proposed at $1,800. Staff considers the required minimum
landscaping budget to be met.
Utility cabinets are required to be screened with evergreens and deciduous plantings, or a wall or fence.
The applicant is proposing screening on three sides with evergreens and deciduous plantings, and the
fourth side with grasses, consistent with what Green Mountain Power has indicated they will accept. Staff
recommends the Board accept the proposed utility screening.
Comments of the City Arborist are included above.
(E) Modification of Standards. 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, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the
Central District 1, 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.
Requested waivers are discussed where applicable.
E) OTHER
Energy Standards
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial
Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
E9-1-1 Addressing
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide an addressing plan and to submit a street name
request to the Planning Commission prior to final plat. The applicant has done both of these things. The
Planning Commission accepted the street name Zoey Circle. Staff considers that the unit labeled 66 Zoey Circle
should be 64, for consistency with addresses across the street, but otherwise the numbers are appropriately
assigned based on numbering according to the location of the front door. Staff reminds the applicant that if
the Board imposes conditions affecting location of doors, the addresses should be reevaluated.
Ledge Removal
Appendix A provides performance standards for vibration and noise. The applicant has presented a ledge removal
plan which indicates where ledge is proposed to be removed. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide the following information in order to demonstrate that the performance standards of A.2 and A.3 and the
Public Nuisance Ordinance will be met.
• Extent of ledge removal – The provided plan includes no legend or explanation, therefore Staff cannot
determine what it is intended to convey. Is the plan showing areas of ledge removal, or just areas
where proposed grade is lower than existing grade? Is each color change a foot? Does this account for
finish grade or include over-excavation for appropriate subbase preparation? What is the meaning of
the 250 ft preblast survey radius line?
• Methodology of removal. – No information has been provided.
• Mitigation measures to minimize impacts and be consistent with the City’s performance standards (LDR
appendix A.2 and A.3) and noise ordinance (embedded within the City’s Public Nuisance ordinance) –
No information has been provided.
#SD-20-37
16
20. Staff considers this information should be provided and reviewed prior to closing the hearing.
Applicant response: The blasting contractor, Maine Drilling and Blasting has provided additional information
regarding the proposed blasting operations for the development dated 2-18-21, see attached. The Applicant
has reached out to Maine Drilling and Blasting and has requested a representative attend the April 6th hearing
in order to answer any questions the DRB may have regarding blasting.
Staff update: The additional information has been included in the packet for the Board. Staff considers the
construction phase of this (and any) project to be a non-residential use subject to 3.13. 3.13 enacts the
performance standards of LDR Appendix A. Since this project is proposed to include ledge removal, which has a
high potential to create objectional external impacts, Staff considers the Board should pay particular attention
to the requirements of 3.13.
E. Required Information. Evidence of application for state and/or federal permits for the handling of
potentially hazardous conditions, and/or the following information, at minimum, may be required for
determination of compliance with performance standards or for conditional use review of potentially
hazardous conditions:
(1) Description of proposed machinery, operations, and products.
(2) Amount and nature of materials to be used.
(3) Mechanisms and techniques to be used in restricting the emission of any hazardous and
objectionable elements, as well as projected or actual emission levels.
(4) Method of delivery and disposal or recycling of any hazardous elements.
(5) Other information as may be necessary.
F. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may
condition an approval to require evidence of the issuance of applicable state and/or federal permits for
the handling of hazardous conditions prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, and may also impose
conditions on the following:
(1) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of
materials, and hours of operation.
(2) Warning systems, fire controls and other safeguards.
(3) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting.
(4) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety.
Based on a review of the provided information, Staff considers that some but not all of the required information
appears to have been submitted. Staff recommends the Board invoke technical review of the proposed ledge
removal program. Staff recommends the technical review be requested to provide recommendations for
conditions including hours, notification procedures, monitoring and reporting requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
A
CE
HIGHLANDS
DEVELOPMENT
CO., LLC
VERMONT
NATIONAL
COUNTRY CLUB
1227 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON,
VERMONT
SOUTH BURLINGTON,
VERMONT
RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT
______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF
__________, 20_____.
ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,
ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.
SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.
BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON
ORIGINAL INK on MYLAR - REDUCED for RECORDING
Public Comments on SD-21-06
For 4/6/2021 Hearing
Arranged from Oldest to Newest
Note: Comments included in the packet for 3/3/2021 are not replicated here.
1
March 3, 2021
To: Paul Connor and Marla Keene from Karen LeFevre • 598 Golf Course Road, South Burlington, VT
Re: This Public Comment concerns BlackRock Construction's Final Plat Application, to build a residential
development at 550 Park Rd (# SD 21-06) , aka the Wheeler Parcel, Public Hearing 3.3.2021
A coalition of residents in the Vermont National Golf Course neighborhoods have been challenging this
proposal, which we believe is highly dense and visible, usurps natural fields, creates traffic safety
hazards on Park Rd and Dorset Street, and inserts 2 new risky road cuts into Park that intersect the
existing City Rec/bike path.
During previous application stages, and going back about at least a decade to the controversial "land
swap, " residents have communicated concerns in writing and conversation. (My own first letter raising
such issues was sent to the City Council well before the land swap, in 2011!) But this final application is a
far cry from addressing them.
Here I focus on traffic safety and construction process concerns.
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Issues ; Problems with BlackRock’s commissioned Traffic Study
It's surprising to me that a development referred to as "550 Park Road" almost completely omits the
important safety concerns all along Park Rd. itself and the popular city Rec/Bike running closely
alongside it, near Wheeler Park. This section of Park between Dorset and Golf Course Roads is narrow,
without a center line, no lighting, frequent winds, curves, and slopes. (BlackRock's submitted,
commissioned traffic study erroneously states a slope measurement of Park Rd as "Zero" which is
puzzling, considering its steep gradations which must figure into the safety analysis.
In late fall and winter seasons, Park Rd is known to have icy conditions with blowing snow and mounds
of plowed snow. (The study BlackRock submitted occurred in the fall of 2020, rather than in winter.)
Also, we find no qualitative evidence submitted of any observations or interviews with people who have
actually been daily users of Park, some for at least 20 years.
Neighbors can testify (and have, in numerous Public Comments) that in wintry and windy conditions,
cars can and do skid at times off into the fields on both sides. (Once a city snow plow even skidded off
Park Rd.) Road speeds are posted but are often exceeded , sometimes surpassing recommended braking
distances. Additional residents arising from a new development such as 550 Park , whether driving,
walking, biking, skateboarding, etc. will go not only west towards Dorset but also east toward the golf
course using the existing Rec/bike path that run closely parallel to Park. So safety is a major concern for
pedestrians as well, existing users as well as possible added residents. Will Park in its current
configuration be able to handle all these safely?
We previously sent such concerns to, and discussed them with, a BlackRock official, as well as the DRB.
Yet still we see no mention of topics in their applications, such as needed signage, warning lights,
perhaps streetlights for this dark section of Park? Assessment of its lack of shoulders? If these or other
infrastructure needs are found, who would pay—e.g. the City (our taxes) or the developer?
2
BlackRock proposes building a new, semi-circular road ("Zoey Circle") to enter and exit from two points
on Park Rd . It would intersect twice with Park areas that are especially risky in winter weather because
of slopes, wind, curves, and snow piles. Also, Zoey Circle would cross the existing So. Burl Rec/Bike path
where it parallels Park Road, going from Dorset street to Golf Course Rd. However, the final plat
application does not address the dangers of twice interrupting the Rec/bike path nor any feasible
mitigations. The BlackRock Applications and its own traffic study, as well as the DRB staff and board,
focus almost completely in the new proposed road as if it is an island, rather than as part of an existing
neighborhood, sidewalks, rec paths, and the risks that would be very much impacted by the
development. in We feel that the DRB should table consideration of this final plat and require a new,
independent travel study/technical consultation paid for by the applicant. And we strongly feel that
instead a single access to the development should be from Dorset Street, not from Park Rd. We feel that
previous thoughts of an entrance from Dorset have been dismissed quickly, without really re-examining
the possibility. Indeed, BlackRock’s proposal has not even introduced that concept nor studied it anew.
Many more homes and developments have been allowed to be accessed directly from Dorset. The City
Council could be requested to make modifications.
As for the construction process itself, some questions. The applicant has asserted that construction will
last for five years, from 2021-2026. Is this still the case; if not, what are the dates? Have they submitted
a schedule and explanation for an extended duration? Will the schedule be independently monitored? A
long or stop -and -start duration would disrupt Park Rd and the neighboring streets that flow into it, with
noisy construction vehicles and likely delays and detours.
Many SEQ residents recall and protested the extreme noise of last summer's month-long drilling and
jack-hammering all day when BlackRock removed ledge from their nearby "Long Drive" development.
This was during the COVID-19 lockdown, with many home from work and school, forced to listen. The
builder repeatedly stated and then altered its own goals for completion. Now at 550 Park, a map saying
"KNOWN LEDGE OUTCROPPINGS ON PROPERTY" appears, spread over an indistinct area. Where? How
much? When might such work be scheduled? Any mitigation? Any monitoring? Has the
existence/removal of ledge been considered at all as a serious reason why the parcel should perhaps not
be developed at all? Was it raised at all, even back to the “landswap” situation? It is time to seriously
reconsider this now, we believe. The wellbeing of longtime residents (city tax-payers) should be given
strong consideration in this process.
I appreciate having the DRB staff and board, and maybe the City level decision makers take these
important matters into consideration.
Karen LeFevre
598 Golf Course Road, South Burlington, VT
802-318-8313 KBLeFevre@gmail.com
1
Marla Keene
From:Randee Bloomberg <randeeb30@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:04 PM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:Karen LeFevre
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: "Public Comment Re #SD-20-17 , 550 Park Rd Proposal, DRB South Burl"
Marla,
Subject: RE:EXTERNAL: “Public Comment Re #SD‐20‐17, 550 Park Rd Proposal, DRB South Burl”
I would appreciate you adding this to the comments from yesterday’s meeting. The traffic study obviously
showed that Park Road was built according to South Burlington’s standards for roads. I would expect
nothing less. I believe the traffic study also showed that there was little traffic on Park Road. Yes that is
true now. However, it did not take into account that 30+ homes which easily could translate into 60+ cars
would be traveling onto that road and the intersection of Park and Dorset Street. It’s the future we are all
worried about. We travel that road daily. We know how icy and treacherous it can become. It isn’t a
question of driving too fast. It’s a question of not being able to stop on ice. Please, I beg you and the board
to consider our request and sell the piece of land to the developer so he can build with an entrance from
Dorset Street. Please don’t wait until people get hurt or killed and then wish you had listened to us. We are
asking because we know the problem and can see the future.
Thank you.
Randee Bloomberg, 146 Park Road.
1
Marla Keene
From:Bonnie Mallin <bmallin@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:22 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: SD 21-06
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Marla,
(Sorry, Marla, I meant to add my name and address — added here.)
I would like to add my voice to the concerns of other homeowners who have written to you and/or attended the
meeting on March 3rd of the Development Review Board.
While I understand the need for additional development, the entrance and exit on the proposed Zoey Road poses a
significant danger to anyone at that intersection ‐ car, bike, and pedestrian. While this is especially true during the
winter, it is also true year‐round, and especially during high commuting hours. This has been true even during the Covid
pandemic while many commuters have been working remotely. As developments have gone up to the south, I have
seen 4‐5 cars waiting on Park Road to enter Dorset Street — I can’t imagine what this will be like when the pandemic is
over and how cars exiting Zoey onto Park will fit into the mix.
Similarly, there are a number of cars turning left from southbound Dorset onto Park Road during the end of the work
day and I am concerned about the impact on those drivers taking another immediate left from Park onto Zoey.
It was interesting to hear the engineers at the March 3rd meeting talk about the fact that Park Road meets all current
standards, that there have been no reported accidents on Park Road in the winter and that any incidents were due to
high speed. First, not everyone calls the police when they go off the road. Many people will just walk home to get help
from family or neighbors. Second, you don’t have to be going too fast when you’re on ice — all it takes is movement of
any kind. Putting on the brakes to avoid someone entering Park Road from Zoey will just add to the problem.
Marla, I hope the DRB will reconsider the location of the entrance and exit for Zoey Road and place them on Dorset
Street. In the meantime, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Mallin
192 Park Road
(Gleneagles)
1
Marla Keene
From:Rose Godard <rosesebring639@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:18 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: 550 Park Rd. Project
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Ms Keene,
Would you kindly review and share this email with Brian Sullivan.
I would like to respond to the traffic study results on safety. The last
big storm several weeks ago, as I was driving toward Dorest St. down the hill just before the guardrails a car had slided
off the road while another car from the other direction was coming down the other hill sliding and attempting to stop.
Knowing the road situation,I had already stopped to avoid an accident. All of this occurred next to the proposed exit
road from this project. This situation can happen often during the winter.
My point is this part of Park road is a very dangerous area at ALL times because the road is narrow and has no shoulder
space through the hairpin curve. As well as, people are often walking or biking in the road because the recreation path
is heavily used. The usage has greatly increased during the pandemic. I am concerned about how cars and trucks speed
and do not stop or at best a rolling stop at the corner of Park and Golf Course.
It seems irresponsible to permit the construction of 2 roads off Park Rd.
as well as the density of this project.
Rose Godard
639 Golf Course Rd.
So. Burlington,VT 05403
‐‐
Rose Godard
rosesebring639@gmail.com
‐‐
Rose Godard
rosesebring639@gmail.com
To: Brian Sullivan, Chair
Mark Behr
Elissa Eiring
James Langan
Dawn Philbert
Stephanie Wyman
From: John Bossange, 579 Golf Course Rd.
Re: Proposed Development at 550 Park Rd. (#SD-21-06)
Date: March 10, 2021
First, thank you for giving me time to speak to all of you on the evening of March 3rd,
at your last DRB meeting. Even though there were six residents in attendance who
ceded their time to me, you were agreeable to giving me fifteen minutes. I am most
appreciative.
The feedback I am now receiving is more intense than ever regarding the three
issues we have regarding our definition of “responsible development.” Residents
are furious about the design of the proposed homes at 550 Park Rd. Words like
‘ugly sheds,” and “garages” are common. People know of Blackrock’s work because
they have seen what they can build if they wish to do so. Clearly, Blackrock
understands the current housing shortage and demand in the area, and thus they
are proposing cheaply made homes because the market will tolerate that. But these
homes, if allowed, will be here for generations, and will be an eyesore for everyone
in our city.
The community deserves better and Blackrock can do much better. The sample
homes shown to all of us March 3rd are relatively the same ones that were shared at
the preliminary plat hearing held last June 2nd. Not much has changed in the design
and materials. They still looked like “storefronts,” as one of your members stated.
Worse yet, the closer they are to each other on the rise, the uglier they will appear
on the landscape. You must require better designs than “off the shelf,” modular
looking homes with little architectural integrity.
Again, we do not expect expensive, designer homes. But what we all saw last
Wednesday mirror the recently constructed homes that presently dot the landscape
just south of us between Park and Cheese Factory Rd. Again, Blackrock does not
need to build that way, and you can require them to up their game and construct
better looking homes within a reasonable price range.
You can also require fewer homes be built on the 6.9 acres. 32 homes are way too
many in that highly visible space, even if permitted. Blackrock knows that, and they
are, like most developers, trying to maximize their gains. They’ll make a good profit
even if you require fewer homes constructed with better materials and designed to
look more like homes and not sheds or storefronts.
MORE
Traffic still remains our number one concern because of the public safety issue for
drivers, walkers, runners, and bikers. I spoke with all of you in detail about the
seriousness of having access intersections on the slope and curves of Park Rd. The
photos sent to you should convince you of the dangers of what’s proposed. We were
stunned to hear the explanation from the traffic consultant hired by Blackrock.
Clearly he missed the boat by monitoring traffic at the wrong location and then
unwisely defended his report at the meeting!
So you all know, I will be presenting at the March 15th City Council meeting to
request a modification in the language from the land swap agreement to allow an
access point off Dorset St. There is plenty of open space on the land owned by the
city where there are no tree buffers and where an access road can be safely
constructed. As I mentioned during my presentation, one way in and one way out
off Dorset St. makes so much more sense for everyone in the surrounding area.
Again, working closely with the City Council, you can support this language
modification and prevent an, “I told you so,” coming from someone involved in or
witness to an accident on Park Rd.
A fourth issue has emerged: Blasting on ledge. Much of the land proposed for this
housing development is on ledge and will require a good deal of blasting and
pounding. Blackrock’s recent disastrous attempts to build homes in an area of ledge
off Golf Course Rd. are still fresh on neighbors’ minds. I have heard nothing about
how Blackrock will deal with the ledge on the Wheeler property. Please be sure
they address this critical issue appropriately.
Finally, I have carefully read the Amended Agreement from January 11, 2016.
Specifically the Agreement states a “maximum” of 32 homes. With this language,
you can absolutely require them to build fewer homes and not let Blackrock go to
the maximum for more profit in such a dense and highly visible location. The
Agreement also states that “building design standards should be similar to those
applicable in the Southeast Quadrant,” and “design standards be compatible with
adjacent natural areas.” So, here you have the authority to define the word
“compatible,” control the design and materials used, and limit the density.
The Agreement also calls for “a collaborative process between the City and property
owner.” That sounds good, but what about a collaborative process with the
residents and neighbors? Where is our voice in this process? It is with you, of
course, our DRB. You must represent us first and place the interests of any
developer second. Development in South Burlington is a privilege, not a right. Like
you, we live here. The developer will move on to another project somewhere else.
Representing us, you must ensure this project reflects the features of responsible
development in the three areas we have been recommending.
Thank you.
To: Brian Sullivan, Chair
Mark Behr
Elissa Eiring
James Langan
Dawn Philbert
Stephanie Wyman
From: Bronwyn Dunne, 50 Park Road
Re: Proposed Development at 550 Park Road –SD21-06
Date: March 11, 2021
I have lived happily on Park Road for sixteen years, first as a renter and for the last ten
years as an owner. What persuaded me to live here in the first place and what
persuaded me to buy –after years of looking for a home in South Burlington, Shelburne
and Williston -was the location. The views of Mount Mansfield and Camel’s Hump and
the beauty of the fields on either side of Park Road leading up to Golf Course Road have
never failed to make me delighted to live here.
As a new resident of South Burlington in 2005, it was a surprise to hear that developers,
waiting for a better economy to build, owned most of the open fields bordering Dorset
Street south of Swift Street. I felt I was fortunate to live in an already well-developed
area that had natural buffers on all four sides as well as a wild life corridor that would
prevent further real estate development. I felt fortunate to live in such a well-designed
neighborhood of mixed housing.
Several years later, I was told that a compromise had been made to prevent further
encroachment on what is now Wheeler Park. When the agreement was made to allow
the developer building rights on the field that stretches north from the corner of Dorset
Street and Park Road, it seemed the best of a bad bargain. At least Wheeler Park would
be saved. Little did we realize at that time that Blackrock Construction, LLC would
propose such an ill-conceived building plan for the parcel that was given in the
exchange.
To squeeze 32 homes into a parcel of land that is only 6.9 acres seems onerous. By any
standard, that is pushing the envelope of good design practice not to mention
sustainability measures that we in Vermont hold dear. I have only seen the home
designs as they were presented as part of the builder’s submitted first proposal, but if
this is the level of quality that the Development Review Board deems acceptable, I
question the sincerity of the Board’s desire to make the best decision for the citizens of
South Burlington. Affordable housing is very important but not at the cost of good
design and environmental standards.
I am also deeply concerned about the safety of the proposal’s road design. Park Road
was designed purposely with two major curves to slow down traffic coming and going
to and from Dorset Street. It was designed with a certain amount of traffic in mind. If
Blackrock’s proposal to have two access points on Park Road is seriously being
considered, I hope it has been thoroughly vetted by the Planning and Zoning
Department.
I have heard that there are a number of places the project’s entrance and exit roads could
be placed along Dorset Street where these access points could be much more safely
managed. What the developers of our community on Park and Golf Course Road
achieved – a safe and well-designed entrance to the area- should be respected and
mirrored in the plans for SD21-06. I hope the Board will take safety concerns of the
community seriously when judging the final proposal.
We all want South Burlington to be the best city in Vermont with the best affordable
housing. I believe we can do better than what I have seen of the proposal presented to
the DRB by Blackrock Construction, LLC.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
With all best regards,
Bronwyn Dunne
802 860-5022
550 Park Road Proposed Development
To: The South Burlington Development Review Board
From: Alan Luzzatto
Re: Park Road Proposed Development
Date: March 17, 2021
We live across Dorset Street from the proposed Park Road development at Nicklaus Circle. You
have received numerous comments both in writing and at meetings about the shortcomings of
this new neighborhood. The three major issues are:
1. The two entrances proposed on Park Road are poorly designed and will not be safe.
2. The 32 unit development is incongruous with nearby developments due to its shear over
density of homes.
3. The aesthetics of the proposed homes are unattractive and very poorly conceived.
You will find arguments against Blackrock’s proposed development here and elsewhere, so I will
not belabor the point. We would like to note something equally as important.
You are our South Burlington neighbors and we need your help. This is not a good project as
planned and it needs serious refinements to make it fit in with the standards of the nearby
developments that you have previously approved. Please take the extra time to require Blackrock
to follow through with a development for which we will all can be proud. In advance thank you
for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Alan & Sandra Luzzatto Seymour & Sybil Pressman Karen Hier
58 Nicklaus Circle 56 Nicklaus Circle 89 Nicklaus Circle
Patty Barry Steve & Martha Edwards Jonathan & Susan Bloom
59 Nicklaus Circle 57 Nicklaus Circle 120 Nicklaus Circle
Tom & Debbie Fischer Peg & Joe Zagursky Dora Sudarsky
28 Nicklaus Circle 26 Nicklaus Circle 91 Nicklaus Circle
The residents of the Villas At Watertower Hill, HOA, Inc., have unanimously joined together to
ask for your help in this matter.
To: Brian Sullivan, Chair
Dawn Philbert, Acting Chair
Mark Behr
Elissa Eiring
James Langan
Stephanie Wyman
From: John Bossange, 579 Golf Course Rd.
Re: City Council Presentation regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal (SD 21-06)
Date: March 19, 2021
I wanted you to know that I spoke at the March 15th City Council meeting. Prior to
the meeting I sent all members a memo with photos explaining why I believe
modifying the language in the land swap agreement would give you the option to
request Blackrock redesign their road access off Park Rd. and onto Dorset St.
The primary focus of my presentation and the memo was traffic and pedestrian
safety. I mentioned our concerns with density and aesthetics, but the purpose of my
presentation and memo was to get the Council to consider making the language
change.
There were no questions for me when I finished. They addressed the topic later in
their meeting under the agenda item of new business. I did not stay on the zoom call
because the discussion was to be between Council members only.
Unfortunately, they decided not to address the language. In an email sent to me, the
Chair stated that the issue was for the DRB to consider, not the Council. She also
said that they Council felt that an access road onto Dorset St. was more dangerous
than what has been proposed onto Park Rd., despite the forty-four other curb cuts
within a mile of Park Rd.
Interestingly, I have not seen the language and have placed two requests to Marla
Keene for a copy of that language. Again I assume there is a document somewhere
with that language included. I’ll let you know if I receive it.
It is our hope that you will see the dangers I presented to you Wednesday evening,
March 3rd, and will then ask the City Council to amend the language to give you an
opportunity to create a safer entry and exit from the proposed development.
I trust you received the follow up memo sent to all of you dated March 10th which
focuses on the three ongoing concerns with the proposal, summarized the responses
I received from neighbors, includes the newest issue of blasting, and lastly
comments on the language from the Amended Agreement from January 11, 2016
which gives you room to address our concerns.
Thank you again for your time. We all look forward to seeing and hearing from you
at the April 6th DRB meeting.
1
Marla Keene
From:John Thanassi <john.thanassi@uvm.edu>
Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:34 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: Development
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
M. Keene:
Access to the proposed development by Blackrock via Park Road is nonsensical. There are blind curves and hills on this
road. Surely access to the proposed development can be made by Dorset Street. A one‐way loop in the development
would allow easy access and egress for the residents. Please consider the concerns of those of us who would be
negatively impacted by a large and unwelcome increase in traffic on Park Road. Thank you.
John and Natalie Thanassi
516 Golf Course Road
South B
1
Marla Keene
From:Justin Rabidoux
Sent:Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:53 AM
To:Paul Conner; Marla Keene
Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Park Rd. Traffic Concern
Passing along as I know you keep a record of public comments.
I don't respond directly to residents for projects that are in the review loop, but am more than happy to discuss any
issue with the DRB if they desire.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:05 AM
To: Justin Rabidoux <jrabidoux@sburl.com>
Cc: Karen LeFevre <kblefevre@gmail.com>; Phil Moll <phil.e.moll@gmail.com>; Charles F. Siegel
<cfsiegel@reprovt.com>; Alan Luzzatto <nesandal@comcast.net>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Park Rd. Traffic Concern
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good morning, Justin.
I’m John Bossange, a resident in Golf Course Rd. and am part of the coalition of concerned neighbors with the proposed
housing development on the Wheeler property. We do not want to stop the development, but insist on “responsible
development.” I am writing to you because of your comments given to the DRB staff on February 18, 2021, regarding
the flawed Traffic Impact Assessment.
We an three concerns, density, design/materials, and most importantly traffic and pedestrian safety.
At the last DRB meeting from March 3d. we pressed our case. The traffic engineer hired by Blackrock issued a traffic
study from the wrong location. He stood at the intersection of Dorset St. and Park Rd. instead of where the proposed
access road will intersect with Park Rd. So his analysis was incorrect and inaccurate.
We remain very concerned with the steep slope and curves on Park Rd. where the proposed access road intersects.
Sight lines are not our concern, and I’m glad they are not yours either. But as you must know, during the five winter
months the road is very slippery and filled with wind blown snow, all the time. Cars routinely slide off the road and need
to be towed out. In fact, one of hour snow plows ended up in a snow bank a few years ago.
It’s unimaginable to think of a car coming down the road, even at 25 mph, and stopping to make a left run into
oncoming traffic to get into the development. Further, it is difficult to see a new resident trying to make a right turn
onto to Park Rd. and accelerate up the hill to leave the development. Snow and black ice are routinely on the road and
the proposal is an accident waiting to happen.
Do you agree? If not,why?
2
Our solution is to have the development enter and exit onto Dorset St. where there is plenty of sight line and a much
safer intersection. I provided the DRB with photos of where this can occur, just before the tree farm.
I look forward to hearing from you.
John Bossange
578‐7468