HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SD-21-10_additional public comment1
Marla Keene
From:Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:45 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comment on Long development proposal: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10
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 Marla and Paul,
Would you please send my email to all of the DRB members. Thank you.
Janet Bellavance
April 1, 2021
c
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,:
I am writing to the DBR regarding the sketch plan that Alan Long will submit on April 6, 2021. I urge the
DRB to postpone approving this 49 unit development on land identified in both the 2002 and 2020 Open
Space report as being the highest priority for natural resource conservation in our city.
Please postpone this decision until the new Environmental Protection Standards are in place. This pattern
of development is, after all, what motivated the citizens of South Burlington to enact Interim Zoning in the
first place. In Mr. Long’s presentation to the City Council, he referred to this project as “infill development”
saying it connects two new developments along Spear Street. This line of thinking in advocating for
development of this parcel is troublesome. It would lead us to justify developing any open space that
abuts current development thereby creating an endless strip of houses. We do NEED infill development or
rather “redevelopment” of the many abandoned commercial spaces that blight our City Center and other
high density transit corridors. This is a practical and highly desirable way to address affordable housing in
our city. Yet, instead of redevelopment conversations which would keep our city vibrant and livable, we
seem to be targeting our open space resources for development.
This destruction of open space forever, ignores our responsibility and limited opportunity to proactively
mitigate climate change. The time is now to protect our open spaces and the resources they provide to all
our residents. This parcel in particular contains wetlands which provide riparian connectivity, a large
habitat block and forest block, as well as prime ag soils and farmland.
Thank you for all your work. I urge you to be forward thinking in protecting our environment and securing
the future of our citizens.
Janet Bellavance
2
25 Brewer Parkway
1
Marla Keene
From:Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 12:47 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Cc:Rosanne Greco
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comment on Long development proposal: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10
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 Marla and Paul,
Would you please send my email to all of the DRB members. Thank you.
Rosanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,
I am writing in regard to the proposed housing development coming before the Board next week: Sketch Plan
Application SD‐21‐10.
This housing development is being proposed to be built on some — and near other — especially important natural
resource lands. Building on this land conflicts with guidance from the Comprehensive Plan and directives of the Land
Development Regulations. These city documents reference information and advice contained in at least 12 expert
studies commissioned by the city to analyze the natural resource lands in South Burlington. All of these reports and the
Comprehensive Plan rank the land on which this development is being proposed to be built as being THE highest valued
land in South Burlington in that it connects to the Great Swamp. I expect the city staff will have made you aware of this.
I am opposed to this housing proposal not just because it conflicts with city guidance. I am opposed to it because I am
connected to it and rely on this land to survive. Although I am not an abutter, I, and all of the other occupants of our
city and beyond, depend on this land and other ecological lands like it to sustain us. This area contains trees, shrubs,
grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas, fertile soil, wildlife, pollinators, etc., — all of which are essential to human and
animal survival. They become especially critical as the effects of climate change spread across the planet.
I realize you are bound by the city regulatory documents in your decisions. However, you are also given latitude to make
subjective decisions in some cases. I strongly urge you to make your “default” the preservation of the environment in
this housing proposal, and in all future housing proposals if they destroy natural resources.
Environmental scientists are warning us that human beings in the future risk extinction, or severely harsh living
conditions if we do not immediately make drastic changes to the way we use fossil fuels, and stop destroying the
environmental resources which have the ability to remediate the ill effects of climate change. Please keep the greater
good in mind.
2
Thank you for your service to our city, and for making environmentally responsible land use decisions.
Rosanne Greco
63 Four Sisters Rd
South Burlington
497‐0711
Dear Members of the Development Review Board,
I am writing in response to the proposed housing development coming before the Board next
week: Sketch Plan Application SD‐21‐10. My husband and I are the current owners of 1455
Dorset Street (Parcel # 0570‐11455) and abut the proposed development.
I am writing to express my opposition to the planned development on the 39.2 acre Long
property. I respect that the Long family has proposed to conserve many of the resources on the
site. However, as someone who voluntarily served on the Open Space Interim Zoning
Committee, I urge you to strongly recommend to the applicant to redo the sketch plan to
preserve all of the forests and habitat blocks on the site.
On December 17, 2018, the City Council appointed the Open Space Committee who’s charge
was:
“the prioritization for conservation of existing open spaces, forest blocks, and working
landscapes in South Burlington in the sustenance of our natural ecosystem, scenic
viewsheds, and river corridors.”
The work of this committee was no small task and proved to be more than just a once a month
discussion. The identification and investigation of the natural resources of 189 parcels required
a tremendous effort on the part of the whole committee. I can only speak for myself, and as a
volunteer, I spent countless hours devoting time and energy to this important report. The result
of this research concluded that the property in question scored a highest priority for natural
resources. The property in question was positive for riparian connectivity, wetlands, source
water protection, large habitat block, grassland, forest block, prime ag and farmland. The parcel
is also adjacent to the Great Swamp, making it especially important to keep the connectivity of
natural resources intact as nature intended. It is truly a goldmine of natural resources that are
forever irreplaceable.
In an earlier meeting, the property owner referred to the proposed development as “infill
development.” How is the destruction of important natural resources considered “infill”?
Tearing down of forests and other resources is not “infill”. Focusing on vacant commercial lots
and deteriorating buildings downtown to create a vibrant city is infill, and smart development.
When our natural resources have been depleted, what will be the attraction of moving to South
Burlington?
Finally, on a personal note, these city committees are purely volunteer. As a volunteer who gave
over a year of my time and countless hours, I feel as though my efforts on this project are being
completely disregarded. How can the city expect to recruit volunteers for these important
positions if our hard work appears to be futile?
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Respectfully,
Alyson Chalnick
Development Review Board 1751 Spear St
City of South Burlington, VT South Burlington, VT 05403
c/o Marla Keene jennifercrand@gmail.com
(802) 846-4106
mkeene@sburl.com
3/29/2021
Re: Sketch Plan application SD-21-10 of Alan Long
To the DRB:
Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments regarding Mr. Long ’s application to create a PUD at 1720-1730
Spear St. We are an abutting landowner and will attend your April 6 public meeting at which the sketch plan for Mr.
Long’s proposal will be considered. As such, we have interested party status and will continue to maintain my right to
appeal.
In short, we oppose this project and ask you to do the same as allowed by procedural rules and policies.
Our objections to this application are many. We are sympathetic to Mr. Long and his desire to maximize the value of his
property but doing so against the rules and wishes of a community he does not reside in is not right or fair. That said, we
understand that the purpose of this Sketch Plan Application and subsequent review is not to make any formal decision
but to pass along public and DRB feedback to the developer.As such, please include our feedback in the record and
consider adjusting your feedback in light of our concerns.
Please consider whether or not there is a need for 49 additional units in the City of South Burlington.The fact is that
under Interim Zoning, which was extended by vote as recently as last November, and under the Comprehensive Plan,
there is to be a moratorium on additional subdivisions and developments in the South East Quadrant. Concurrent to Mr.
Long’s application there are as many as 1200 additional units planned for the City, not only few of which are on the
abutting property at South Village. O’Brien Farm,which is planning some 900 units, sits well within the exempt area
designated for development under Interim Zoning. Mr.Long’s parcels do not.
Mr. Long ’s application reassures the committee that his application is consistent with the new LDRs proposed by the
Planning Commission, but there is no way he could possibly know that until the new LDRs are final and approved. The
entire purpose of Interim Zoning was to slow development to protect the City and its residents while new,strategic,
deliberate LDRs were put in place. We would propose that Mr. Long's development should similarly need to wait on
those new regulations rather than preempt them.
Mr. Long is correct that water, sewer, electricity,and natural gas do extend along Spear St, but there is no assurance or
documentation that any of them are sufficient to meet the increased demand his proposal will cause. Speaking as
residents of the street, we can attest to the fact that other recent developments have caused sewer issues requiring
shutting down the system for periods of time. We can say with certainty that one public utility that is incapable of
handling the increased demand Mr. Long ’s Development would put on it, is Spear Street itself. The road is already
overused; it is heavily trafficked as a “feeder road”and by heavy trucks (for which it was not designed);and the turns at
South Pointe and Preserve Roads, by which the 49 additional units will access their homes, are already dangerous and
create backups on the road. It is not uncommon for us to have to wait a significant time to leave our own driveway and it
is often as a result of South Village and South Pointe residents beating us to gaps in the congestion.
Mr. Long states in his application that “The project will be consistent in look and feel with the adjacent existing
developments.” Frankly, this is untrue. The South Village development orients its homes towards Spear Street and
provides a significant buffer in the form of working agricultural fields and buildings that are open to the public, serve the
public, and preserve the town’s agricultural heritage.From Spear, north of Allen, there is little indication of the size of the
South Village development and all the homes appear to be in place along Spear. South Pointe is largely not visible from
Spear Street at all. Mr. Long ’s sketch is the opposite.The homes will orient east, away from Spear, and will butt up
against Spear, from the rear, inconsistent with every other Spear Street home in South Burlington that orients west and is
set significantly back from the road. From the four properties across Spear from the Long properties,no fewer than
seven backyards will be viewable where currently there are two front yards.
Mr. Long makes mention of promoting access to the fields and wood of his property and we can attest to that. His
property, the abutting parts of Great Swamp, and the connecting parts of South Village are all extensively used by the
local residents. What the application lacks is any development of public goods and resources in exchange for the loss of
green space and working landscape he proposes. There should be parking, maintained trails, deeded and conserved
rights of way, and protections for these opportunities in perpetuity. Additionally, there are plans in the City to develop
recreation paths and sidewalks along the west side of Spear St and a known gap between the existing paths from South
Village/Allen Road to Overlook Park. We would propose that any development that is approved, despite opposition and
the current Interim Zoning, be required to provide a recreation path connection along the east side of Spear in addition
to providing and protecting the other recreational resources listed above.
One area of significant concern that has not been addressed in any materials we have seen to date is that of the
watershed connecting Great Swamp down through Spear St, Chapin Road, and down into Baycrest. Our property,and
several around it, have significant amounts of water runoff down from the height of land (the Long property).Our
concern is that no one has assessed the impact on the homes below the long property when significant soil filtration and
holding capacity is lost and exchanged for impervious surfaces adding to runoff into downhill properties and ultimately
the Lake. There is mention of some stormwater control in the application, but nothing that suggests protection for the
homes down-aquifer from the development.
The current LDRs, specifically on page 147, state that the
“Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and
natural resource protection,wildlife habitat preservation,continued agriculture,and well-planned residential use in the
approximately 3,200-acre area of the City shown on the Official Zoning Map as the Southeast Quadrant.The natural
features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique
resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the
judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly
permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses.”
Clearly well-planned residential neighborhoods are a part of the approved uses for the South East Quadrant.However,
this application prioritizes development over all the other stated priorities, including open space,scenic views, natural
resources, habitat protection, and agriculture. It should also be noted that these properties are part of a contiguous
network of habitat for hawks, deer, fox, turkey, and other animals that extends from the Great Swamp through our and
the Cone’s property all the way south into Shelburne.
It should be noted that in its report “Natural Capital Valuation of Interim Zoning Open Space Parcels, “commissioned by
the City of South Burlington itself, Earth Economics places of value of between $18 and $60 Million (over 20 years, at a
3% Discount Rate) on these two parcels remaining open.The City and its residents should not be asked to turn this value
over to a developer in exchange for questionable (and potentially insufficient to cover services) tax revenue.
It is also worth noting that this development runs counter to a number of stated goals and strategies of the South
Burlington Comprehensive Plan, specifically in reference to the South East Quadrant, including:
●Pg. 3-29 which states “The development and ultimate land use pattern in the Southeast Quadrant of South
Burlington is of critical importance to South Burlington’s future. Creating a balance between housing,
complimentary land uses, and conservation, especially conservation of key natural communities and habitat
features, will happen through continuous planning,public involvement, and the thoughtful use of the City’s land
acquisition funds and regulatory tools.” Developing one of the last open parcels is not a balancing of other land
uses.
●Pg. 3-31 which refers to Spear Street Frontage as “the area’s key significance is that it acts as a buffer between
the Great Swamp and the more developed areas to the west.” Developing 49 homes is not buffering.
●Pg. 3-38, Objective 60 which states: “Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open
space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for
development.” This area is both contiguous open space AND not specifically designated for development.
●Pg. 3-38 Objective 61 which states: “Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture
that complement and help sustain a growing city and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining
agricultural lands.”Developing land that still grows apple trees and was historically part of working orchards is
not maintaining opportunities for traditional agriculture.
●Pg. [204] Future Land Use Map which shows these two parcels as “Very Low Intensity- principally open space”
and not as medium or high density residential.
Mr. Long states in his application that he has worked with O’Leary Burke Civil Associates. However, he does not make
mention of any other interested parties. We are concerned that there is potential for Mr. Long to be preparing to transfer
his development rights as part of a Purchase and Sale Agreement or otherwise working on behalf of larger commercial
interests without disclosing them.
Please do not misunderstand; as stated earlier, we have nothing personal against Mr. Long and we understand the desire
to maximize the value of assets. That is the basis of our economy and of free markets. But the job of Government is to
protect its citizens from the externalities created by the pursuit of self-interested profit. Mr. Long ’s application generates
value for him at the expense of the current and future homeowners around his parcels and future generations of South
Burlington residents, of which he is no longer one.There are many ways that Mr. Long could capture the value of these
two parcels without developing them and we would encourage the DRB to insist on them to the greatest extent it is
allowed. We do not want to take away any of his rights,but we insist on upholding the rules and values that the City ’s
residents have agreed upon.
Please consider requesting, suggesting, or demanding significant changes to this plan in order to protect the nature of
our neighborhoods, the green space of the South-East Quadrant, and the agricultural landscape we chose to live in. We
humbly ask that the feedback from this Sketch Plan review include overhauling and downscaling the project even if it
cannot be outright rejected at this time.
Sincerely,
Jennifer C. Rand
Homeowner
1751 Spear St
Norman C. Staunton
Resident
1751 Spear St