Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_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: May 4, 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 April 6 to complete review of the staff comments from that date and to allow the applicant to prepare responses. On April 6, the Board only reviewed a portion of the Staff Comments, focusing on Ledge Removal and Architecture. These Staff comments omit applicable LDR criteria which Staff considers to have been met. As always, the Board is encouraged to bring up any applicable elements of the LDR about which they have ongoing or new concerns. Staff reminds the Board, the applicant, and potentially interested persons that the Board’s responsibility under 24 VSA §4417 is defined as follows: (f) The approval of a proposed planned unit development shall be based on findings by the appropriate municipal panel that the proposed planned unit development is in conformance with the municipal plan and satisfies other requirements of the bylaws. Further, the Board is obligated by 24 VSA §4461 to follow its own adopted rules of procedure. Comments for the Board’s attention are in red. Public Comment Included in the packet for the Board are several additional written public comments received between April 6 and the packet publication date. The Board will note there are a number of emails which were improperly sent directly to the Board Chair. Though these emails were not necessarily intended to be public comments, by being sent directly to the Board Chair, they were sent in violation of open meeting law and in order to remedy the violation, Staff is obligated to share them with the Board. Since time constraints did not allow oral public comment on April 6, Staff recommends the Board ensure time for public comment on this hearing date by hearing public comment before reviewing the remainder of staff comments. Staff reminds the Board and the public of the Development Review Board Meeting Participation Guidelines, included in every agenda: The DRB is a Quasi-Judicial Board that oversees the adjudication of development projects within the City. It is made up of citizens appointed by the City Council. The role of the DRB is to hear and review applications for #SD-21-06 2 development under the applicable regulations. The DRB can only approve applications that comply with the applicable bylaw or state law, and the board can only levy conditions that are permitted under the bylaw. By the same token, if a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, the DRB is bound by law to grant the approval. 1. The Board asks that all participants at meetings be respectful of Board members, staff, applicants and other members of the public present at the meeting. 2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Board and the applicant. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all Board members first. After the Board members have discussed an item, the Chair will open up the floor for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. 3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Board. 4. If the Board suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Board to hear all items on the agenda. 5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully. 6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. The Chair will direct responses from applicable people as needed. 7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others and keep your comments germane to the issue before the board. 8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Board for a second time. 9. Comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the Planning and Zoning Department. All comments should identify what application the correspondence is in reference to. All written comments will be circulated to the DRB and kept as part of the official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e- mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. 10. Please note that once a public hearing has been closed by the DRB, no further comments can be accepted, in accordance with state law. 1. Staff recommends the Board acknowledge the received written comments, summarize the subject areas, and then invite public comment. Architecture At the April 6 hearing, the Board indicated they would deliberate on the project and provide additional feedback to the applicant regarding their proposed architecture. The below information was provided from Staff to the applicant at the direction of the Board on 4/21/2021 • The Board reviewed the “inner loop” duplex homes and notes that while the home type is attractive, there is insufficient variation between homes and recommends you enhance the variability. • Regarding home types “Middlebury” and “Pico” #SD-21-06 3 a. The front is ok. The window patterns are ok, and having eave returns is good. The Board recommends making the eave returns go all the way across and varying the siding above the eaves as a variation between the two types. • Regarding home type “Stowe” a. There needs to be more variation in the design on the back side. The Board is opposed to the windows all being the same, and the four like windows being repeated at the exact same spacing. The roof line on the rear needs to be broken up. The Board recommends considering smaller “doghouse” dormers. b. On the front, the differing roof shape is good, and the interest added by the garage windows is good. c. There should be design details added in the gables in either end. Should not be a field of siding. Could add a decorative vent and switch siding direction • Regarding home type “Woodstock” a. On the rear, the same comments regarding the center windows apply b. The right side of the rear has a better feel, but still needs more interest. On the left, the porch is somewhat domineering. Can it be softened? c. On the front, the windows in the gables are good-ish but should be a different shape – round or arched. • Finally, the Board thinks there is some potential if you switched “Stowe” and “Woodstock” to two single family homes each, keeping the unit count the same. This is something for you to consider, not necessarily something the Board is directing you to do. The applicant indicated they will incorporate this feedback. Due to the DRB’s meeting schedule, this feedback was not provided to the applicant in time to allow them to provide modified plans for this May 4 hearing, therefore the applicant has asked to address this feedback and other design related feedback at a continued hearing date. Staff supports this request. Pre-construction grade and height: On April 6, the Board directed the applicant to limit all homes located in the one story building areas, including homes in the eastern-most one story building area (units 17 and 18) to be no more than 18-20 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof when measured from average preconstruction grade. On April 23, the applicant provided the following supplemental testimony. The roadway was lowered about a foot from station 8+00 – 9+00 and the unit 17/18 garages were lowed about a foot below the revised roadway elevation. Both units have a 4-foot difference from the pre- construction grade to the garage floor and the attached building elevations were revised to have a 16’ building height (4’ + 16’ = 20’). I think this new configuration worked out well from a constructability and long-term management standpoint as well as adhering to the DRBs desire to keep the 1-story building locations at a 20’ height. The revised elevations and plans have been included in the packet for the Board. Staff considers this comment has been addressed. South-facing translucence: Time did not allow discussion of this comment on April 6, therefore it is unchanged from that date. On March 3, the applicant testified that only the southernmost four homes will have south exposure, and they #SD-21-06 4 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. 2. 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. 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. Staff discussed the April 6 analysis of this request with the applicant, expressing concern that this condition allowed diminishment of the Board’s required architectural quality. The applicant understood this concern and was amenable to a condition that allows flexibility without potentially diminishing architectural quality. On April 23, the applicant provided the following supplemental written testimony. We do not feel a clear direction was determined at the last meeting; therefore, the Applicant is willing to further address the Staff comment by narrowing the flexibility of the ZA to make modifications to the approved building elevations to only; colors, porch/deck designs, and foundation types. The remaining features of the proposed building elevations will be constructed as shown. We feel this allows the DRB to have a firm understanding of the exterior of the proposed units, while giving the Applicant some flexibility to change minor aspects of the buildings to cater to homeowners’ preferences. Staff therefore offers the following suggested modification. The Administrative Officer shall have the ability to allow modifications to the approved building elevation in the following manner. If the applicant wishes to modify the building elevation, the zoning permit application must be accompanied by a site plan and/or elevations, as needed, showing sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with this criterion. 1. At the time of initial zoning permit application, colors may be modified from the approved plans to the extent they would still be considered the same basic color. For example, an approved blue home must remain blue, but the shade of blue may be modified. 2. Siding, trim, and roof lines may be modified to have more variation than the approved plans but not less. For example, gables may be changed to have a different siding pattern than the main structure. 3. There shall be no less glazing on each facade than on the approved plans, and the distribution of glazing shall be no less irregular than on the approved plans. 4. The street facing façade shall have the same relationship to the proposed grade as shown on the approved plans. Rear foundation type may vary as long as the limits of grading remain unchanged. Zoning applications for Lots 15 to 18 having walkout basements shall be substantially screened from the public recreation path by vegetation no less than six feet in height at a distance of no more than 20-feet from the edge of the footprint of building. #SD-21-06 5 5. At the time of initial zoning permit application, porches and decks shall be allowed to be modified by no more than 50% of their length along the facade but a porch shall not be removed or added where one was present or absent in the approved plans. 3. Staff recommends the Board review the proposed condition and discuss whether they find it to be acceptable. Ledge Removal On April 6, the Board invoked technical review of the applicant’s proposed plan for removal of ledge. That technical review is underway. The applicant provided a supplemental “operations plan” on 4/21, which Staff has shared with the technical reviewer and is included the packet for the Board. Due to contract negotiations and vacation schedules, the ledge removal technical review is not available at the time of packet publication. Staff recommends the Board continue discussion of ledge removal to a continued hearing date. On April 23, the applicant provided the following supplemental written testimony regarding 13.16C. As Staff indicated in an email dated 4/21/21 the DRB requested information regarding section 13.16 C of the LDRs. Section 13 includes general regulations for “Earth Products”. In the Applicants opinion, it would be a stretch to consider section 13.16 for a development project, which requires removal of ledge to construct a new public roadway and associated housing. Section 13.16 seems more geared toward commercial applications for the extraction of earth’s resources including; quarries, sand pits, etc. However, the Applicant is willing to provide the following information regarding 13.16C as described below. In addition, the Applicant has submitted a document prepared by the licensed blasting contractor, Maine Drilling & Blasting, dated April 20, 2021 titled Daily Operations – Drilling & Blasting. We look forward to hearing back from the technical review of the blasting plan. 13.16C. 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. The project will require a zoning permit for infrastructure from the City of South Burlington. The zoning permit will be closed once the public infrastructure passes all construction tests and passes the required 2-year warranty period to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. (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. Please refer to the project site plans. As the project is part of a development project, the “reclamation plan” in this case is essentially the site plan. (3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed. The typical construction hours for a project under Act 250 jurisdiction is 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Saturday with no construction on Sundays or Holidays. All construction traffic will access the project from Dorset Street. (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. The project will require a zoning permit from the City of South Burlington. As part of the infrastructure zoning permit issuance, an estimate will be submitted by a qualified site contractor for the construction #SD-21-06 6 of the public infrastructure improvements. A bond will be posted by the Applicant for the improvements. Typically, a 10% retainage is kept until the roadway passes the 2-year warranty period. Staff recommends the Board defer drafting findings on 13.16C until the technical review is available. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 6+007+0 08+009+0010+21.6810+000SCALE: 1"=30'3060120PARK ROADREC PATHLOW USE1"=30'PJOBWCBWCOBCA2019-75S92-26-20Site Plan 'East'South Burlington VermontWheeler ParcelCIVIL ASSOCIATES, PLCO'LEARY-BURKE ESSEX JCT., VTPHONE: 878-9990FAX: 878-9989E-MAIL: obca@olearyburke .com13 CORPORATE DRIVE 3Approx imate Locat ion o fPotential St ream /Seasonal Stream REC P A T H LOW U S E Exis ting StormwaterEasementLegend111213141516171819202122SMH #4STA=4+75.56Rim=421.99'8" IN=413 .09 '6" IN=413 .09 '8"OUT=412.99'SMH #5STA=6+82.75Rim=413.71 '6" IN=404.81'8" IN=404.81'8"OUT=404.71'SMH #6STA=7+64.70Rim=405.51 '8" IN=396 .75 '8"OUT=396.65 'SMH #7STA=9+07.14Rim=397.71 '8" IN=390.31 '8" IN=390.31 '6" IN=390.31 '8"OUT=390.21'CB #7STA=7+54.86Rim=406.24'4" UD=402.24'4" FD=402.00'15" OUT=400.99'CB #8STA=7+54.89Rim=406.24'4" UD=402.24'15" IN=400 .64 '4" FD=399.74'15" IN=399 .34 '15" OUT=399.24'CB #10STA=9+29.55Rim=397.20'4" UD=393.20'15" OUT=391.95'CB #9STA=9+29.55Rim=397.20'4" UD=393.20'15" IN=391.60'15" IN=391.39'15" IN=391.19'18" OUT=391.09'18" INV=390.1 '6" Ya rd D ra in12' Wide Paved AccessDrive (See Detail)Landscaping Buffer(Type II / 27' wide)Proposed SplitRail FenceW E GWEGMunicipal Pump Stationand Valve Pit (See Detail)FMFM2324ProposedPre -Construct ionGrade E leva tion=400.50'ProposedPre-ConstructionGrade Elevation=400.25'CB #6STA=5+87.39Rim=421.15'4" UD=417.15'15" IN=415.55'4" FD=414.15 ' x215" OUT=413.65'50' Class IIWetland Buffer900 SF temporarywetland buffer impact 4" SDR26 ForcemainSetback30' Rear Yard SetbackTypica lFootprint LotTypica lFootprint LotGravel Wetland(See Detail)Gravel Wetland(See Detail)Outlet Structure(See Detail)Pump Station Easement10' Easement to GMP18" SDR35INV=376'+/-Class II Wetland Delineated byGilman & Briggs Env ironmentalDuring the Summer of 2019ProposedPre -Construct ionGrade E levation=413.50'Light PoleEEE3 Phase Power toPump Station Single Phase Powerto Serve UnitsCB #13Rim=398.25'15" IN=391.86'4" FD IN=392.26'15" OUT=391.76'CB #11Rim=409.50'15" IN=405.00'15" OUT=404.90'CB #12Rim=399.50'15" IN=393.85'15" OUT=393.75'Maximum 6FT Tall StoneWall or Ledge FaceCB #5STA=5+87.39Rim=421.15'4" UD=417.15'4" FD=416.40'15" OUT=415.90'Yard Existing 32" +/- OakTree to be SavedOpen Cut Park Roadto Extend Utilities Revised for Final Plat Appl ica t ion BWCTrim Back Any OverhangingTrees/Shrubs to EnsureAdequate Site Distance275' SIGHT DISTANCE 275' SIGHT DISTANCE20' Front Yard SetbackTrim Back Any OverhangingTrees/Shrubs to EnsureAdequate Site Distance 30' Rear Yard Setback Rip Rap Swale FromHere Down toSediment ForebayProposed SedimentForebayRip Rap (Typ.) 20' Front Setbac k Yard 20' Fr o n t Landscaping Buffer(Type II / 27' wide)Landscaping Buffer(Type II / 27' wide)Landscaping Buffer Boundary(See Landscaping Plans)Landscaping Buffer Boundary(See Landscaping Plans)30' Low Use Rec Path Setback30' Low Use Rec Path SetbackClearing Limits Clear Vegetationto Property LineClear Vegetationwithin GravelWetland Footprint3 Phase Power to PumpStation and Loop Single Phasewithin Development Secondary PowerPedestal (typ.)Primary PowerTransformer (typ.)Clear Vegeta tion ForStormwater OutfallDaylight ExistingCulvert12-14-20Zoey CircleGrade Entrance to EnsureRunoff From Park Rd does notEnter DevelopmentSMH #8STA=9+77.02Rim=398.36'6" IN=390.73'8"OUT=390.63'Revised Based on City Stormwa ter CommentsBWC2-11-21BWC3-22-21Proposed Garage F loorElev =398.0'(Sing le Story)Exist Pre-Cons tructionGrade Elev = 394'Proposed Garage F loorElev =399.0'(Sing le Story)Exist Pre-Cons tructionGrade Elev = 395'Create Positive Slope Awayfrom Foundation (typ.)Create Positive Slope Away from Foundation (typ.)ProposedPre-ConstructionGrade E leva tion=421.25'ProposedPre-ConstructionGrade Elevat ion=418.25 'ProposedPre-Construc tionGrade Elevation=414.25'ProposedPre-ConstructionGrade Elevat ion=410.25 'ProposedPre -Construct ionGrade E leva tion=406.25'WRevised for Final Plat Hearing Based on C i ty Depar tment CommentsBWC4-22-21Lowered Road Eleva t ion from S ta t ion 7+50 - 8+50 and Elevations of Units 17 & 18 3843883923964004044084124164204244280+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+00423.0423.1423.6424.7425.4426.1426.2 426.4 425.7 424.2 422.0 422.3 415.2 411.0 404.4 400.6 397.6 397.6 398.3 397.4 398.9 100.0' VCPVI ELEV = 425.71PVI STA = 1+50.21BVCS: 1+00.21BVCE: 424.71EVCS: 2+00.21EVCE: 426.21425.58426.21 100.0' VCPVI ELEV = 428.00PVI STA = 3+78.56HIGH POINT STA = 3+53.56HIGH POINT ELEV = 427.62BVCS: 3+28.56BVCE: 427.50 EVCS: 4+28.56 EVCE: 426.50 427.62 427.19 100.0' VCPVI ELEV = 421.08PVI STA = 6+08.94BVCS: 5+58.94 BVCE: 422.58 EVCS: 6+58.94 EVCE: 416.08 416.95 407.00 402.13 70.0' VCPVI ELEV = 396.99PVI STA = 9+31.53LOW POINT STA = 9+29.55LOW POINT ELEV = 397.50BVCS: 8+67.07 BVCE: 399.06 EVCS: 9+67.07EVCE: 398.06 397.85 397.67 25.0' VCPVI ELEV = 399.10PVI STA = 10+01.57HIGH POINT STA = 10+07.83HIGH POINT ELEV = 399.01BVCS: 9+89.07BVCE: 398.73 EVCS: 10+14.07EVCE: 398.98 398.96 2.0%422.71423.71424.71 1.0%426.71427.21 -3.0%425.85 424.35 422.85 -10.0%411.98 3.0%-1.0%6+00420.0420.76 404388392396416420424428400388-10.0%399.21 -2.68%75.0' VCPVI ELEV = 400.00PVI STA = 8+19.78BVCS: 7+82.28BVCE: 403.75 EVCS: 8+57.28EVCE: 398.990SCALE: 1"=30'30601201"=30'PJOBWCBWCOBCA2019-75S42-26-20Roadway ProfileSouth Burlington VermontWheeler ParcelCIVIL ASSOCIATES, PLCO'LEARY-BURKE ESSEX JCT., VTPHONE: 878-9990FAX: 878-9989E-MAIL: obca@olearyburke .com13 CORPORATE DRIVE 4SMH #1STA=1+23.22Rim=425.15'6" IN=417.75' X28" OUT=417.65'SMH #2STA=3+91.63Rim=427.33'6" IN=416.42'8" IN=416.42'8"OUT=416.32'SMH #3STA=4+94.18Rim=424.53'8" IN=415.63'6" IN=415.63' x28"OUT=415.53'SMH #4STA=4+75.56Rim=421.99'8" IN=413.09'6" IN=413.09'8"OUT=412.99'SMH #5STA=6+82.75Rim=413.71'6" IN=404.81'8" IN=404.81'8"OUT=404.71'SMH #6STA=7+64.70Rim=405.51'8" IN=396.75'8"OUT=396.65'SMH #7STA=9+07.14Rim=397.71'8" IN=390.31'6" IN=390.31'8"OUT=390.21'CB #1STA=0+13.76Rim=422.68'4" UD=418.68'15" IN=415.28'15" OUT=415.18'CB #2STA=0+13.76Rim=422.68'4" UD=418.68'8" YD=417.68'15" IN=415.63'15" OUT=415.53'CB #3STA=2+68.07Rim=426.59'4" UD=422.59'15" IN=418.44'4" FD=418.84'15" OUT=418.34'CB #4STA=2+68.07Rim=426.59'4" UD=422.59'4" FD=419.29' x215" OUT=418.79'15" PE STORM L=252' S=0.118" SDR35 SEWER L=265' S=0.0058" SDR35 SEWER L=97' S=0.0078" SDR35 L=77' S=0.0328" SDR35 SEWER L=102' S=0.080CB #5STA=5+87.39Rim=421.15'4" UD=417.15'4" FD=416.40'15" OUT=415.90'CB #6STA=5+87.39Rim=421.15'4" UD=417.15'15" IN=415.55'4" FD=414.15' x215" OUT=413.65'8" SDR35 SEWER L=78' S=0.1028" SDR35 SEWER L=136' S=0.047CB #7STA=7+54.86Rim=406.24'4" UD=402.24'4" FD=402.00'15" OUT=400.99'CB #8STA=7+54.89Rim=406.24'4" UD=402.24'15" IN=400.64'4" FD=399.74'15" IN=399.34'15" OUT=399.24'15" PE STORM L=169' S=0.088CB #10STA=9+29.55Rim=397.20'4" UD=393.20'15" OUT=391.95'8" SDR35 SEWERL=55' S=.005TO PUMP STATION4" SDR35 PERF UNDERDRAIN4" SDR35 PERF UNDERDRAIN8" PVC C900 WATERMAIN8" PVC C900 WATERMAINProposed Forcemain4" SDR26ProposedForcemain4" SDR268" SDR35 SEWERL=66' S=0.005CB #9STA=9+29.55Rim=397.20 '4" UD=393.20'15" IN=391.60'15" IN=391.39'15" IN=391.19'18" OUT=391.09'15" PE toCB#13S=0.005L=75'18" PE to STMH#1S=0.011 L=70'Revised for Final Plat Appl ica t ion BWC6' COVER (TYP.)12-14-20SMH #8STA=9+77.02Rim=398.36'6" IN=390.73'8"OUT=390.63'Revised Based on City Stormwa ter CommentsBWC2-11-21BWC3-22-21Insulate Over WatermainWhen Cover is Less than 5.5'Revised for Final Plat Hearing Based on C i ty Depar tment CommentsBWC4-22-21Lowered Road Eleva t ion from S ta t ion 7+50 - 8+5015" PE STORML=174' S=0.046 FirApple1-A Cherry Spruce Maple Elm Oak Oak Birch Birch Grafton PicoMiddlebury Stratton Jay JayGraftonStratton Stratton PAGE:C DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: COVER SHEET DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CHERRY DRAWING INDEX C COVER SHEET P-1 FOUNDATION PLAN P-2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN P-3 FRONT ELEVATION P-4 ELEVATIONS P-5 ELEVATIONS (CONT) BUILDING DATA: SQUARE FOOTAGES FOUNDATION (UNFN) 1656 FIRST FLOOR 1656 GARAGE 453 TOTAL FINISHED 1656 SSSSUP 10'-10"10'-8" 11'7'-8"9'-10"21'-6" 50'47'-4"2'-8"50'1'-5"16'-5"5'-1"21'-6"20'41'-6"9'-11"50' 20'-2" X 20'-10" GARAGE PAGE:P-1 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: FOUNDATION PLAN DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DN 30510DH30510DH30510DH30510DH2840DH3060DH3060DH6078 3060DH 3060DH 30684030FX6016FX5068 2868 17080 3060DH3060DH 3060DH3060DH 5068 3068210685068286828682868 2868 2668 2268 28682868 2868 26683060DH 3060DH 3060DH 3060DH 50'50'41'-6"50' 6'-9" X 12'-3" 11'-0" X 9'-11" 20'-6" X 20'-11" 17'-5" X 21'-2" 10'-6" X 11'-4" 10'-8" X 9'-8" 13'-1" X 13'-2" 20'-8" X 12'-3" BEDROOM GARAGE STUDY PORCH MASTER BEDROOM GREAT DINING DECK PAGE:P-2 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: FIRST FLOOR PLAN DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1st Floor TP 10'-1" Highest Ridge 19'-9" 1st Floor 1'-1" Ridge Mid-Point 15'-11" PAGE:P-3 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: FRONT ELEVATION DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PAGE:P-4 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: ELEVATIONS DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PAGE:P-5 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: CHERRY DRAWING: ELEVATIONS (CONT) DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION PAGE:C DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: COVER SHEET DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SPRUCE DRAWING INDEX C COVER SHEET P-1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN P-2 FOUNDATION PLAN P-3 FRONT ELEVATION P-4 ELEVATIONS P-5 ELEVATIONS (CONT) BUILDING DATA: SQUARE FOOTAGES FOUNDATION (UNFN) 1595 FIRST FLOOR 1595 GARAGE 460 TOTAL FINISHED 1595 S S SSSSUP 10'-2"10'-2" 13'-4"6'-4"20'-4" 40'53'2'-1"16'-5"7'-7"24'27'51'4'-1"40' PAGE:P-1 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: FOUNDATION PLAN DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DN 3060DH 3060DH 3060DH 30682840DH3060DH3060DH2868 3060DH3060DH 3068 17080 2868 3060DH286830683568 28682868 2868 2668 2868 2868 506828682868 3060DH 3060DH 3060DH 5068 6016FX2020FX3060DH3060DH40'53'8'-7"51'40' PAGE:P-2 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: FIRST FLOOR PLAN DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1st Floor TP 10' Highest Ridge 22' 1st Floor 1' Ridge Mid-Point 16' PAGE:P-3 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: FRONT ELEVATION DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PAGE:P-4 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: ELEVATIONS DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION PAGE:P-5 DATE: 4/23/2021 VERSION: 1.03 JOB: SPRUCE DRAWING: ELEVATIONS (CONT) DRAWN BY: DRAWN FOR: JA TH COPYRIGHT © 2020 BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ALL DRAWINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREIN MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR MODIFIED IN ANY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AT: INFO@BLACKROCKUS.COM 802.861.1120 FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION ‘ Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc. Divisional Offices 7190 State Route 40 Connecticut 860.242.7419 Argyle, NY 12809 Maine 207.582.2338 518.632.9170 Massachusetts/RI 508-478-0273 518.632.5716 FAX New Hampshire 603.647.0299 New York 518.632.9170 Pennsylvania 717.866.8981 Vermont 802.453.5138 Setting Earth-Shattering Standards Since 1966 • An Equal Opportunity Employer Subject: Daily Operations – Drilling & Blasting Date: April 20, 2021 The following information will outline a typical drill and blast day as expected by MD&B on the Wheeler Parcel Subdivision Project. MD&B has completed various projects in South Burlington, VT very similar to the Wheeler Parcel project and has great confidence in our daily procedures. A Pre-Task Analysis (attached below) is completed at the beginning of each day by all MD&B personnel on site. Roles and responsibilities are discussed as well as any possible safety concerns. Once a PTA is completed, drilling and blasting operations will start for the day. Holes are laid out based on a blast design and pattern to achieve an appropriate powder factor and will be drilled to depths specified by contractor. Explosives will be brought to the site daily and kept in an approved portable magazine mounted on MD&B’s truck. Once the driller has drilled enough holes to shoot, the blaster will load each hole with explosives and stemming stone. The shot will then be tied together in a sequence for proper timing. After the shot is tied together the MD&B crew will walk the shot ensuring every hole is stemmed, properly tied in, and any trash/debris is removed from the shot. Blasting mats will be placed over the shot with assistance from the contractors excavator/operator. All unused explosives will be transported offsite daily along with all MD&B’s empty boxes and garbage. Once the shot is matted, all equipment will be moved to a safe distance from the blasting area and the MD&B crew will set seismographs at the nearest structures to the blast along with a camera to capture video of each blast. A site security plan is developed for each job to make sure no person gets within the blasting area. Each MD&B personnel will take charge of a site security point and communicate via radio. The blaster will blow warning whistles prior to blast (3 whistles – 5 minute warning), (2 whistles – 1 min warning) while maintaining communication with each site security point. Once the 2 whistle warning is blown and each site security point is clear and deemed safe by the BIC, the shot will then be fired. A final single whistle will be blown after the shot has been fired, and site security removed. The blaster will walk the shot prior to the single whistle to make sure it has properly fired and the area deemed safe. Immediately following the single whistle the contractor will remove the mats from the blasted rock and vent the shot. During operations, MD&B will remain in constant communication with the contractor and traffic control. A preblast call will be offered 1 hour before each blast to adjacent homeowners, first responders, etc. who want to be on the call list. MD&B plans to shoot multiple shots each day for the Wheeler Parcel Project. Each blast is specifically designed to all State and Federal regulations. PTA, Drilling Logs, and Blast Reports are completed daily by MD&B. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Regards, Joseph Happy Assistant Divisional Manager Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc. (203) 231-4118 Blast Report Job # _________________ Customer Name: ______________________________ Customer Supt. : ______________________ Date: _________________ Job Address: _________________________________ Pick Ticket(s) # : ______________________ Shot #: _________ _________ _________ _________ Fire Detail Hours:__________________ Shot Time:Type of Rock:__________________ Operation: (Trench, Open)Type of Terrain:__________________ Weather Conditions:__________________ # Holes:Wind Direction/Speed:__________________ Depth of Water:Identify Hazards: _____________________ Hole Diameter: Burden:_____________________________________ Spacing: Total Square Feet: Precautions Taken: ___________________ Stemming: Sub Drill:_____________________________________ Avg. Drill Depth:Calculations: Total Drill Footage: Total Pay Yards: Total Yards Shot: Bulk __________________ ANFO ANFO WR Exp. 1 ________________ Exp. 2 ________________ Exp. 3 ________________ Exp. 4 ________________ Cast Booster ___________ Cast Booster ___________ Total Pounds Shot: Powder Factor (Lbs / Cyd): Det 1 _________________ Det 2 _________________ Det 3 _________________ Det 4 _________________ Det 5 _________________ Notes: Det 6 _________________ Lead Line ____________ Type of Cover (Dirt, Mats): # of Mats Used: Seis #: PPV: Operator: dB: Location: Seis #: PPV: Operator: dB: Location: Seis #: PPV: Operator: dB: Blaster Location:Name: ______________________________ Seis #: PPV: Operator: dB: Lic. # _________________ Location: Signature:Signature: ___________________________ THIS REPORT MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY Rev. 5-5-08 Blast Design Plan Show Timing for Each Shot Job Number:Date: Typical Columns FORMULAS: SD = D / W ^.5 PPV = K x (SD)^-1.6 K = PPV x SD ^1.6 Shot #:_________ _________ _________ _________ Distance to Closest Structure: Location of Structure: Max Holes Per Delay: Max Pounds Per Delay: Scale Distance: Predicted PPV: K Factor __________ THIS REPORT MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY Rev. 5-5-08 1 TO:   The South Burlington Development Review Board  (DRB)  FROM:   Karen LeFevre, 598 Golf Course Road, South Burlington, VT 05403  RE:  UPDATE of my March 3 Public Comment on #SD‐21‐06, 550 Park Road Final Plat Development  Proposal by Blackrock Construction for the 6.91‐acre “Wheeler Parcel,”550 Park Road, South Burlington    DATE:    April 1, 2021  *** Note to staff: Please include this comment in the packet prepared for the Continuing  Hearing on April 6, 2021? Thank you very much. I also attach a photo that shows the tagged  marker for one of the proposed access/egress new road cuts into Park which may be useful at  the April 6 hearing for some who have never seen it.    First, I want to thank the DRB staff for responding to many questions from residents from our collective  neighborhoods , including those in 3 neighboring HOAs in the SEQ  that are so ably represented by John  Bossange. We’ve done a great deal of learning as we follow this development’s stages, and the staff  members have been providing useful information. Our views may differ, but I respect the work you do.     Here are some updated comments that I truly  hope the staff and Board will consider before the April 6  Continued Hearing on the Final Plat application for 550 Park Development.    I.   In comments written by DRB Staff to the Board re BlackRock’s final application on March 3, staff  (in this case, identified as Marla Keene and Paul Conner)  wrote the following which had not yet been  discussed prior to the closing/continuance of the hearing until April 6.  I hope that it will be clarified on  April 6 and that public oral comments may follow up on it:  “Staff reminds the Board that though there are numerous public comments pertaining to traffic safety,  the Board’s authority is limited to the impacts of this project.” (underlining mine).   What does “impacts” mean in this context? What are the “impacts” that staff believes do and do not  qualify for consideration? Why does the Board needs “reminding”  that it has no authority in this  situation? What written language elsewhere supports this opinion? I wonder why it is the only place in  the final plat application which mentions public comments at all, in a way that to me may carry an  implication of downplaying, even dismissing them. Perhaps I am reading too much into that section  because I care very much about the outcome of this Board’s decisions.  Here’s a guess‐‐‐ Does the staff refer to “impacts” as in vehicle crashes on Park Road? BlackRock’s  commissioned traffic study author stated (in oral testimony, I recall?) that the police have no record of  “crashes” on that part of Park Rd in the past several years. We are pleased if crashes have not occurred,  but having traveled this curving, sloping, icy road , some of us for 20‐some years, we have observed and  experienced ourselves numerous vehicles sliding off the road and slipping on ice and blinded by blowing  snow. Don’t the many “slide‐offs” from Park Rd into adjacent fields that residents note count for  “impacts?” in this situation,  if there are no injuries and no damage to another vehicle, and especially  2 during a storm, isn’t it more likely that a driver would contact neighbors or call to get towed out rather  than report it to police? These accidents do not then get counted officially. They still happen. They still  matter. Not everyone is familiar with this rural area of Park Road and does not anticipate such  conditions. And some “slide‐offs” as we call them could, sadly, hit another vehicle or person on the road  or path—especially now that the proposed roads will lead other new drivers in and out of the most risky  spots. The TIA commissioned by BlackRock seems to be faulty and self‐contradictory. Furthermore, as a  retired University professor who did a variety of research projects (though not on roads!) for more than  decades,  I’m aware that a study may well benefit from the inclusion of personal testimony and  interviews with people closely involved who draw from long experience and observations, e.g. “  evidence.”    Here are excerpts from but two of the many examples of our residents’ testimony. Park Road resident  Linda Wright’s Public Comment relates to traffic safety re the 550 Park Road Development:   I have lived here for more than 18 years and can attest to the danger associated with Park Road. During the winter, the daily ice melt from the hill slickens the base area of Park Road. It takes all of the area to get stopped and not head into oncoming traffic on Dorset Street. If there are additional cars entering Park Road in that area, accidents are inevitable. There have been countless slideoffs even with current traffic loads. I witnessed a South Burlington snowplow side off after making the turn onto Park from Dorset. My family experienced a slideoff coming down the hill on Park Road heading to Dorset. (October 30, 2020) And Rose Godard, a “pioneer” of 639 Golf Course from the start about 20 years ago states:    “I would like to respond to the traffic study results on safety. The last big storm several  weeks ago, as I was driving toward Dorset St. , down the hill just before the guardrails, a  car had slid 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. “ (March 10, 2021) (See photo of this part of Park Road)    II.  At this final plat stage for this project, our research indicates (but the general public may be unaware)  that it is still allowable for the Board to table or continue the approval process for this applicant (or  perhaps other options)  and meanwhile take the necessary time to look into several alternatives,  especially the Dorset St. access to the project . According to general requirements for the SOUTHEAST  QUADRANT DISTRICT, one such requirement or goal follows:    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. (Page 5, #(3):    Further, as the DRB staff knows and states itself, this criterion may be revisited and re‐evaluated at any  stage of the application process.    III. Pedestrian/Rec/Bike Paths Remaining Unaddressed?    These paths run closely alongside the proposed development.  In fact , the proposed Zoey Drive with its  2 new curb cuts, would actually  interrupt and intersect them two times. We all have been provided with  only a small drawing with 2 stop signs at the intersections. I attach my photo showing the point from  one new access to the development from (on far left, or east) marked by  a pole with a red identifying  tag attached). From the second access point (mentioned in Rose Godard’s quoted comment above, and  seen in photo attached),  veers almost immediately via sharp turn to go further north on Park to enter  Golf Course Road (curves too often taken advantage of by speeders despite signs). There Park runs over  a seasonal stream, with its curve indicated by two old rusted guard rails. Note that the red tagged stake  marking the proposed new road cut runs very close alongside Park Road with closely adjacent Rec/Bike  path and sidewalk).     What information and illustrations are  is lacking about the Rec/Walk Paths  that we residents hope will  be addressed by the DRB before any final plat approval in given? So far no attention has been given to  the following:    I find no  explanation or enlarged, labeled map to show and explain what measures would have  to be  taken at these new intersections to mitigate possible “impacts” with vehicles, pedestrians,  animals, bicycles, children in strollers or on roller skates, wheelchairs, and so forth; (Lights  added to Park Road itself, which has none? Added speed signs or traffic calming? Additional  traffic calming? Etc. ( The only relevant safety opinion given is that there are adequate site  distances from the new road.)   nor are there estimates of the number of new users there would be  at those intersections going  both north towards Dorset and south uphill towards the sharp curve onto Golf Course Road  (including estimates of new residents—say 32 units x expected 2 cars per unit= roughly 62  additional residents’ vehicles, not to mention visitors, repair vehicles, deliveries, etc.)   nor do I see any analysis made by the DRB staff so far, no reminders to the DRB Board (one  certainly hopes that these matters count as likely impacts by this project?    nor, as far as we know from this final plat application, is there input on identified concerns from  the City Bike and Pedestrian Committee;   no site visit of decision‐makers to Park Road to witness the situation in person (we, the public,   have provided some photos, winter and summer);  4  nor is there any observation about these matters in the TIA commissioned by BlackRock (whose  author emphatically stated in oral testimony in the March 3, 2021 public hearing that he did not  study any of the of slopes, curves, or gradations here – although these were among the very  things we had urged BlackRock in advance to study‐‐ both face‐to‐face and with detailed written  lists (see pp. 4‐8 of an extensive Public Comment submitted jointly by our neighborhoods to  both the DRB and BlackRock on October 5, 2020.) The fact that this was not studied is a reason  why another, more accurate and complete, study is warranted.    IV.  Suggestions for the Development Review Board to Consider    A.   With all the above in mind, would you please Visit, or Revisit, the strong suggestion we have made  for many months up to now ; Relocate BlackRock’s Wheeler Parcel development’s Park Road cuts to the  east, to enter and exit directly off Dorset . See recent communications from our spokesperson; John  Bossange, for further details and actions about this.  There is no written language, says Paul Conner,  Director of Planning,  that forbids such an easement for access to a development here to be provided by  the City and DRB. Despite this, he has written recently in reply to us to us that they nevertheless do not  wish to consider the alternative while the BlackRock proposal is in process.     But why not now? we ask the DRB Board : What better time than NOW , when an action is pending for  a development that may cause traffic and pedestrian risks forever? Aren’t the City as well as the most  affected neighborhoods now MOST in need  of reconsidering these land‐ swap – originating properties  that the City gave up to pre‐approved  developers in waiting? Without, apparently, any thorough  investigation (?) into how the roads, entrances, exits, and public paths and the people on them could be  significantly changed, even harmed? Things have changed since the Master Plan and the land swap. If  approved by the DRB in its current state, we predict, with sincere regret,  that it will  result in accidents,  collisions, and damage to human beings (as well as animals, wildlife) including any potential neighbors  or visitors who may be among them.     B.    Table any approval and/or permits until the traffic and pedestrian issues are thoroughly  examined, not only by DRB board, staff, and City, of course, but also by selecting carefully an  independent consultant(s) to aid the process with “outside eyes.”     Commission that person(s) to do a new, independent  traffic study that this time covers the  entire proposed project’s involved roads including Park Road from Dorset to Golf Course Road – and,  hopefully, an alternative development access point directly from Dorset St to the east. Include the parts  of Park Rd that BlackRock’s commissioned TIA omitted (such as curves, slopes, gradation) as he stated in  testimony (March 3, 2021). Consider traffic and pedestrian safety plus the safety on and around the  existing rec/bike path which BlackRock’s proposed new curb cuts would cut across twice, according to  its map. Invite public comment and interviews and public open hearings early in this process.    As DRB staff are aware, but the general public is not, this review is allowed under a SBLDR  provision, which states  “J.  Technical or Consultant Review of Site Plans. The Development Review  Board may require a site plan review, with applicant to pay for reasonable costs of an independent  technical review of the application. The Development Review Board may table review of the  application pending receipt of an independent technical review.” SBLDR 14.05 (j).  5 C.  Attend to  the Nearby Development Site that is Relevant to this Applicant’s Proposal. They  impact each other even though only one is now proposed. Proximity, geography, and yes, traffic and  pedestrian safety, make it extremely relevant .   I refer to an additional (0‐.34 acres) small plot of land, left over from the construction of Park Road, that  again, through the land‐swap, became  pre‐approved by the City for residential development. It is on the  south side of Park Road , nearly opposite from the proposed 550 Park/BlackRock project, and near  Dorset Street . ( Source: Memorandum to South Burlington Residents, Nov 23, 2011 by Paul Conner). In  about 2016 an application for residential development, sketch plan analysis,  was submitted to the DRB  proposing 15 units with 2 new road cuts into Park Road . The outcome seems unclear to me, although  that application seems inactive  (according to DRB email).   To stay consistent with the “swap”, would one or the other of the two developments  need approval to  access from Dorset Street? Or both to merge and have access from Park (!? ) Or should the  550 Park  project have access directly from Dorset, slightly to the south, as I discussed earlier, reserving the  smaller “pre‐approved” development an access point for some future time? Or eliminating it altogether  in advance? Or should at least  one of the projects not be approved even though it was pre‐approved  earlier? Should both plots be left undeveloped due to current circumstances – traffic safety, ledge,  unsafe access conditions? That’s how it has been for decades, and still the developments in the Golf  Course area keep growing AND using Park Road. Have the City donate it to Wheeler Park.   Was the situation of road access not explored at the time of the land swap? It appears not. Isn’t it timely  to investigate this situation before it is upon us? Actually,  it is upon us now.  These were the types of questions that  I, just a neighborhood resident, had tried to have raised way  back in 2011. My  letter then, nearly a decade ago, to the City Council (recently discovered in files) , was  written just after I’d moved to Golf Course Drive. I expressed my hope that people who knew far about  this more than I,  would consider these before approving any deal.   Some of my questions from then are  paraphrased here:   Where might the road access to such a development be—off Park Road ? . . .  Windy, dark,  not illuminated by any streetlights . . . would there be better signs, lighting . . . perhaps a  flashing light or stop light on Dorset? . . . how to handle additional traffic ‐‐‐ bikers, cars,  dog walkers, etc. ?  “I’m hoping this has been spelled out in some other agreement, and I’d  like to know  what is planned—or, if not, I feel there needs to be more thought about it  and information provided to citizens, especially those living in the area. . . .”    I was a new resident, really didn’t know how to proceed, but I did speak by phone with a city councilor  then, who sounded extremely confident and excited:  Finally, with such a land  swap,  a long‐standing  lawsuit with a developer will be settled! No more city money going to lawyers’ bills! And as to all my  questions above, she briskly brushed them aside and said Oh, all that comes much later, not now!   6 So then, I’d been told, I was too early. Now, it appears, not so. So many years have intervened, and here  we are.  I do have hopes that now we won’t be told it’s too late and there can be a more equitable  resolution. Thank you very much for your attention.  1 Marla Keene From:Leslie Black Sullivan <lblack6000@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 10:16 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: SD-2017, 550 Park Road         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Ms. Keene, Would you please provide this email letter to Brian Sullivan, Chair of the South Burlington Development Review Board? Thank you. Dear Mr. Sullivan, We live at 242 Fairway Drive in South Burlington and are writing about the proposed development #SD-2017, 550 Park Road. We attended the meeting on March 3 and remain very concerned about the development as it now stands. As you know, Park Road is a winding and hilly road. Thirty two homes on less that seven acres is extremely dense and will create excessive traffic. This traffic will produce dangerous public and pedestrian issues if the road to access the development remains on Park Road. We strongly request that the road to the development is moved to Dorset Street rather than Park Road. Additionally, the design of the homes are, quite honestly, unattractive. They look like cookie cutter homes and the their design along with overall density of the project, does not coexist with the surrounding neighborhoods. We respectively request that the development plans are altered to create the entrance off Dorset Street, the number of homes reduced, and that homes built have some architectural design. We will attend the next meeting of the DRB on April 6 and are hopeful that the concerns of people in the surrounding neighborhoods will produce changes in the development plans. With our best, Leslie and Tom Sullivan 242 Fairway Drive South Burlngton, VT 05403 1 Marla Keene From:Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 2:32 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Park Rd 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.      Hi Marla,    Has any new documentation been submitted by Blackrock for tomorrows DRB meeting?  Can I access the information?    Blackrock was required to speak with the city's arborist about whether existing large Shagbark Hickory trees near the  very large white oak tree can be safely removed without harming the oak.  Has this been done?    The hickory trees aren't in the way of development, so why wouldn't they be saved?  They are not a common tree  specimen, and one of the more  unique features in the Nature Park.     Also, the soil around the drip  line of the oak must not be disturbed by excavation.  A small retaining wall may be needed to keep excavation  equipment from damaging the tree  roots.   Again, the city's arborist should submit his recommendations in  writing.    I'm also concerned about the level of blasting that will be done to  remove ledge, and where this would be done.   Blasting of ledge anywhere  near the oak tree would surely do significant damage, and must be avoided.  I live and work within easy view of the site.  Our Village at Dorset Park neighborhood would also be affected by blasting, as will many neighborhoods in the area.   Given the lack of responsiveness to concerns about blasting last year, it would be best to demand a performance bond  from the developer for if/when they don't do as promised in the meetings.    The neighbor's concerns about having the new road intersect Park Rd at  two points is also a concern of mine.   I don't see as much of an issue  with the uphill intersection, but the lower one will create a dangerous situation for rec path users, particularly bicycles  that pick up speed  coming down the hill.    As vegetation grows out to blur sight lines,  this will become worse.   Perhaps this lower intersection can be  designed to only allow emergency vehicle access, but require residents  to use the upper access only.    It would be a small price to pay for  potentially saving the life of a recreation path user.    Thank you,    Donna J Leban      2 ‐‐  Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802‐862‐1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz  1 Marla Keene From:annmarie plant <annmarie.plant726@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 7:56 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Final Review Of the wheeler farm 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.      Good morning Marla, I am one of the neighbors in the Park Road neighborhood. I have a few questions about the the  proposed development.    I apologize if these questions or concerns have already been addressed.   My first question is why is there a need for a circular drive that will take up so much  green space and enter and exit on  Park Road rather than Dorset Street. Have other options been discussed and or proposed.? Are there specific  safety  reasons and Architectural or engineering needs    What type, size and number of trees are planned to be added to preserve the wild life , particularly the birds? At what  phase of the development will they be planted.  How long will the construction last? Given Black Rocks last project in the neighborhood  there are concerns as the noise  from removing ledge was relentless during the time of year when we were outdoors and with windows open, I think the  blasting went on for over a month .    My final question is what will be the price range for the newly built houses.My understanding is this development is not  addressing the need for affordable housing in South Burlington? Is that true?  If so does it need to be as dense as  planned.  Thanks and see you tomorrow night, Annmarie Plant    Sent from my iPhone  To: The South Burlington DRB From: Rose Godard 639 Golf Course RD. So. Burlington,VT Date: 4/5/2021 RE: 550 Park RD. project I writing to address my major concerns about the 550 Park Rd project. I had sent a previous email regarding traffic but need to express my other concerns. Density: There are way to many units (32 units on 6.9 acres) for the amount of land. The impact of this dense project affects the whole South Burlington community as this is a prime location for the views to north, east and west. Also, Many people use that location for night viewing of the sky and it is one of the few areas for that activity. This will be a lasting effect on the community. Traffic: I addressed many of the traffic issues in my last email but continue to be concern about safety. This past weekend was good example of how much this area is used by pedestrians (walkers/ runners), bicycles, and families in large groups (4+ people and often with strollers). Also,many area residents come and park on Golf Course to use the recreation path. I totally disagree with findings of the Blackrock traffic consultant. A major concern is the location of the entrance onto Park Rd. where the road has no shoulders on either side of it. Noise: The drilling of the ledges will be deafening as it was from the last Blackrock's project off Golf Course Rd. There were repeated noise complaints on Front Porch Forum and to the Development and planning office regarding the time of drilling which was from early morning to all day. By fall, we were given dates that the drilling would be reduced or stopped. The timeline was repeatedly extended by Black Rock. I question Blackrock's ability to be trusted. Building designs: The project will give the appearance of a disjointed strip mall. In summary, the history of this land goes back to a time before all the dense development on Dorest St so it is imperative that DRB not go forward as currently proposed. The project needs major revising not just a little tweaking. Please give this project close scrutiny as it is a gateway to So. Burlington and a major lost parcel to the community. This area will be permanently defined by what and how this project is allowed to build. Thank you from a very concern neighbor and resident. 1 Marla Keene From:Janice Schwartz <janicebeth5@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 5:22 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Proposed Development #SD21-06         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Dear Ms. Keene,   My name is Janice Schwartz and I live at 262 Park Road, South Burlington. My husband Ephraim Schwartz, and I are writing to you about the above proposed development off Dorset Street and Park Road. We attended last nights virtual meeting of the Development Review Board (DRB) . We have have two serious concerns about this project and last   nights meeting did not provide any new information to allay our concerns.     Our concerns have to do with Public Safety, not the aesthetics of the project, I have listed our concerns below along with questions I would like Mr Avery of Black Rock Construction to answer,    First  Concern  THE PROPOSED USE OF BLASTING     QUESTION 1 WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME OF THE  BLASTING STAGE?    Mr. Avery  refused to give one  and instructed Mr. Happy of  of Maine Blasting and Drilling  not to give  one as well. His  reason was if the reality did not match the Public’s expectations the Public would get upset and call the members of the  DRB and we all know how annoying those phone calls  can be.   This is beyond insulting on so many levels .  Mr. Avery  is applying for a Permit from the DRB and he should not be the  one deciding which questions he will and will not answer.    QUESTION 2  WHAT PROCEDURES ARE THERE IN PLACE THAT WOULD GUARANTEE   THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS and  BIKERS   ON THE WALKING AND BIKE TRAILS AND CARS ON DORSET STREET AND PARK ROAD ?   ALSO A GUARANTEE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF NEARBY HOMES WILL NOT BE COMPRISED DURING THE BLASTING AND  DRILLING PHASES.?    If you look at the map of the proposed project the blasting will take place very close to the walking path and trails used  extensively by residents including mothers jogging with baby carriages. What  safety measures are in place!       I read an online complaint from residents of North Woburn MA against Maine Blasting and Drilling  stating their homes  were shaking and the air was filled with dust particles as a result of a nearby blasting project and it has not be resolved.     QUESTION 3 WILL TRAFFIC ON PARK ROAD  AND OR DORSET STREET BE STOPPED DURING THE BLASTING?.  ALSO  TRAFFIC ON THE BIKE AND WALKING TRAILS?     2 QUESTION  4. WHAT WILL THE NOISE DECIBEL LEVEL BE FOR THE BLASTING AND FOLLOW UP ROCK GRINDING...?    This is an 8am to 5pm project, in the summertime with windows open so we should be aware of the exact decibel level  of this  endeavor.      If   Mr. Avery  continues  to skip around these questions  perhaps the technical advisers you are getting can get  you  more concrete answers.      SECOND CONCERN  THE PROPOSED TWO NEW ACCESS ROADS OFF PARK  ROAD    QUESTION ONE  HAS THERE BEEN ANY SAFETY STUDIES DONE TO SEE IF THE TWO NEW INTERSECTIONS WILL  NEGATIVELY IMPACT TRAFFIC SAFETY  ON PARK ROAD..?    Driving down Park Rd  is hairy, in normal.circumstances due to the  hill and curves in the road and 2 new intersections  will only exacerbate the problem.    QUESTION TWO  WHY DOES BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION INSIST  ON MAKING THESE TWO INTERSECTION OFF PARK  ROAD RATHER THAN ON DORSET STREET?  IS IT FOR SAFETY OR FINANCIAL REASONS...?    We thank you in advance for trying to get these questions answered since we doubt we will have time to be heard at the  next May 4th Board Meeting    Sincerely   Janice and Ephraim Schwartz        1 Marla Keene From:Dawn Philibert Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:56 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:Fw: EXTERNAL: DRB Meeting of April 6th FYI‐ communication from J. Bossange.      Dawn      From: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>  Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 11:44 AM  To: Dawn Philibert  Subject: EXTERNAL: DRB Meeting of April 6th              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, Dawn.    For what it's worth, thank you for your comments made to Mr. Avery when he said that: "I could sell anything  in this market."    For everyone in attendance,    Much appreciated.    John Bossange    PS:  I am sending Marla another summary memo to the DRB regarding the April 6th DRB meeting.  I hope all  board members can read it before the May 4th meeting.  Thanks.  To: Brian Sullivan, Chair Mark Behr Elissa Eiring James Langan Dawn Philibert (Acting Chair) Stephanie Wyman From: John Bossange Re: DRB Meeting from April 6, 2021 Date: April 9, 2021 “In this market, I can sell anything,” commented Ben Avery in response to your request for design changes to the proposed homes. That one comment, clearly illustrates the arrogance and entitlement of the developer. It was, among other comments I believe insulting to all of you and to the rest of us listening carefully, trying to understand the full scope of the proposal. Blackrock’s arrogance was also evident with these other assumptions: + that the land swap agreement allowed them to build 32 homes on the 6.91 acres, knowing full well that you can require less, as stated in the Amended Agreement from January 11, 2016, and as written on page 9, Section III, Section E (3) in the Superior Court decision in August of 2015. + that they could bring the critical issue of blasting into the conversation at the very end of a final plat hearing, when they knew long ago most of the entire parcel was covered with ledge and would require up to two months of blasting, day after day. + that somehow you (Mark) now have the responsibility to send Ben Avery your “doodles”(insulting word) and tell Blackrock what to build, when we know they have the ability and skill to build much nicer looking and better designed homes without your assistance. That request was extremely inappropriate. + that their traffic engineer satisfied the traffic and pedestrian safety issues even though the study was inaccurate and assessed in the wrong location. Regarding the newest, and now biggest issue of blasting, their map clearly showed how much ledge needs to be removed to not only establish foundations, but also to carve out utility lines for electricity, water, and storm water. The existing ledge covers the entire construction area! As previously written, Blackrock knew that long ago, yet they did not come forward with this issue until now. Obviously this is a big, complicated problem, with massive amounts of noise during blasting, digging and rock removal. And as everyone knows, where there is ledge, there is also water. For sure, these homes and utility lines will have ground water issues, especially with the slope of the land. Additionally, the Champlain Water Commission should have serious reservations with two months of blasting and excavation so close to their major water tower just across the street. Vibrations from blasting travel underground and their water lines, probably buried in ledge as well, could be impacted because vibrations travel further and quicker through ledge than they do through soil. We trust you will continue to press for well‐built and well‐designed homes, and make Blackrock do what it knows how to do, and not let them get away with cheaper designs to increase their profit margin. Still, the houses shown on the latest slides still looked horribly cheap, even though this time they were colored in. Blackrock said there were various designs, but when clustered together they will give the feel of similarly designed homes, varying only in height and color. A visit to Blackrock’s website and you will quickly see that they have the experience of building quality homes. They know how to do this and should never be asking you (Mark) for guidance in this process. As concerned neighbors, we are pleased that you insisted Blackrock make further changes to their proposed homes and answer critical questions regarding blasting. We also hope you will take the language of the 2016 Amended Agreement and the 2015 Superior Court decision and apply it to our other issue of density. As I wrote in my March 10th memo addressed to all of you, “up to 32 homes,” does not mean 32 homes. You should make them build less in such a visible location and small area of land. For Blackrock, 32 homes means more profit. For the City, and us it means more congestion and environmental concerns. If there are to be any homes built, keep them away from the borders of Dorset St. and Park Rd. Lastly, our concerns about traffic are still unsettled, despite the assumptions from Mr. Avery. All of the issues written in the March 10th memo still stand and remain unaddressed. We believe the DRB should require another traffic study be done with a different consultant, chosen by you, at the location of the problem, not at the intersection of Park Rd. and Dorset St. Traffic and Pedestrian safety remain major concerns. And, only you can request the City Council modify the language to require Blackrock to redesign the entrance off Dorset St. and not keep it on Park Rd. We believe you should do that too. One final thought: Maybe this land was not meant to be developed. Even though the land swap designated it as such ten years ago, we have learned much more since then about the land and the surrounding area. It’s mostly ledge, on a steep slope, surrounded by a major road into the City to the east, a steep, a curving access road to another set of homes to the south, and a busy City park, tree farm, and other conserved, natural lands to the west and north. It’s a complicated 6.91 acres. Maybe it’s just not the right place to build anything. Maybe the City should buy it back or work with the Vermont land Trust to conserve the land and make it a part of the Wheeler parcel once again. 1 Marla Keene From:Rose Godard <rosesebring639@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:45 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: 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 Marla,     Thank you  to you and the DRB members for your time and efforts in keeping the 550 Park Rd. Project on track according  to the South Burlington zoning standards and all the other factors (traffic, density, design) have been carefully reviewed  before this project proceeds. It is so important that this project's current plans not proceed as there are many long term  negative consequences that will impact the community.    Please share this email with the DRB members and again a big thank you from a community resident.  Rose Godard        ‐‐   Rose Godard   rosesebring639@gmail.com  1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:41 AM To:Marla Keene; Dawn Philibert Cc:Karen LeFevre; Phil Moll; Charles F. Siegel; Bronwyn Dunne; Leslie Black Sullivan; Ted Lenski; Alan Luzzatto; John Carrigan; linda wright; Rose Godard Subject:EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal         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,    It has been very frustrating for residents to feel "heard" and they are upset with the lack of dialogue regarding the four  key issues summarized in the previous March 10th memo sent to the DRB, and again in the April 6th summary memo  just sent to the DRB via Marla.  Both of these memos were the work of our steering committee and reflect the urgency  of the issues and the growing frustration with the process.    One of two things must occur: either we are given a special time to meet with the DRB to have a back and forth  conversation with the Board, or at the May 4th meeting, residents are given adequate time as "citizens to be heard" at  the beginning of that meeting to engage in a dialogue with staff before Blackrock engages in their back and forth  discussion.    Zoom meetings have complicated things because the distance felt has not permitted a sense of community  involvement.  It's not like we are all in a room together having a conversation.      So far, only Blackrock has been given the opportunity to fully engage with DRB staff, and residents have grown resentful  of that process.    Please either schedule a special meeting for us or make the May 4th meeting one where we too can engage with the  DRB.    Thank you very much.    John Bossange    PS;  Member of our steering committee have been copied this message  1 Marla Keene From:Bronwyn Dunne <bronwyndunne@me.com> Sent:Thursday, April 22, 2021 3:16 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:John Bossange; Dawn Philibert; Karen LeFevre; Phil Moll; Charles F. Siegel; Leslie Black Sullivan; Ted Lenski; Alan Luzzatto; John Carrigan; linda wright; Rose Godard Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal Dear Maria, I was away when your response (below) to John Bossange’s email was sent out to the DRB and the neighborhood residents spearheading our efforts to bring our concerns to the Development Review Board’s attention, hence the delay in my response. I think it is totally appropriate for the DRB to extend to the Gleneagles and Highland Associations the same courtesy they show the Blackrock representatives. The development project proposed by Blackrock for the fields that abut Park Rd, known as 550 Park Rd. has some real problems all outlined by John Bossange in earlier emails to the DRB. They have also been identified at meetings held to review the project. To date, Blackrock has not responded to any of our concerns except to say that in the existing real estate market, they could sell anything. This is not a response that holds any value for the City of South Burlington. If the DRB has so little regard for the beauty of our city that it would agree to a project acknowledged by the builders to be as inexpensively built as possible, I have a very low opinion of the committee’s interest in what is good for South Burlington. I am also concerned that the DRB is not interested in the environmental problems the Blackrock building proposal outlines. A four to five year timeline for this project, in part caused by the ledges that will require blasting, is an environmental concern in itself. Whatever time it takes for the blasting, the results will cause environmental problems both to the land the project is on but to the surrounding area. It has been pointed out that the water tower across the street has underground lines that will be effected. Wheeler Park, itself, a very popular gardening and walking area, will be impacted, not to mention what residents on Park Rd and Golf Course Rds will experience with both air and noise pollution. Traffic on Park Rd and Dorset St. will experience years of difficulty. Trucks and moving equipment traveling in an out of the building area will back up traffic for not just months but years All you have to do is drive by the development known as South Village off of Spear St.to see what long-term building does to a neighborhood. I understand that writing directly to the DRB is not normal procedure, but, at some point, the citizens of South Burlington’s concerns need to be heard. If we are not allowed to express our legitimate concerns to the DRB directly, I believe we have no other choice. Please allow the Gleneagles and Highland neighborhood associations to be heard and we will respect and honor the procedures you are defending. We all believe in fairness as a value. With all best wishes, Bronwyn Dunne 50 Park Road 802 860-5022 1 Marla Keene From:Rose Godard <rosesebring639@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:22 PM To:John Bossange Cc:Alan Luzzatto; Bronwyn Dunne; Charles F. Siegel; Dawn Philibert; John Carrigan; Karen LeFevre; Leslie Black Sullivan; Marla Keene; Phil Moll; Ted Lenski; linda wright Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal I agree with you. On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:38 PM John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> wrote: Very well said, Bronwyn. I'm also planning to request time at the beginning of the May 4th agenda for us to have an open dialogue with the DRB on our four main issues, just as the DRB has had with Blackrock on June 2, 2020, March 3, 2021, and April 6, 202. It"s our turn now. The DRB should be wise enough to realize that they cannot put off residents for a fourth time under the label of "citizen input" for three minutes each, following another lengthy conversation with Blackrock. I'll be making that request next Monday. John On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:16 PM Bronwyn Dunne <bronwyndunne@me.com> wrote: Dear Maria, I was away when your response (below) to John Bossange’s email was sent out to the DRB and the neighborhood residents spearheading our efforts to bring our concerns to the Development Review Board’s attention, hence the delay in my response. I think it is totally appropriate for the DRB to extend to the Gleneagles and Highland Associations the same courtesy they show the Blackrock representatives. The development project proposed by Blackrock for the fields that abut Park Rd, known as 550 Park Rd. has some real problems all outlined by John Bossange in earlier emails to the DRB. They have also been identified at meetings held to review the project. To date, Blackrock has not responded to any of our concerns except to say that in the existing real estate market, they could sell anything. This is not a response that holds any value for the City of South Burlington. If the DRB has so little regard for the beauty of our city that it would agree to a project acknowledged by the builders to be as inexpensively built as possible, I have a very low opinion of the committee’s interest in what is good for South Burlington. I am also concerned that the DRB is not interested in the environmental problems the Blackrock building proposal outlines. A four to five year timeline for this project, in part caused by the ledges that will require blasting, is an environmental concern in itself. Whatever time it takes for the blasting, the results will cause environmental problems both to the land the project is on but to the surrounding area. It has been pointed out that the water tower across the street has underground lines that will be effected. Wheeler Park, itself, a very popular gardening and walking area, will be impacted, not to mention what residents on Park Rd and Golf Course Rds will experience with both air and noise pollution. 1 Marla Keene From:Charles F. Siegel <cfsiegel@reprovt.com> Sent:Thursday, April 22, 2021 3:17 PM To:Bronwyn Dunne; Marla Keene Cc:John Bossange; Dawn Philibert; Karen LeFevre; Phil Moll; Leslie Black Sullivan; Ted Lenski; Alan Luzzatto; John Carrigan; linda wright; Rose Godard Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal Nicely done. Chuck Siegel President/Owner REPRO 1-802-655-2800 Ext. 135 www.reprovt.com From: Bronwyn Dunne <bronwyndunne@me.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 3:16 PM To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> Cc: John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>; Dawn Philibert <dphilibert@sburl.com>; Karen LeFevre <kblefevre@gmail.com>; Phil Moll <phil.e.moll@gmail.com>; Charles F. Siegel <cfsiegel@reprovt.com>; Leslie Black Sullivan <lblack6000@yahoo.com>; Ted Lenski <tedlenski@yahoo.com>; Alan Luzzatto <nesandal@comcast.net>; John Carrigan <jcarriga781@hotmail.com>; linda wright <liwright802@gmail.com>; Rose Godard <rosesebring639@gmail.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal Dear Maria, I was away when your response (below) to John Bossange’s email was sent out to the DRB and the neighborhood residents spearheading our efforts to bring our concerns to the Development Review Board’s attention, hence the delay in my response. I think it is totally appropriate for the DRB to extend to the Gleneagles and Highland Associations the same courtesy they show the Blackrock representatives. The development project proposed by Blackrock for the fields that abut Park Rd, known as 550 Park Rd. has some real problems all outlined by John Bossange in earlier emails to the DRB. They have also been identified at meetings held to review the project. To date, Blackrock has not responded to any of our concerns except to say that in the existing real estate market, they could sell anything. This is not a response that holds any value for the City of South Burlington. If the DRB has so little regard for the beauty of our city that it would agree to a project acknowledged by the builders to be as inexpensively built as possible, I have a very low opinion of the committee’s interest in what is good for South Burlington. I am also concerned that the DRB is not interested in the environmental problems the Blackrock building proposal outlines. A four to five year timeline for this project, in part caused by the ledges that will require blasting, is an environmental concern in itself. Whatever time it takes for the blasting, the results will cause environmental problems both to the land the project is on but to the surrounding area. It has been pointed out that the water tower across the street has underground lines that will be effected. Wheeler Park, itself, a very popular gardening and walking area, will be impacted, not to mention what residents on Park Rd and Golf Course Rds will experience with both air and noise pollution. 1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 22, 2021 3:38 PM To:Bronwyn Dunne Cc:Marla Keene; Dawn Philibert; Karen LeFevre; Phil Moll; Charles F. Siegel; Leslie Black Sullivan; Ted Lenski; Alan Luzzatto; John Carrigan; linda wright; Rose Godard Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Public Input regarding 550 Park Rd. Proposal Very well said, Bronwyn. I'm also planning to request time at the beginning of the May 4th agenda for us to have an open dialogue with the DRB on our four main issues, just as the DRB has had with Blackrock on June 2, 2020, March 3, 2021, and April 6, 202. It"s our turn now. The DRB should be wise enough to realize that they cannot put off residents for a fourth time under the label of "citizen input" for three minutes each, following another lengthy conversation with Blackrock. I'll be making that request next Monday. John On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:16 PM Bronwyn Dunne <bronwyndunne@me.com> wrote: Dear Maria, I was away when your response (below) to John Bossange’s email was sent out to the DRB and the neighborhood residents spearheading our efforts to bring our concerns to the Development Review Board’s attention, hence the delay in my response. I think it is totally appropriate for the DRB to extend to the Gleneagles and Highland Associations the same courtesy they show the Blackrock representatives. The development project proposed by Blackrock for the fields that abut Park Rd, known as 550 Park Rd. has some real problems all outlined by John Bossange in earlier emails to the DRB. They have also been identified at meetings held to review the project. To date, Blackrock has not responded to any of our concerns except to say that in the existing real estate market, they could sell anything. This is not a response that holds any value for the City of South Burlington. If the DRB has so little regard for the beauty of our city that it would agree to a project acknowledged by the builders to be as inexpensively built as possible, I have a very low opinion of the committee’s interest in what is good for South Burlington. I am also concerned that the DRB is not interested in the environmental problems the Blackrock building proposal outlines. A four to five year timeline for this project, in part caused by the ledges that will require blasting, is an environmental concern in itself. Whatever time it takes for the blasting, the results will cause environmental problems both to the land the project is on but to the surrounding area. It has been pointed out that the water tower across the street has underground lines that will be effected. Wheeler Park, itself, a very popular gardening and walking area, will be impacted, not to mention what residents on Park Rd and Golf Course Rds will experience with both air and noise pollution. Traffic on Park Rd and Dorset St. will experience years of difficulty. Trucks and moving equipment traveling in an out of the building area will back up traffic for not just months but years All you have to do is drive by the development known as South Village off of Spear St.to see what long-term building does to a neighborhood. 1 Marla Keene From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 23, 2021 8:46 AM To:Marla Keene Cc:Karen LeFevre; Phil Moll; Alan Luzzatto; Charles F. Siegel; John Carrigan; Leslie Black Sullivan; linda wright; Rose Godard; Ted Lenski; Bronwyn Dunne Subject:EXTERNAL: DRB Agenda for May 4th, 2021 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, Marla. We would like you and Dawn to schedule a time first on the agenda for us to have an open discussion with the full DRB, similar to what has been given to the Blackrock Co. during the previous three DRB meetings. We fully understand the need for DRB staff to review both the initial and final plat applications and to ask clarifying questions to the developer. That process occurred on June 2, 2020, March 3, 2021, and again April 6, 2021. On each of those occasions, we were reduced to a speaking time of three minutes each, late into the evening following the open discussion between the DRB and Blackrock. In fact, on April 6th, we were given no time. Minimizing concerned residents by reducing speaking time must not occur again. You have heard and read enough of our issues to know that a full agenda time slot is now needed. Certainly the Board Chair should recognize this. As someone who has chaired multiple public Commissions and non-profit Boards, I know that when you have repeated concerns, a Board needs to move beyond a "citizens to be heard" time and schedule an appropriate place on the agenda so a transparent and open dialogue can occur. There desperately needs to be a back and forth conversation between the DRB and residents to restore the confidence and trust necessary to respect a final DRB decision on the proposed development. So, when you and Dawn put together the agenda for May 4th, please give us time at the beginning of the meeting to review the four major issues (traffic, aesthetics, density, and blasting). It is our feeling that these concerns have not been fully discussed. Please confirm. Thank you very much. For the neighborhoods, John Bossange 578-7468