HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-21-15_Long Dr_ JAMGolf_FPCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-15_Long Dr_ JAMGolf_2021-06-01.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 20, 2021
Plans received: April 21, 2021
159 Long Drive
Final Plat Application #SD-21-15
Meeting date: June 1, 2021
Owner/Applicant
JAM Golf, LLC
1227 Dorset St
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0570-01227
SEQ - NRP
68.91 acres
Location Map
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD-21-15 of JAM Golf LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an 11-lot residential
subdivision. The amendment consists of modifying the tree preservation area for the purpose of changing the
stormwater treatment system and updating the tree inventory to reflect existing conditions, Long Drive.
CONTEXT
The subject property is located in a 11-lot planned unit development approved as part of the Golf Course, with ten (10) of
the lots to be developed with single family dwellings, and one lot with a retained wooded area and an existing golf course,
representing the bulk of the parent parcel, Parcel F. The Project Area is located within the existing golf course in proximity
to already-developed residential areas. The property, and the entire Long Drive Development Area, is located in an area
currently zoned as Southeast Quadrant – Natural Resource Protection [see note below concerning prior zoning]. It is
served by an existing recreation path and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of very low intensity
development consisting principally of open space. Two stormwater ponds consisting of the headwaters to an unnamed
tributary to Potash Brook are located within the subject property, as well as several areas of wetlands.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Board approved final plat application #SD-18-27 for a 11-lot PUD on Long Drive consisting of ten development lots,
one open space lot, and a right of way. This decision was culmination of approximately 18 years of environmental court
proceedings, and its form was strongly governed by previous decisions, court orders and settlement agreements. Per the
agreements and orders, the final plat was reviewed under the regulations in effect on City of South Burlington Subdivision
Regulations with amendments through January 4, 1999 and the South Burlington Zoning Regulations with amendments
through April 16, 2001. As the subject application is a new application, any proposed modifications to the approved plans
are subject to current regulations.
Staff reviewed the following historical documents in preparing these staff comments:
- Master plan decision #MP-03-01 as amended and restated by Environmental Court Amended Consent Order and
Decree August 25, 2015
- Preliminary plat decision as represented by the Environmental Court Decision and Order August 21, 2009
- Final plat decision #SD-18-27 dated October 3, 2018, and associated civil and landscaping plans
- Tree Preservation Plan (here we refer to the narrative which is included in the Tree Preservation Handbook, not
the drawing) prepared by Warren Spinner for JAM Golf, LLC dated May 13, 2003
- Tree Preservation Handbook, Long Drive Subdivision at Vermont National Country Club dated September 9,
2010
Staff considers it is clear that the intent of the Tree Preservation Area (indicated by a green dash line on provided sheet
T5) is to retain a screening buffer around the approved development area which is not in the control of private
landowners and to preserve the aesthetics of this area as viewed from an outside perspective. This project is located on
a ridge in an area with mature trees which make up a portion of the South Burlington skyline. No changes to the
approval within the lots should change the view of the treeline from afar. [See, in particular, “Page 6” note below in
blue]
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
3 of 13
Particularly relevant provisions of the Environmental Court’s preliminary plat decision dated August 21, 2009, regarding
Section 26.151(h) of the Zoning Regulations:
Page 3:
The area at issue in the present application is an area of woodland occupying a wooded knoll located to the
east of Golf Course Road . . . It is on a ridge or height of land between Dorset Street and the eastern edge of
the Butler Farm development, and contains particularly mature and tall trees. It is a distinct wooded feature
in the landscape, and appears in the skyline of the easterly half of the VNCC property.
The wooded knoll descends most steeply to a lower elevation of lots 4, 3 and 10, while the remaining lots
contain more gentle slopes.
Top of page 4:
The lot lines for all ten lots do not extend to the edges of the project property; that is Applicant proposes to
retain the land at the outside edges of the project property.
Starting at bottom of page 4:
Southerly and easterly of proposed Lots 8 and 9, and easterly of proposed Lots 10, 4, 5, and 6, a wide band of
woodland will remain within Applicant’s control between those lots and the open space of the 13th and 14th
holes of the golf course. Northerly of Lot 6, a wide band of woodland will remain within Applicant’s control.
Westerly of Lots 1 and 2, a band of woodland will remain within Applicant’s control. Westerly of Lots 3, 5, and
6, however, the land that will remain within Applicant’s control is proposed to be planted with trees and
shrubs but is not at present heavily wooded. Beyond the woodland of the project property, views are open
towards the west, over other residential developments towards Lake Champlain.
Page 5:
Within the proposed lots, each house site is shown as being located within woodland that is proposed to
remain. The house sites have been placed so as to minimize the number of healthy trees that will have to be
removed. However, it is expected that during development of the lots some field adjustments will have to be
made, although Applicant’s arborist testified that such adjustments could result in saving trees shown on the
plan as intended for removal, as well as the possibility of having to remove trees scheduled for retention. For
this reason, Applicant’s Exhibit 51 [Tree Preservation Plan] proposes that a consulting arborist must work with
the contractor during construction and that certain work such as pruning be performed by a qualified arborist.
Provision should be made for the City to be notified about any field changes from the approved tree
preservation plan before they are carried out.
Applicant proposes to restrict the lot owners’ clearing of trees within the lots, although the enforcement of
such limitations may be difficult given the potential for views to be achieved if more of the trees were cut.
Beyond the proposed lots, on land to be retained by Applicant, Applicant proposes only to cut dead or
diseased trees as necessary to prevent hazardous conditions.
Exhibit 51 only defines the respective responsibilities of the project’s consulting arborist and the contractor
during construction.
Page 6:
[Regarding Tree Preservation Handbook:] This is particularly important so that any purchasers or prospective
purchasers will understand that the lots must remain wooded or become more wooded, and that they will not
have the option of clearing the lots to open up any views beyond what is allowed by the planting plan.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
4 of 13
With the addition of lot specific handbooks to become binding on the individual lot owners, Applicant’s tree
preservation and planting plan provides an excellent level of mitigation of the impact from the proposed
clearing of trees for the project.
Page 7:
. . . the proposed project will thin the trees in the area of the roadway and the house sites so that the
woodland feature will be reduced in importance as a natural feature in the landscape. This is an adverse
effect on the scenic appearance of the woodland as a natural feature in the landscape.
The proposed project will also have an adverse effect on the view of the woodland from neighboring
properties and from persons walking along Golf Course [Road] in the areas of Lots 7 and 1, as those houses
will be visible where there is now a view of the intact woodland.
Page 8:
The house sites will be partially screened from view from the exterior of the development; the screening effect
will increase as the proposed plantings mature.
Page 9:
Applicant has taken generally available mitigating steps to improve the harmony of the project with its
surroundings. The project [1] proposes to retain as many of the trees as possible on the project property, in
particular on and near the height of land and on the perimeter of the project, [2] proposes to plant a large
number of trees and shrubs, largely on the perimeter of the project, and [3] proposes to preclude the cutting
of trees on project lots adjacent to the perimeter of the project.
DRB’s final plat approval dated October 3, 2018, page 3:
This criterion was the subject of Environmental and Supreme Court appeals. In deference to the sensitivity of
this criterion, the submitted plans provide extensive landscaping detail. The Board notes that the landscaping
plans show an outdated layout for the terminal end of Short Drive and for some of the driveway
configurations and thus the proposed effect cannot be evaluated. The Board further notes that some trees
within the proposed building footprints appear to be hatched with the shading identified in the legend as
“Existing Tree to be Saved.” Though the Board appreciates that it appears the applicant is minimizing
removal of existing trees, a clear landscape plan is necessary to facilitate future inspections in compliance
with Preliminary Approval condition #3a.
The “Tree Preservation Plan for Vermont National Country Club 10 Lot Subdivision in South Burlington, VT,” dated May
13, 2003 and prepared by the applicant’s arborist at the time, Warren Spinner, includes the following provisions:
Page 2
Successful tree preservation occurs when the goals of the project are achieved with minimal impact to the
trees designed to be preserved. Success is measured over the long term, when trees continue to thrive for
many years after development is completed.
Staff considers any proposed change must be evaluated against the previously litigated purposes, and anything that
detracts from these purposes should not be allowed.
Somewhat less directly applicable to this application, but still relevant to the intent of the prior decisions, the 2009 decision
and judgement order grant a number of waivers and conditions which apply to this final plat application. Particularly
relevant conditions are as follows.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
5 of 13
a. Applicant annually shall provide the City with certification from a qualified consulting arborist as to
compliance with the tree preservation plan and the landscape planting plan on each lot as well as on
the retained project property beyond the lots, specifically listing any areas of noncompliance.
b. Prior to implementation of any field changes to the tree preservation plan, Applicant shall notify the
City Administrative Officer and obtain a determination regarding the need for further application and
approval.
c. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Administrative Officer prior to maintenance work on trees and
underbrush located outside the clearing limits depicted on the plan admitted as Exhibit 21 in the record
of the above-captioned matter. See paragraph 269 of the Appellant’s proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
d. The lot owner(s) shall abide by the terms of the tree preservation handbook for his/her/their lot.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff,
have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant against the pertinent Regulations and offer the following comments.
Proposed changes include the following six elements.
1. Modification to Stormwater Treatment and Conveyance: The applicant offers the following justification for the
proposed revisions in their cover letter.
The new stormwater easements are for drainage swales and a stormwater bioretention area that are
required as part of the State and Act 250 permitting process that were not included in the original plat.
The original alignment of the stormwater swale shown on the prior City approved easement plan needed
to be updated to reflect updated design requirements and existing conditions that precluded the
implementation of the originally conceived alignment.
See below for evaluation under PUD and site plan standards.
2. Removal of Trees Required to be Retained: The applicant is proposing to remove the following trees that were
required to be retained to accommodate the above referenced stormwater treatment and conveyance.
Location Species Caliper
Lot 8 Elm 8”
Oak 12”
Basswood 14”
Hickory 6”
Lot 11, near lots 7, 8 & 9 Pine 20”
Pine 5”
Cherry 7”
Pine 7”
Pine 10”
Lot 11, near lot 10 Hornbeam 8”
Hemlock 13”
Hornbeam 9”
Hornbeam 6”
Hemlock (2 trunk) 8” / 4”
Pine 22”
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
6 of 13
Pine (2 trunk) 8” / 8”
Pine 15”
See below for evaluation under PUD and site plan standards.
3. Update Tree Inventory: As correctly noted in the applicant’s cover letter, the tree inventory was prepared in 2013
and a number of changes to the trees on the property have occurred without human intervention. The tree
inventory is used as the base line to identify which trees the applicant, and later, homeowners, must preserve in
order to comply with the conditions of the final plat and master plan approvals. The applicant has provided an
updated tree inventory in both tabular and plan form. This update is unrelated to the stormwater modifications,
though the updated inventory does exclude the trees requested for removal, above. Staff recommends the Board
approve this updated plan as it facilitates enforcement of the previous approvals.
4. Plant Additional Trees: The applicant is proposing to add trees near Lot 6 on a portion of the Lot 11 property
which is on the opposite side of the development from the stormwater modification. Unrelated to this application,
the applicant is working to remedy pursuing a remedy to a notice of violation served in part to tree clearing on
Lot 6 which did not adhere to the terms of Tree Preservation Plan.
Staff considers the applicant does not need Board approval to plant additional trees, but the Board may require
additional tree planting as mitigation for the requested tree removal on Lots 8 and 11 for the purpose of the
stormwater treatment system.
5. Provide Updated Metrics for how provisions of Tree Preservation Plan will be met: The applicant has provided
a document entitled “Narrative for Removal of Brush and Trees in Stormwater Swales and Bioretention Area on
Sheet P-3.” The aforementioned Environmental Court Amended Consent Order and Decree approved a Tree
Preservation Plan, cited above, describing how the existing trees required to be retained would be protected
during development of the approved ten development lots and supporting infrastructure. The new document
lists updated metrics which can be used to evaluate compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan.
6. Remove easements for sanitary sewer force mains: The applicant indicated that they have redesigned the
sanitary sewer system so that they no longer need easements for sanitary sewer force mains. They are proposing
to amend the plan to reflect removal of the previously approved force main easements and addition of easements
for the modified stormwater management system.
Staff has included the applicant’s cover letter and a supplemental narrative from the project arborist in the packet for the
Board wherein the applicant describes these changes in their own words.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection (SEQ-NRP) zoning district.
9.12A. Any lot that lies entirely with the SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to the following supplemental regulations:
(1) Such lot shall be conveyed to the City of South Burlington as dedicated open space or to a qualified land
trust and shall not be developed with a residence, or
(2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan approved by the
Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below.
(3) Such lot may be developed with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C-1, subject to the
Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and
conservation. Such lot may also include the following additional development/activities:
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
7 of 13
(a) Driveways, roads, underground utility services, or other appurtenant improvements to serve approved
development or uses. Utility service components, such as transformers and amplifiers, may be installed at
ground level where such accords with standard industry practices.
(b) Landscaping, regrading, or other similar activities necessary to the creation of a buildable lot.
Staff considers development of the proposed stormwater management infrastructure allowable under 9.12A(3)(a) above.
The ten development lots supported by the proposed stormwater management system are an approved use. Staff further
considers the aforementioned Tree Preservation Plan to be the required and approved conservation plan.
Staff considers dimensional standards to be unaffected by this proposed final plat amendment.
B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in
conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater
allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General
Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
(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.
Staff considers compliance with the above three criteria to be unaffected by this proposed final plat amendment.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified
in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize
the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment
from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The findings of the Environmental Court Amended Consent Order and Decree clearly identify the project area as a
unique natural feature, referring to it as follows.
The area at issue in the present application is an area of woodland occupying a wooded knoll located to the
east of Golf Course Road . . . It is on a ridge or height of land between Dorset Street and the eastern edge of
the Butler Farm development, and contains particularly mature and tall trees. It is a distinct wooded feature
in the landscape, and appears in the skyline of the easterly half of the VNCC property.
This criterion is discussed in conjunction with PUD criterion (5) below.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in
the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located.
The originally approved 10-lot subdivision was appealed to Vermont Environmental and Supreme Courts on the basis
of the following criteria (now no longer contained within the LDR).
Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, is aesthetically compatible
with surrounding developed properties and site characteristics, and will protect rare and irreplaceable natural
areas and historic sites.
The criterion that was appealed to the courts has been replaced by this criterion and the general site plan review
criteria of 14.06, discussed below.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
8 of 13
Staff considers the proposed removal of seventeen trees will affect compliance with this criterion. The question for
the Board is whether the proposed removal of seventeen trees undermines the visual compatibility of the project with
the surrounding landscape. The meaning of visual compatibility can be taken from the previous approvals for the
property.
• The approved Tree Preservation Handbook requires that “The lots must remain wooded or become more
wooded and the vegetation may not be removed to open up any views beyond what is allowed by the tree
preservation plan.”
• From the Environmental Court’s preliminary plat decision, the project should provide protection of the
woodland as a distinctive natural feature in the landscape and preserve the view of the woodland from
neighboring properties and from persons walking along Golf Course Road.
• As stated above, no changes to the approval within the lots should change the view from afar.
1. The proposed trees to be removed are shown on plan sheet T5. Staff encourages the Board to make a field visit to
consider the impacts of removing the proposed seventeen trees for themselves using the below map and plan sheet
T5 as a guide. In the below map, the yellow line represents a public walking path and the green shapes show the
areas in which trees are proposed to be removed.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
9 of 13
2. Staff further recommends the Board read the document entitled “Arborist Report Long Drive Subdivision” dated
January 18, 2021 and prepared by Treeworks which describes what the arborist hired by the applicant believes will
be the impacts of the proposed tree removal in the context of the aforementioned goals.
3. Finally, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to testify on why they believe this criterion will be met by
the proposed amendment.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous
open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
While the proposed amendment does affect the constitution of approved open space areas, Staff considers that the
applicant has maximized the contiguity of the open space by selectively routing the proposed stormwater
management practices to minimize tree removal and considers this criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance
between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water
flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion are proposed.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed
in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility
and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to
maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on May 24, 2021 and indicated they have no issues with the design
of the stormwater management section.
The sewer system was approved to be private. Staff considers the proposed removal of sewer easements to not affect
compliance with this criterion.
Staff considers the remaining aspects of these two criteria met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).
The Goals of the comprehensive plan follow.
1. Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our residents and visitors.
2. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South Burlington.
4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community.
The project lies within the Southeast Quadrant Land Use Planning Area of the city. Southeast Quadrant objectives in
the Comprehensive Plan are:
60. 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.
61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that complement and help sustain a
growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining agricultural lands.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
10 of 13
62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques, streetscape improvements,
safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway profile suited to its intended local traffic
function.
While the proposed amendment may have minor impacts to the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
Staff considers the impacts to not rise to the level of affecting whether this criterion is met. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures,
landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to
infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect
Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
As noted above, the Stormwater Section had no issues with the proposed plan amendments.
C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by
the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South
Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
An evaluation of the Project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is included under PUD criterion 10 above.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to
structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas.
Adequacy of planting is discussed pertaining to site plan review criteria 14.07D below. Staff considers the
proposed amendment has no impact on other elements of this criterion.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street
shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
This criterion is not applicable to single family homes, and is nonetheless unaffected by the proposed
amendment.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each
building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings.
Staff considers compliance with this criterion to be unaffected by the proposed amendment.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and
architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and
visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings
and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
Staff considers compliance with these two criteria to be unaffected by the proposed amendment.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
11 of 13
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to
abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street,
to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
Access to abutting properties is discussed under PUD criterion 3 above.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining
above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Staff considers compliance with this criterion to be unaffected by the proposed amendment.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any
recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to
ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the
public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
Staff considers compliance with this criterion to be unaffected by the proposed amendment.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street
Trees.
13.06C. Screening and Buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land
shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent
sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should
be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently
landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use.
The previous approvals have established that the ten development lots within this project area should be
screened by retention and enhancement of the wooded area both on the lots and surrounding them. In the
arborist report submitted by the applicant, the arborist makes the argument that removal of seventeen trees
will not have a noticeable impact on the perception of the woodlot canopy. However, Staff considers there is
potential for the removed trees to open views which were previously approved to be screened from the
adjoining area, including the public recreation path.
4. If the Board accepts the proposed tree removal, Staff recommends the Board consider requiring replacement tree
plantings of similar species around the exterior of the lot to replace the lost screening.
13.06H. Enforcement, Penalties, and Appeals.
(1) Inspection. Prior to the expiration of the construction bond or other guarantee and prior to the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy, the Administrative Officer shall inspect all landscaping and screening. He/she
shall identify all trees, shrubs, and other plants that are not in a healthy and vigorous condition or have been
removed and provide a list of replacement requirements and a deadline for re-planting to the project owner.
I. Landscape Maintenance. Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an approved site plan
shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use.
Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. Trees with a caliper of less than 5” may be replaced on an inch-by-inch basis with trees of the
same genus of at least 2” caliper each. No permit shall be required for such replacements provided they conform
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
12 of 13
to the approved site plan. Replacement of trees with a caliper of greater than 5” shall require an amendment
to the site plan.
Staff considers the updated tree inventory and “Narrative for Removal of Brush and Trees in Stormwater Swales
and Bioretention Area on Sheet P-3” supportive of enforcement of these and other criteria of the Tree
Preservation Plan and Tree Preservation Plan, and recommends the Board accept those two documents, with
modifications if the Board determines additional plantings are needed.
5. Staff further recommends the Board require the “Narrative” to be applied to all future construction within the
development area approved under #SP-18-27, in addition to the stormwater swales and bioretention area on sheet
P-3.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a
site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not
endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as
the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB
permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the
DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds
the applicable limit.
The original approval modified some standards. Staff considers additional modifications to standards to be unnecessary
for the proposed amendment.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and
that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff
from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is
reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
See response under PUD criterion 11 above.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways,
Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See response under PUD Criterion 3 above.
D) OTHER
The applicant is proposing to plant additional trees and to remove easements for sanitary sewer force mains.
Plant Additional Trees: As noted above, the applicant does not need the Board’s approval to plant trees in the location
shown. Since the proposed plantings are in a location associated with an outstanding notice of violation, and have no
bearing on this final plat amendment request, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to remove those plantings
from the record drawings for this application.
Remove easements for sanitary sewer force mains: Final plat approval #SD-18-27 required the force mains to be private,
therefore Staff recommends the Board accept their removal from the record drawings if the applicant so desires.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues identified
herein.
#SD-21-15
Staff Comments
13 of 13
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
8/21/2009 Decision and Order Re: 26.151(h)
8/25/2015 Amended JAM Master Plan Decision
Tree Preservation Plan
#SD‐19‐27
1
1 of 27
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES, LLC
1505 DORSET STREET
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐19‐27
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on
two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 94
single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one
existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55
acres off‐site through the purchase of 711 Transferable Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 5, 2019. Following a Board action
to re‐open the hearing for additional testimony on December 17, 2019, the Board held an additional
hearing on January 22, 2020. Board members John Wilking and Brian Sullivan recused themselves from
the hearing and did not participate in this decision. Alternate Board member Jennifer Smith participated
in the hearing. The applicant was represented by Peter Kahn, Bryan Currier, and Paul O’Leary.
Based on testimony provided at the above‐mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting
materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The project consists of final plat application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a
planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The
planned unit development is to consist of 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐
family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home,
conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through
the purchase of 71 Transferable Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.
2.The project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential, Southeast Quadrant
Village Residential and Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection sub‐districts.
3.A portion of the project is contained within the Dorset Park Scenic View Protection Overlay
District, Zone D.
4.The owners of record of the subject property is Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC.
5.The application was received on August 22, 2019.
6.The plans submitted consist of the following.
1 It appears an error was made in calculation of TDR requirements at preliminary plat. All of the input data was
correct (lot coverage and unit count) but the required number of TDRs was erroneously reported to be 68. The
applicant needs 70.2 TDRs. Since TDRs can only be purchased in whole increments, the applicant needs 71 TDRs.
Previous Final Plat Decision
#SD‐19‐27
2
2 of 27
Sheet Title
Last
Revised Sheet Title
Last
Revised
SH T Title Sheet 7/17/2019
SH
L500 Lighting Details 9/26/2019
SH P Phasing Plan 7/17/2019 SH PL1 Overall Subdivision Plat 9/11/2018
SH 1 Existing Conditions 7/17/2019 SH PL2 Subdivision Plat A 9/11/2018
SH 2 Overall Site Plan 9/26/2019 SH PL3 Subdivision Plat B 9/11/2018
SH 3 Site Plan (North) 9/26/2019 SH PL4 Subdivision Plat C 9/11/2018
SH 4 Site Plan (South) 9/26/2019 SH PL5 Subdivision Plat D 9/11/2018
SH 5 Site Plan 'A' 7/17/2019 SH PL6 Subdivision Plat E 9/11/2018
SH 6 Site Plan 'B' 7/17/2019 SH PL7 Subdivision Plat F 9/11/2018
SH 7 Site Plan 'C' 7/17/2019 SH S1
Overall Storm
Management Plan 9/26/2019
SH 8 Site Plan 'D' 7/17/2019 SH S2 Stormwater Details 7/17/2019
SH 9
Roadway Profile
Elderberry Lane 7/17/2019 SH DA1
Duplex Type A
footprint 7/17/2019
SH 10
Roadway Profile Linnea
Drive 7/17/2019 SH DA2 Duplex Type A Front 7/17/2019
SH 11
Roadway Profile Trillium
Street 7/17/2019 SH DA3 Duplex Type A Rear 7/17/2019
SH 12
Roadway Profile
Dewberry Ln‐Bellflower Ct 7/17/2019 SH DB1
Duplex Type B
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH 13 Roadway Sidwalk Details 7/17/2019 SH DB2 Duplex Type B Front 7/17/2019
SH 14 Water System Details 7/17/2019 SH DB3 Duplex Type B Rear 7/17/2019
SH 15 Sewer System Details 7/17/2019 SH DC1
Duplex Type C
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH 16 Specifications 7/17/2019 SH DC2 Duplex Type C Front 7/17/2019
SH 17 Signage Plan 10/14/2019 SH DC3 Duplex Type C Rear 7/17/2019
SH 18 Addressing Plan (North) 7/17/2019 SH SF1
Single Family Type 1
(Small Lot) 7/17/2019
SH 19 Addressing Plan (South) 7/17/2019 SH SF2
Single Family Type 2
(Small Lot) 7/17/2019
SH E1
EPSC Construction
Phasing Plan 7/17/2019 SH SF3
Single Family Type 3
(Small Lot) 7/17/2019
SH E2
EPSC Pre‐Construction
Plan 7/17/2019 SH SFA
Single Family Type A
(Corner Lot) 7/17/2019
SH E3
EPSC Construction Plan
(Phase I) 7/17/2019 SH SFB Single Family Type B 7/17/2019
SH E4
EPSC Construction Plan
(Phase II) 7/17/2019 SH SFC Single Family Type C 7/17/2019
SH E5
EPSC Construction Plan
(Phase II) 10/14/2019 SH SFD Single Family Type D 7/17/2019
SH E6
EPSC Construction Plan
(Phase IV) 10/14/2019 SH SFE Single Family Type E 7/17/2019
SH E7
EPSC Construction Plan
(Phase XX) 7/17/2019 SH SFF Single Family Type F 7/17/2019
SH E8 EPSC Stabilization Plan 7/17/2019 SH SFG Single Family Type G 7/17/2019
#SD‐19‐27
3
3 of 27
Sheet Title
Last
Revised Sheet Title
Last
Revised
SH E9
EPSC Details &
Specifications 7/17/2019 SH T1
Townhouse Type 1
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH
L200 Landscape Key Plan 10/14/2019 SH T2
Townhouse Type 1
Front 7/17/2019
SH
L201 Landscape Plan (North) 10/14/2019 SH TA1
Townhouse Type A
(Corner) Footprint 7/17/2019
SH
L202 Landscape Plan (South) 10/14/2019 SH TA1
Townhouse Type A
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH
L203
Landscape Details and
Typical Lots 9/26/2019 SH TA2
Townhouse Type A
(Corner) Front 7/17/2019
SH
L204
Landscape Details and
Typical Lots 9/26/2019 SH TA2
Townhouse Type A
Front 7/17/2019
SH
L205
Landscape Details and
Typical Lots 10/14/2019 SH TA3
Townhouse Type A
(Corner) Side 7/17/2019
SH
L206
Open Space & Vegetation
Management Plan 9/26/2019 SH TB1
Townhouse Type B
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH
L301 Lighting Plan 9/26/2019 SH TB2
Townhouse Type B
Front 7/17/2019
SH L
302 Lighting Plan 9/26/2019 SH TC1
Townhouse Type C
Footprint 7/17/2019
SH
L400
Landscape Details and
Typical Lots 9/26/2019 SH TC2
Townhouse Type C
Front 7/17/2019
SH
L401 Tree Inventory Plan 7/17/2019
Exhibit
3
WB‐40 Turning
Movements 10/14/2019
7. The Project received preliminary plat and master plan approval on June 28, 2019.
8. The preliminary plat and master plan stipulated certain matters to be reviewed further and
decided at Final Plat. In general, the project is consistent with the preliminary and master plan
approvals, with changes as necessary to address outstanding items from those approvals.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project includes the purchase and use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In a
separate case, In re: Snyder Development Company, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a decision on
February 21, 2020 upholding the City’s application of the City’s Land Development Regulations
pertaining the TDR provisions. This means that the Board’s final plat decision in regards to Snyder
Group’s PUD will be upheld and the application of the same TDR bylaws in this application (Land
Development Regulations Adopted May 12, 2003 with amendments effective August 6, 2018) is valid.
A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Density
The applicant has requested the boundary of the SEQ‐NR sub‐district be adjusted 50 feet to the west in
the SEQ‐NRP sub‐district acceptable as allowed under LDR Section 15.03C, and replace the lands removed
from the SEQ‐NRP with conserved lands adjacent to the NRP within the SEQ‐NR district. The Board finds
this request acceptable. Including the area of the NRP where the regulations of the NR apply, the Board
#SD‐19‐27
4
4 of 27
finds the applicants proposal to construct 35 dwelling units within the 14.97‐acre SEQ‐VR sub‐district, and
120 units, including the existing single family home, within the 38.89‐acre SEQ‐NR sub‐district acceptable.
The project proposes to use 71 TDRs. The Applicant has provided proof of an option to purchase sufficient
TDRs as part of this application.
The Board finds that the zoning permit for the 83rd dwelling unit shall not be approved unless and until
the applicant records the conservation easement and density transfer documents approved by the City
Attorney for all 71 TDRs. The density transfer documents must include a plat of all TDRs pursuant to 24
VSA 4423.
Dimensional Standards
The Board finds the following dimensional standard waivers acceptable.
Standard SEQ‐NR
Requirement
SEQ‐VR
Requirement
Requested Revised
Standard
Min. Lot Size, Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 4,600 sq. ft.1
Max. Building Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
15% 15% 30%
1
Max. Overall Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
30% 30% 45%
1
Min. Front Setback, Single,
Two and Multi‐Family
20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft.
Min. Side Setback, Single
and Two Family
10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
Min. Rear Setback, Units 88
to 91
30 ft. N/A 10 ft.
1. Lot size and coverage waivers were approved in master plan MP‐18‐01.
No changes to the requested setback waivers approved at preliminary plat were presented in this
application. Aside from units 88 to 91, no waivers are requested for rear setbacks or for side setbacks for
the multi‐family homes. As noted above, the applicant has requested a rear setback waiver from 30 feet
to 10 feet for Units 88 to 91. The Board finds the front setback waiver request supports the goal of an
activated street presence with open spaces interwoven throughout the development approves the front
setback waiver request. The applicant has revised the plan to show how the 10‐foot rear setback waiver
could be met by units 88‐91. The Board finds the requested rear setback waiver for units 88 to 91 to be
acceptable.
Regarding side setbacks and as discussed at preliminary plat, the narrowest lots are located in the interior
of the development and appear to have a minimum width of 46 feet. Based on the provided elevations,
it appears that only two of the provided single family home types would fit within the remaining 36 feet
on the interior lots. For the exterior lots, it appears the widest home types (the ranch‐style single family
homes) will use the entire available width within the requested setback but the other home types will not
require a setback waiver. With these considerations regarding width, the applicant has incorporated into
their design guidelines the limitation that no more than two homes of the same type be located adjacent
to one another.
The Board finds the applicant must record the Unit Design Guidelines document prior to recording a mylar.
#SD‐19‐27
5
5 of 27
Preconstruction Grade
No changes to the requested adjusted preconstruction grade approved at preliminary plat have been
presented in this application. The Board finds acceptable the applicant’s request for an adjusted
preconstruction grade as allowed under Section 3.12 to minimize the amount of fill while still allowing for
sewer and drainage flows without the need for pumps.
Dorset Park View Protection Zone D
Much of the subject acreage is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone D. The maximum
elevation is based on an equation taking into consideration the distance of the building from the baseline,
located on Golf Course Road. Within the limits of the area proposed for development, the limiting
maximum elevation is 433.6 feet. This maximum elevation is in the area where single family homes are
proposed to have an adjusted preconstruction grade in the range of 397 feet, resulting in a maximum
total height at the peak of the roof of 36.6 feet. Buildings meeting the allowable height of 28 feet at the
midpoint of the roof will likely fall below the maximum allowable elevation.
The Board finds the applicant must demonstrate that each proposed structure is compliant with the View
Protection Zone prior to the issuance of the zoning permit for each building.
B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with
the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
The Applicant obtained preliminary water allocation for 164 units on August 8, 2018. The Applicant is
currently proposing 154 units.
The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 154 units on July 15, 2019. The Applicant
has proposed to provide a $350 per unit fee to cover their share of upgrades to the Vermont National
pump station, with an inflation factor of 2.10% annually, to be paid as part of the zoning permit for each
unit.
The Board finds the applicant must provide payment in accordance with schedule below, with Year 1
representing the calendar year during which the first zoning permit for a dwelling unit is approved. If the
project extends beyond year 10, the inflation schedule shall be extended by 2.1% annually in the pattern
established.
Year Per Unit Fee Year Per Unit Fee
1 $350.00 6 $387.98
2 $357.35 7 $403.84
3 $364.50 8 $411.63
4 $372.67 9 $419.42
5 $380.83 10 $427.21
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties.
The Project will require either an individual or general State construction stormwater permit. The
Applicant has submitted a detailed erosion control plan as part of this application, which appears to meet the
#SD‐19‐27
6
6 of 27
requirements of Article 16. There are soil stockpile areas proposed to be located in the open spaces for each
phase.
The Board finds the location of the soil stockpiles to be acceptable, but finds the applicant must complete
construction of the open spaces associated with each phase prior to the zoning permit issuance for the
unit representing more than half of the units in that phase.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The Fire Inspector reviewed the plans on September 19, 2019 and requested the applicant widen
Bellflower Court to 20‐feet. The applicant provided a revised plan set on October 4, 2019 reflecting this
change. Other Fire Inspector comments are discussed below. The Board finds this criterion met.
(A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
Compliance with this criterion is discussed in the findings for MP‐18‐01. The applicant has submitted
field delineation of wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat. The Board finds this criterion met.
(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
Planned development patterns, identified on Map 11 of the 2016 comprehensive plan (Future Land Use),
designates the Project area as a mixture of medium intensity residential to mixed use, lower intensity
principally residential, and very low intensity principally open space land uses. The Board finds the Project is
laid out consistently with the designated land uses on Map 11.
The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant zoning district is, in part, to encourage open space preservation,
scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well‐
planned residential use. The design and layout of buildings should be done in a manner to create
neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces. Overall Project compliance with the
comprehensive plan is considered in the findings for MP‐18‐01. The Applicant has provided an elevation
for the multi‐family home facing Dorset Street, demonstrating that the facades facing both Dorset Street
and Trillium Street will present as fronts of the building. The Applicant has provided elevation drawings
for this building showing entrances along Trillium Street and one entrance with a porch supported by
columns on Dorset Street. The Board finds the elevations support this criterion, and finds this criterion
met.
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The applicant has connected the open space areas to one another at the Board’s request. Overall
compliance with this criterion is discussed in the findings for MP‐18‐01. Compliance with specific elements
of open spaces required in the Southeast Quadrant is discussed later in this document.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
#SD‐19‐27
7
7 of 27
The Fire Inspector reviewed the plans on September 18, 2019, and the applicant addressed those
comments on 10/4/2019. The Fire Inspector provided the following follow‐up comment on 10/9/2019.
I took a look, just want to repeat the comment of having signs, trees, light poles or any other
obstructions to be pushed back at all the intersections.
The Fire Chief has also requested signage indicating no parking between the designated parking areas on
the driveway at the multifamily homes on Nowland Farm Road. The applicant has indicated that the
driveway segments in front of each garage in this area are sufficiently large to allow parking of services
vehicles to support service vehicles not ending up parked in the area needed for emergency vehicle
movements. The no parking signage in the driveway at the multifamily homes on Nowland Farm Road is
not in the location the Fire Chief indicated; the Fire Chief was asking for signage on the south side of the
east‐west segment of the driveway.
The Board finds the applicant must remove the no parking signage from the north‐south segment of the
driveway and provide no parking signage on the south side of the east‐west segment.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have
been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to
adjacent landowners.
The Project provides for connections to the south as well as to existing roadways at Dorset Street and
Nowland Farm Road. Roads, recreation paths/sidewalks and utilities are all proposed to connect at
these points. Lighting plans show consistent proposed lighting layout throughout the development and
the proposed fixtures are consistent with the approved fixtures for the City. Fixtures are proposed to be
mounted on 13‐foot poles.
The stormwater services division reviewed the plans on September 6, 2019 and considered their
comments provided at preliminary plat addressed.
The Board finds this criterion met.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement
with the Applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect
Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and
sidewalks.
The Board finds the provided layout elements consistent with City standards.
The Public Works Director reviewed the plans and indicated by email on 10/10/2019 he has no
additional comments. They have addressed all earlier concerns.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
The comprehensive plan is a guiding document which is intended to set the basis for additional processes,
actions or tools, which includes but is specifically not limited to the LDRs.
The Goals of the comprehensive plan are
#SD‐19‐27
8
8 of 27
1. Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors.
2. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington.
4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows.
Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas
within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.
Objective 61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that
complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s
remaining agricultural lands.
Objective 62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques,
streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway
profile suited to its intended local traffic function.
As discussed above, the Board finds these goals and objectives met.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall
require site plan approval. Excluded from site plan review are one and two family dwellings on a single lot.
This means that the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots within the Proposed
development are subject to these standards, because they are not located on single lots. Section 14.06 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards
for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Conformance with the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is described in
conjunction with Planned Unit Development Standard (A)(10) above.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
As discussed elsewhere in this decision, the Applicant has provided for a variety of home types
with common elements creating a theme and variation approach. Provided landscaping exceeds
the minimum requirement by approximately $143,000, as discussed under criterion 14.07D
below. Pedestrian movement is facilitated by a network of sidewalks and recreation paths along
the proposed roadways as well as network of walking paths that are part of the provided parks.
#SD‐19‐27
9
9 of 27
Parking is provided in private garages and driveways, with parking along at least one side of the
street in all locations where homes front onto the street. The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing
a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
The proposed single and two‐family homes are exempt from this standard. The multi‐family
homes have parking to the rear or side. The Board finds this criterion met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated
adjoining buildings.
The Board finds the provided home elevations and layout will result in a mixed but
harmonious visual appearance.
See also section 9.08C and 9.09C for a discussion of SEQ housing styles.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed
layout of site utilities, including electric cabinets, as part of the final plat application. The applicant
has done so, generally locating the utility cabinets to the rear of the sidewalk. Utilities are
proposed to be underground. The Board finds this criterion met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
The Applicant has submitted a set of model home plans and elevations for each of the single
family, duplex and multi‐family dwellings. The Board has reviewed the provided elevations
and finds each home type is harmoniously related to but sufficiently different from the
others to create an attractive, coherent and yet diverse neighborhood. The applicant has
proposed a Unit Design Guidelines document to ensure that the mixture of home models
meet this standard.
In addition to internal harmony, the applicant has designed the home architecture and lot
layout at the perimeter of the development to be transitional between existing homes along
Nowland Farm Road and Dorset Street and the development.
#SD‐19‐27
10
10 of 27
The Board finds the applicant must record the Unit Design Guidelines document prior to
recording a mylar.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific
standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
The applicant has proposed a street and recreation path connection to the south adjacent
property for future connection and a pedestrian trail easement to the west. The easement is
not intended to represent a fixed location in space; it’s final configuration will depend on how
things evolve with connectivity to the Underwood parcel over the next several years.
The Board finds the applicant must provide an irrevocable offer for the 10‐foot wide pedestrian
easement, with language similar to the following:
A 10‐foot wide pedestrian easement, with substantially the same access and connectivity and in
a similar location to the pedestrian easement shown on PL1, recorded at map & slide no __. The
easement shall extend to either the north or west property boundary.
The Board finds the applicant must complete clearing of this pedestrian trail easement to the
west as part of the open space for Phase IV in coordination with the City of South Burlington
Recreation and Parks Department, and prior to the City’s acceptance of the irrevocable offer.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall
be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a
harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The applicant has proposed a dumpster location for the multifamily units. The applicant has
provided a 6‐foot tall enclosure constructed of wood privacy slats and matching gates. The Board
finds this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall
be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The applicant estimates the
total minimum required landscape budget to be $150,887 based on a total building cost of
$14,058,750 (excluding single family homes2, which are exempt from minimum landscape
budget standards). The applicants proposed landscaping consists of a total of $293,990 in trees
2 Duplexes on their own lot are also exempt from landscape budget standards, but none are proposed.
#SD‐19‐27
11
11 of 27
and shrubs, which includes plantings in the areas of the duplexes on shared lots, the multi‐
family homes, the greenspace and stormwater buffer areas, and in the wetland buffers.
The Board finds the applicant must bond for the full $293,990 landscape value in accordance
with the schedule in LDR 15.15, but may bond by project phase rather than overall, according to
the following breakdown of landscaping value by phase. The zoning administrator may approve
a different amount based on updated costs at the time of zoning permit application.
‐ Phase I: $58,000
‐ Phase II: $74,982
‐ Phase III: $49,746
‐ Phase IV: $35,454
‐ Phase XX: $75,808
Additional landscaping bonding will be required for the street trees on a per phase basis.
The Board finds the applicant must provide a street tree bond in the amount below, or a
different amount based on updated costs and approved by the zoning administrator, at the time
of the first zoning permit for each phase
‐ Phase I $75,192.50
‐ Phase II $58,737.50
‐ Phase III $51,875.00
‐ Phase IV $37,997.50
There are no street trees in Phase XX
The City Arborist provided comments on the plans in an email dated September 3, 2019. The
applicant addressed these comments in a submission on October 4, 2019. On October 15, 2019,
the City Arborist indicated by email their comments have been addressed.
13.06C requires all utility improvements such as transformer(s) to be effectively screened. Such
screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs, or a solid fence. The applicant has provided a revised landscaping
plan which shows the transformers and secondary pedestals will be fully screened, though the
applicant has indicated in a note on landscaping plan sheet L205 that Green Mountain Power
standards dictate that trees and shrubs must be set back 5 feet from the sides and rear and 10
feet from the front of transformers. Only herbaceous plants are allowed within the setback.
Given the purported feedback from Green Mountain Power and the ability of grasses to
rebound from damage due to maintenance, the Board finds the provided landscaping meets the
screening standard of 13.06C.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five
(5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
The Board finds the applicant’s requested waivers do not detract from the general objectives of Article 14
#SD‐19‐27
12
12 of 27
or the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
Stormwater infrastructure and compliance with the standards of Article 12 is discussed under PUD
Standard (A)(8) above. The Board finds this criterion met.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.
E. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore, it is subject to the
provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts. The following standards
shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the
maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers area not available for structures with
the SEQ zoning district.
The Project is located within the SEQ‐NRP, SEQ‐NR, and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. Height has been
discussed above as it pertains to alteration of existing grade and view protection districts. The
Board finds this criterion met.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, creating or enhancing
stream buffer areas, or creating or enhancing buffers for primary or secondary natural
communities.
The Applicant met with the Recreation and Parks committee on November 19, 2018. The applicant
incorporated the comments of the committee by providing a variety of open space types throughout
the development, shown most clearly on the Landscaping plans Sheet L201 and L202. Open space
types specifically from the future PUD matrix include a neighborhood park to include a basketball
court, a playground, an enhanced wooded area, and several pedestrian passes connecting the open
spaces. In addition to the internal and perimeter open spaces, the property incorporates a large
forested area to the west which creates a continuous open space with several adjoining properties.
Emphasis has been placed on creating inviting open spaces that are well delineated as separate from
the home lots. The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at
#SD‐19‐27
13
13 of 27
the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The building lots, streets and structures are located in a manner that is consistent with the
Regulating Plan as discussed in connection with Sections 9.08 and 9.09, below. Moreover, the
average density for the subject parcel allows no more than 275 units on the subject properties;
the applicant is proposing 155 units. The Board finds this criterion met.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management
shall be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and
maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife
habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural
resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including (but not
limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation
areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such
as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. In making this finding the
Development Review Board shall use the provisions of Article 12 of this bylaw related to
wetlands and stream buffers.
Implicit in this criterion is that resource areas must be identified before the Board can determine
if the applicant’s plan for open spaces, natural areas and their ongoing management is adequate
and if existing natural resources on the site will be protected through the proposed development
plan.
The applicant has provided field delineation of natural resources including existing trees, river
corridors, wetlands, floodplains and rare, threatened and endangered species. In the case of river
corridors, wetlands and floodplains, the field delineation has been confirmed by state and federal
agencies with jurisdiction over those resources.
There are some existing trees located within the development. The applicant has prepared a
tree inventory plan showing how the existing trees greater than 6 inches in caliper relate to the
proposed development, and has provided a plan showing trees to be preserved. The Applicant
is proposing to preserve approximately 3 maples and 9 pines. The Board finds the applicant
must retain the “to be preserved” trees during development of the parcel but that the
homeowners’ association (“HOA”) shall not be required to retain them should management
become an issue in the future.
The applicant has provided an open space and tree management plan as part of proposed HOA
documents which indicates that open spaces and trees shall be maintained as designed. The only
information in those documents relevant to the DRB’s decision is that relating to open space
maintenance, including wetlands and wetland buffers. The Board finds the applicant may amend
other elements of the HOA documents without City review or approval, and therefore finds the
open space management plan must be the subject of a separate Notice of Conditions to be
recorded.
In the wetland buffer area, the applicant is proposing the following maintenance plan:
Buffer areas are to be planted using a matrix of grassland/shrubland community plant
species, as well as several native tree species. Upon establishment of plantings, buffer
areas are to be left to vegetate naturally, except in height management area.
#SD‐19‐27
14
14 of 27
The wetland buffer occurs at the toe of a proposed slope which ranges in height from three to
approximately eight feet. The applicant is proposing a moderately dense row of trees along the
buffer, which will mark approximately 50% of the line. The Board finds wetland buffers
adequately delineated and protected. Streams, stream buffers, and floodplains are contained
within the wetland buffer and are also adequately delineated and protected.
Conservation areas in the Comprehensive Plan are described on page 2‐103 and include primary
and secondary conservation areas as shown on Maps 7 and 8. Comprehensive Plan Map 7
identifies the following primary conservation areas: riparian connectivity, 20‐25% slope, 25%+
slope, rare natural communities, 100‐year flood, Zone 1 Source Protection Areas, Rare Species, and
Wetlands. The project parcels include areas identified on Map 7 as Riparian Connectivity and as
Wetlands. The Comprehensive Plan does not define riparian connectivity, but notes that the 2014
Open Space Report identifies and describes the resource conservation areas which must be
protected and is the source of Comprehensive Plan Map 7 (p 2‐103). The 2014 Open Space Report
is based in part on BioFinder, developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and
describes riparian connectivity as follows.
Riparian Connectivity (L8). Riparian connectivity refers to the land along streams, rivers,
lakes and ponds occupied by plants and wildlife that also serve as “corridors” for wildlife
movement. The connectivity layer consists of the undeveloped sections of mapped surface
water and riparian areas (A1) shown on the Water Resources Map.
The parenthetical references within the 2014 Open Space Report refer to map components
identified and described in the BioFinder Development Report – 20133. Riparian connectivity (L8) is
described in greater detail in BioFinder 2013, summarized as follows:
Riparian connectivity, in the context of BioFinder, includes all non‐developed cover classes
within the Surfaces Waters and Riparian Area (A1) dataset.
The Surface Waters and Riparian Area (A1) component was mapped by aggregating the Vermont
Hydrographic Dataset and the Valley Bottom Land Type Associations, and adding a 50‐ or 100‐ foot
riparian area to the outside of the aggregated layer, depending on stream order. In the case of the
project area, the riparian area is 50‐feet based on a stream order 2.
Both the 2014 Open Space Report and BioFinder are clear that the applicable maps provide notice
that a conservation area may be located on a particular parcel, but need not replace site visits or
site‐specific data and analyses and should only be used to gain a general understanding of
components likely to be at play. The applicant responded to the Board’s request for supplemental
evidence on riparian connectivity by aggregating the field delineated elements which make up
surface water and riparian areas, including the stream surface water, the wetland associated with
the stream, and the floodplain associated with the stream. The applicant did not conduct a field
investigation to identify and map or otherwise confirm a valley bottom functional equivalent, nor
did applicant identify and include additional riparian area. Therefore, the applicant has not
provided a complete site‐specific delineation of riparian connectivity. Without a complete analysis
of the extent and location of riparian connectivity within the subject property, applicant cannot
demonstrate that it has established a plan for the ongoing management of open spaces and natural
areas or that existing natural resources on the subject property are protected through the
3 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Natural Resources Mapping Project, available
https://anr.vermont.gov/sites/anr/files/maps/biofinder/BioFinderDevelopmentReport_2013.pdf
#SD‐19‐27
15
15 of 27
development plan. Therefore, the Board finds this criterion not met.
Compliance with other provisions of Article 12 is discussed elsewhere in this document.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the
Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the
General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation.
See discussion under PUD Criteria A(2).
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or
primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically
compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural
purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of
natural materials is encouraged.
The Board finds proposed landscaping and fencing adequate and suitable for protection of
resource areas. Along the conservation areas of the NRP district, protection is provided in the
form of landscape boulders, segments of split rail fence, and vegetation.
The Board finds the applicant must amend the location of the split rail fence to be located on NRP
boundary (not 10‐ft back).
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development
plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing
agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new
opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐
supported agriculture.
The Applicant has indicated that the site contains prime agricultural soils and is subject to Act 250
review. Projects that meet both of these conditions must demonstrate to the State that the
proposed impacts are warranted and must provide mitigation for impacted soils at a ratio of 2:1
within the same Act 250 District as the impacts. In addition to the required off‐site mitigation,
the Project will result in permanent conservation of 56 acres off‐site within the Southeast
Quadrant through the purchase of TDRs. The Board finds this criterion met.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review
Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development,
the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned
public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths,
streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the
needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as
evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water
and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
#SD‐19‐27
16
16 of 27
The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation as discussed above.
The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting
shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement
with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,
minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions
where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location
of hydrants.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.
E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity
for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles
between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the
findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review
by City staff or consultants.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services
and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to
maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.
9.07 Regulating Plans
A. ...
B. General Provisions
(1) …
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district
shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios
of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
#SD‐19‐27
17
17 of 27
There are a handful of lots that do not conform to this ratio, primarily corner lots, with the
exception of Lot 36 which does not meet the standard because of opposing homes on a curve.
The Master Plan application approves the applicant’s request for meeting this criterion on
average. The Board finds this criterion met.
C. …
D. Parks Design and Development.
(1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park
Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000
square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.
Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free
destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of
life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the
neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,
local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and
there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.
(2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐
NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts:
a. Distribution and Amount of Parks:
i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to
meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the
outdoors, and active recreation.
See discussion under SEQ Criterion 9.06B above.
ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the
heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by
development.
Neighborhood Park E is designed as the central recreation feature of the
development with the alignment of Dewberry Lane specifically designed to
facilitate views of Camels Hump. Other recreation features are well integrated
into the development, are connected to one another and are fronted by
development. The Board finds this criterion met.
iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
Parks are provided at a rate of 14.3 acres per 1,000 population, including 3.78
acres of developed parkland and 1.36 acres of open field. As discussed in the
connection with Standard 9.06B above, the developed parkland falls into the
categories of neighborhood park, playground, enhanced wooded area, and several
pedestrian passes connecting the open spaces. In addition, the Project includes
33.8 acres of open space which is not proposed to be actively maintained. The
Board finds this criterion met.
#SD‐19‐27
18
18 of 27
iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be
provided within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by
an existing City park or other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.
All of the parks included in the above calculation are greater than 10,000 square
feet. The Board finds this criterion met.
b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be
approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained
permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
The provided HOA documents state that the open space parcels are common
elements which will be owned and shared by members of the HOA. It does not
appear the pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City within the NRP zoning
district is explicitly excluded.
The Board finds the applicant must amend the HOA documents to exclude the
pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City from the common elements.
c. Design Guidelines
i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to
make them sociable, safe and attractive places.
ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle
connections.
iii. To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to
natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and
public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource
and not extended yard areas.
The provided parks are located along homes and contain recreation paths. Open
spaces are demarcated by a combination of landscaping, landscaping boulders
and split rail fencing. The recreation and parks committee stated in their
memorandum of November 19, 2018 to the Board they are satisfied with the
proposed unpaved surface treatment of paths within the park areas. The Board
finds this criterion met.
9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500
linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid‐block public
sidewalk or recreation path connections.
The applicant has provided block lengths no greater than 500 feet except for two locations
where the development connects to existing streets. In the first block off Nowland Farm
Road, the applicant has provided a mid‐block pedestrian crossing which accesses parklands
on the west side of the crossing. In the first block off Dorset Street the applicant has
provided a mid‐block pedestrian crossing to allow residents of the multi‐family buildings on
#SD‐19‐27
19
19 of 27
the south to access the recreation path on the north. The Board finds the designed
functionality of these crossings exceeds the minimum of this criterion.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See discussion immediately above.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent
parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead
end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
The applicant has proposed a 100‐foot dead end street at the south end of the
development specifically to meet PUD criteria A(3) and A(8) above. The Board
finds this criterion met.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio
of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
See discussion under 9.07 above.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are
intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and
are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The proposed streets are the minimum width necessary to allow two‐way traffic and parking
on one or both sides where necessary, except for Dewberry Lane and Bellflower Court are
20‐feet wide instead of 18‐feet at the request of the Fire Inspector to allow maneuvering of
emergency vehicles during snow events.
Where pavement width only allows for parking on one side, the provided signage plan limits
parking to just one side of the street. Recreation paths are located to the sides of streets
with fewer driveway crossings.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee met with the Applicant on November 15, 2018 and
provided recommendations in minutes dated November 15, 2018 which have been
addressed.
The Board finds this criterion to be met.
(2) Sidewalks.
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional
minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from
the street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.
Plans show that the sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, will occur
on at least one side of the street, and will have a sufficient planting strip. Sidewalks
are on the side of the street chosen based on street type and contiguity of dwelling
#SD‐19‐27
20
20 of 27
units. The Board finds this criterion met.
(3) Street Trees
(a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five
feet wide.
(b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to
the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size
of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on
center.
As discussed above, the City Arborist provided comments on the final plat
application which have been addressed. Street trees have been placed with
consideration for views and for driveway locations at the required spacing. The
Board finds this criterion met.
(4) On‐street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided
on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. This
requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds
sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of
the uses adjacent to the street.
One lane of on‐street parking has been provided on all streets which serve as the
frontage for proposed homes. To require additional parking where no homes are
proposed would detract from the provided open spaces and parklands and therefore
the Board approves the parking layout as proposed.
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to work with the fire department to
assure emergency vehicle access while meeting this standard prior to final plat approval.
The applicant has provided a vehicle turning movement plan using the City fire truck
template. The Board finds this requirement satisfied.
The Board finds the applicant shall add a neck‐down and crosswalk on Elderberry Lane at
approximately station 7+75 where there is a walking trail on both sides of the road.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather
than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public
safety.
Proposed fixtures are mounted at a 13‐foot pole height and concentrated around
pedestrian crossings. The Board finds the overall illumination levels appropriate for the
lower intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ with minimum trespass.
The Board finds the applicant must add lighting fixtures of type “M3” at the pedestrian
crossing on Elderberry Lane at approximately station 7+75.
#SD‐19‐27
21
21 of 27
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building
entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to
arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent
windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district,
residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the
extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.
The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type. Primary entries
face the street. Building orientation varies through the development. The applicant requests
that the 35% translucence standard shall only apply when a building is oriented with the front
or back of the unit facing south. When the front or rear elevation of a building is oriented to
the south, 35% of the translucent windows shall be located on the south facing wall.
The Board finds the applicant’s request acceptable and finds that for buildings where the side
is oriented to the south, only 20% of the translucent windows must be located on the south
facing wall. The Board further finds the applicant must submit sufficient information to allow
translucence criteria to be evaluated by the administrative officer at the time of zoning permit
application.
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should
be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and
balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.
See discussion of building elevations under Site Plan Review standard above.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is
critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back
of sidewalk.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front
setbacks.
Buildings are proposed to be generally within 15 feet from the back of sidewalk. The
design guidelines require that homes be located on the lots to meet this criterion. The
Board finds this criterion met.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a
front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back
a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.
(a) For the purposes of this subsection:
(i) The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,
shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary
entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not
including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)
(ii) The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line
may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’)
#SD‐19‐27
22
22 of 27
wide.
The applicant has provided floor plans demonstrating compliance with this criterion for
all home types. The Board finds this criterion met.
(b) …
(c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and
townhouses.
All multi‐family homes are proposed to be served by alleys. The applicant is not
proposing any alleys within areas where the single family and duplex homes are located.
However duplex homes are proposed to have the appearance of a front on both sides of
the building creating an appearance of rear‐loaded buildings abutting parkland. The
Board finds this criterion met.
(d) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial,
etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments.
These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather
than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
The applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that single family homes exist
throughout the development, with two areas of single family homes, and the multi family
homes are grouped nearest to the existing roadways.
The proposed design standards ensure that within each grouping of homes that the home
styles be mixed. The Board finds this criterion met. This comment also applies to the
SEQ‐VR sub‐district.
9.09 SEQ‐VR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐VR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400
linear feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks
400 feet or longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path
connections.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. The Board finds this criterion
met.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. The Board finds this
criterion met.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer‐head) that are not constructed to
an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged.
Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
#SD‐19‐27
23
23 of 27
There are no dead end streets proposed within the SEQ‐VR. The Board finds this
criterion met.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
Buildings in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot and therefore the Board
finds the lot ratio described in this criterion, intended for single family home lots, to be
not applicable.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the
VR sub‐district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage
through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. The Board finds this criterion
met.
(2) Sidewalks
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional
minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the
street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a
pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may
in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this
purpose.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. The Board finds these
criteria met.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(4) On‐street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9‐6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather
than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
#SD‐19‐27
24
24 of 27
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary
building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design
guidelines apply to arterial streets).
See discussion under Site Plan Review standards above.
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades
should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches,
stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are
encouraged.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the
building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk.
Except along Dorset Street and Nowland Farm Road where homes are proposed
to be set back twenty feet from the future ROW, homes within the SEQ‐VR are
proposed to be located approximately fifteen feet from the back of the sidewalk.
This configuration is supported by the applicant’s requested waiver. The Board
finds this criterion met.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front
setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be
enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.
Within the SEQ‐VR, porches are proposed to project into the setback by
approximately 6‐feet. The Board finds this criterion met.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7.
Section 9.08C(4) does not apply to multi‐family homes. Site Plan general review standard
B addresses parking for multi‐family buildings and is addressed above.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,
and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should
be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
E. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.
#SD‐19‐27
25
25 of 27
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion
control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
The applicant is proposing one wetland crossing and has provided documentation of communication
with the US Army Corps of Engineers and State Wetlands program indicating they are generally
supportive of the applicant’s proposed configuration as long as the existing driveway crossing is
removed and the remaining wetlands and buffers are demarcated and set aside as no mow zones,
which they are on the provided plans. The applicant is also proposing a small amount of
encroachment into Class III wetland buffers which are not regulated by either the State or the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
The Board finds the required stream alteration permit will result in compliance with this criterion.
The Applicant must demonstrate that they have obtained that permit prior to issuance of the first
zoning permit for the Project.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The Stormwater Services Division has reviewed the proposed plans and has not expressed any
concern about this criterion. The Board finds this criterion met.
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values
identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate
landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
The Board finds the State wetland permit which will be required for this project will confirm
compliance with this criterion.
The Board finds the Applicant must obtain their State wetland permit prior to issuance of the first
zoning permit for the Project.
Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐
half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit
Development Standards above.
D. ENERGY STANDARDS
#SD‐19‐27
26
26 of 27
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
F. PROJECT & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING AND BONDING
The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance of
all State and Local approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the
warranty period for the Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the
Phase II roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II roadway, a zoning
permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of the
warranty period for the Phase III roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the
Phase IV roadway. A zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases
of the project, due to the lack of public infrastructure.
LDR 17.04 states that all site plans (an element of PUD review) expire one year from date of issuance
unless the DRB has granted a longer period for a multi‐phase development or for other projects that
may reasonably require a longer period. The DRB or administrative officer may approve a 1 year
extension of the initial timeline if the applicant makes the request prior to the initial timeline
expiring. Further, the administrative officer may reapprove the site plan if the approval expired
within the previous six months and no changes are proposed. The Board considers that the
applicant’s requested timeline, including issuance of State approvals and allowing for roadways to
begin their warranty period, creates too much uncertainty in the schedule.
The Board therefore approves the following alternative schedule:
The applicant must apply for the first zoning permit for Phase I within one (1) year of final plat
approval. The applicant must apply for the first zoning permit for Phase II within five (5) years of the
first zoning permit for Phase I. They must apply for the first zoning permit for Phase III within five
(5) years of the first zoning permit for Phase II. They must apply for the first zoning permit for Phase
IV within five (5) years of the first zoning permit for Phase III. They must apply for the first zoning
permit for Phase XX within one (1) year after the first zoning permit for Phase IV.
The proposed phasing results in a second entry point to the development prior to 50 units being
constructed, and it precludes the construction of dead‐end streets, so compliance with 15.12J is not
a concern.
The applicant has requested that they be allowed to provide a detailed estimate of public
infrastructure cost immediately prior to the construction of each proposed roadway segment in lieu
of having bonding amounts set at final plat.
In order to reduce conflicts at time of zoning permit application, the Board establishes the following
costs for each phase based on the applicant’s estimate, and finds that the zoning administrator may
adjust bonding amounts based on updated costs. The Board finds the applicant must provide
infrastructure bonds equal to 100% of the estimated project cost plus a 15% contingency for each
phase.
Phase I $1,375,350
Phase II $869,000
Phase III $887,150
Phase IV $626,000