HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04_550 Park Rd_public commentsTo: Mark Behr Elissa Eiring James Langan Dawn Philibert (Acting Chair) Stephanie Wyman From: John Bossange Re: SD 21-06, Unresolved Questions and Concerns Date: May 5, 2021 First, thank you for giving us more time on the May 4th agenda. It was appreciated. As promised, here are the four questions I raised at that meeting. We believe the answers to each have yet to be clarified and remain unresolved.
1. DENSITY: Do you believe you have the authority to reduce the number
of homes proposed to be built on the 6.9 acres? The Amended Agreement of 2010 and the Superior Court decision of 2015 support your ability to reduce the number of homes. Is there a fear of another lawsuit from JAM, given the history of the land swap agreement to end the lengthy litigation between JAM and the city of South Burlington?
2. TRAFFIC: Will you order another traffic study given the original one did
not address the issue of traffic and pedestrian safety where the
proposed access roads are planned? With another development scheduled for the opposite side of Park Rd., we are concerned not just with the danger of the slope and curves on traffic and recreation path use, but with competing traffic coming in and out from the other side of the road from the second development of 15 more homes.
3. DESIGN AND MATERIALS: Are you concerned with the designs and
building materials proposed for the new homes? We are most appreciative that you have pushed back with your concerns, yet the cute names of the building types do nothing to address the plastic, “cookie cutter,” “modular” images presented so far which mirror many of the new home developments we now see up and down Dorset St.
4. BLASTING: Are you alarmed about building so many new homes on so
much ledge, and the months of noise and disruption necessary for such
a major undertaking? We are extremely concerned about blasting noise, vibration on ledge, rock removal, Park Road closures, safety on the recreational path, increased tree removal and the time it will take to blast most of the area.
1
TO: Marla Keene and Each Member of the South Burlington Development
Review Board (DRB)
FROM: Karen LeFevre, 598 Golf Course Road, South Burlington, VT 05403
RE: [REV] Updated Public Comment on #SD‐21‐06, 550 Park Road, continued
Final Plat Development, Blackrock Construction for the 6.91‐acre “Wheeler
Parcel, ”(see also my public comment of April 6, 2021)
DATE: May 27, 2021
1. If possible, please include this comment in the packet being prepared for the DRB
Continuing Final Plat Hearing on June 1, 2021? Thank you very much.
2. AGENDA for June 1 2021 Hearing: We hope you will be able to reserve agenda time on June
1, 2021 for oral public comments once there has been some introductory discussion on the
ledge blasting and removal. We understand that the applicant takes part in the hearing, but
other voices are very much needed as well.
3. We ask that the Board continue the process for this final plat application beyond June 1 to
allow full discussion by staff, Board, and the public. Given BlackRock’s inappropriately delayed
introduction of this massive (almost the entire site) ledge removal , blasting, grinding, and
hauling of ledge at 550 Park, we ought not feel rushed. This is a crucial and complicated issue
which BlackRock brought up belatedly only in mid‐April 2021, very late in the final plat
application, even delaying its provision of Board‐requested information beyond then. I feel that
this has given staff, Board, and the public insufficient time to investigate and digest
information.
INTRODUCTION
2
Please allow full consideration of the many unresolved blasting and ledge removal issues
including technical ones as well as other issues raised that are not addressed in that technical
report. Is another type of consultant review and/ or supplemental information needed to
evaluate them?
In my opinion, either the Tech Review Report did not assess the following or it was not
requested by the DRB:
The total amount of ledge present and a considered estimate of the time needed to
remove it, and by what methods? And demonstration of specific methods and
procedures used to arrive at these answers? BlackRock (via Maine company) provided
only general information about this (and refused the board’s request to provide a time
estimate other than perhaps a hypothetical two months (?), with no data to show how
this was arrived at and only a couple of slides shown quickly at the hearing (no audio‐
video examples, sounds, perhaps from other construction sites that are similar). It
would be very helpful if an expert would weigh in on these matters.
Practical matters of the impact of the proposed extensive blasting , rock grinding, ledge
removal on traffic and pedestrian safety and ability to drive, bike, and walk safely
Risks of public/construction collisions (especially at BlackRock’s newly designated
“construction ‐central” areai [my words] at the road cut for Zooey Drive near the hair‐
pin blind Park Road curve, and slope, which is especially hazardous in snow, ice, winds,
lack of plowing
This construction‐central point is just 0.1 miles to where Park and Golf Course
intersect and where many residents live, where speeding by the public already occurs,
and where pedestrians walk in the street because the rec/bike path above it also gets
very icy in winter months. Will the applicant be forbidden to operate in winter months ,
taking into account these attendant risks? And how will this be objectively monitored?
Unresolved Issues re Ledge Blasting and Removal
at the 550 Park Road Site
3
This is a newly discovered reason (among others) for the DRB to commission an additional
traffic study that has been so strongly urged by the public) to investigate Park Road dangers and
the impact of two new road cuts that were completely omitted by the study done by
BlackRock’s engineer.
Environmental risks (e.g. loss of mature trees and grasslands and wildlife);
Aesthetic damage; barren landscape for a prolonged period of time;
Possible damages to people, animals, area buildings (propelled rock fragments? Harm
to hearing? Long range effects to foundations, etc.)
Release of toxic substances and dust in the air;
Possible violation of vibration levels set by South Burlington LDR’s for this area
(Confusingly, the reviewer seems to question the city’s performance standard itself,
which is a set regulation. Is it a reviewer’s role to recommend that LDR’s be changed for
this developer? Or that a developer should ignore them? Clarification?
Extreme noise for prolonged periods of time;
Need for systematic, independent monitoring
Extremely out of character for a natural open space that has been promoted for this
SEQ area
How would BlackRock’s degree of compliance with all regulations, noise levels, hours of
permitted work, etc. be regularly monitored, managed, reported to the appropriate city
office or department and to the public, and enforced in a timely manner?
What insurance would BlackRock and/ or Maine Blasting have in force if approved, and
how log would it extent if damage were not shown until much later)?
E.g. One option for monitoring: The DRB could require BlackRock to pay upfront to the
appropriate city entity to support the functions, salary, benefits, and expenses of a newly
hired independent monitor (with knowledge of relevant actions such as construction
process, regulations, fines, etc.) or underwrite these functions of an existing supervisor/
staffer to perform such functions. Or is there a similar alternative?
4
The applicant states that their work schedule should be Mon.‐Friday 7:00 am‐7:00 pm (a 12‐
hour‐day schedule) and 8:00 am‐ 5:00 pm Saturdays with no construction on Sundays and
Holidays. Is this the city’s regulation for a residential neighborhood? It seems excessive. Recall
also that BlackRock has already been found several times to have violated workday limits (by
extending them ) at a residential development on Williston. Does the DRB have authority to
reduce the length of the workdays and weeks to give nearby residents some peace? Will you
please consider doing so?
Also, the 550 Park development project is proposed to extend from 2021‐2025. No
construction schedule, no explanation is given for this long a period. Why so many years for a
relatively small project? Will the applicant repeatedly stop and start work over 4 years
whenever they wish? This can be very chaotic for residents living nearby . Has the DRB asked
about this? Please clarify whether this long period is actually needed.
Option: Will the Board require updated, detailed, realistic construction plans with a goal of
reducing the overall length of the project?
Finally: I remain hopeful that the DRB will not close the final plat hearing unless and until
every avenue has been explored. The Board retains the option of rejecting this project for a
number of reasons raised here and in other public written and oral comments, as well as in
letters by our neighborhoods’ lawyer. We hope you will seriously consider the opportunity to
do so.
Before you make your decision, considering all the applicable regulations as well as recent
development issues, please recall the vehemence of last summer’s (2020) justified residents’
complaints and online postings about the applicant’s extreme and prolonged noise, delays, and
broken promises on Long Drive which took a huge toll on the nearby residents – the taxpayers
who fund these procedures by decision‐makers . The same residents who suffered then could
be subjected to at least as much damage, if not more, with this proposed 550 Park Road
project . We should not be surprised that what will be seen as a repeat of the debacles from
summer 2020 will cause a huge, perhaps unresolvable, loss of citizens’ faith in all aspects of city
government related to this process , particularly (though not exclusively) the role of the
Development Review Board.
Work Schedules? Construction Plans ? Length of Proposed Project?
5
Thank you very much for your time and efforts.
Karen LeFevre
i If you did not see the mention of a construction “headquarters” in BlackRock’s submitted
materials, that is because it occurs in an extremely obscure (at least to me) location on a
map/drawing text insert with no contextual explanation of how it will be used, why in that specific
location . I recently searched for it again to show others, but it’s hard to view, especially online, in
sketched format, even with magnification, that I can’t relocate it again myself! Will keep trying.)
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
May 27, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL –
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Dawn Philibert, Acting Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: dphilibert@sburl.com
Re: 550 Park Road, Final Plat Application No. SD-21-06
Dear Acting Chairperson Philibert and members of the South Burlington DRB:
I represent the Gleneagles Homeowners Association (“Gleneagles HOA”) and the
Inverness Homeowners Association (“Inverness HOA”), collectively, the “HOA’s.” The
Gleneagles HOA is made up of 54 member homes and the Inverness HOA is made up of 32
member homes, all in South Burlington. The HOA’s asked me to contact the DRB concerning
the above-referenced Final Plat Application.
On February 22, 2021, I submitted a letter to the DRB on behalf of the HOA’s expressing
serious traffic safety concerns regarding the current PUD design, and in particular the two curb
cuts along Park Road. A copy of my February 22, 2021 letter is enclosed/attached for ease of
reference.
Since February 22nd, the HOA’s have learned that there are other serious problems with
the Final Plat Application, including issues concerning density, aesthetics and blasting. On the
subject of blasting, Section A.2 of Appendix A of the applicable Land Development Regulations
(Jan. 25, 2016) states in relevant part as follows:
A.2 Vibration
(a) No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the
ground and is discernible without the aid of instrument at or
beyond the lot lines, nor shall any vibration produced exceed
0.002g peak at up to 60 cps frequency, measured at or beyond the
lot lines using either seismic or electronic vibration measuring
equipment.
Letter to DRB Acting Chairperson Dawn Philibert
May 27, 2021
Page 2 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
(b) Vibrations occurring at higher than 50 cps frequency or random
vibrations shall not induce accelerations exceeding .001g. Single
impulse random vibrations occurring at an average interval greater
than 5 minutes shall not induce accelerations exceeding .01g.
SBLDR Appx. A, § A.2.
The purpose of Appendix A, Section A.2 is to “Prevent the dissemination of vibration
… beyond the immediate site on which the site is located.” SBLDR § 3.13(A)(4) (emphasis
added). The performance standards set out in Appendix A, Section A.2 are mandatory:
The use of any substance or process so as to create any hazardous
or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area
shall be prohibited except at levels in conformance with the
requirements of this section and the performance standards
listed in Appendix A, Performance Standards.
SBLDR § 3.13(C) (emphasis added).
Based on the May 4, 2021 Memorandum from Martin Hain, P.E., of Knight Consulting
Engineers, Inc., it is apparent the proposed blasting would violate the vibration performance
standards set out in Appendix A, Section A.2 (quoted above). Mr. Hain speculates that “[t]he
requirement in LDR App A seems unreasonably low” and that he “would suggest that MD&B be
allowed to use the limiting PPV of 2 in/sec with the understanding that they will adjust their
blasting load as necessary to achieve a limiting PPV of 0.5 in/sec if neighbors expressed concern
about the level of vibration caused by the blasting operations.”
Mr. Hain’s ‘suggestion’ that the DRB waive the vibration performance standards set out
in Appendix A, Section A.2 is unacceptable to the HOA’s. These vibration performance
standards are mandatory. See SBLDR § 3.13(C) (quoted above). Moreover, there is no
provision in Appendix A, Section A.2 for a waiver or exemption from the vibration performance
standards set out therein.
By contrast, Section A.3, concerning “Noise,” includes a subsection providing expressly
for exemptions from the noise performance standards in certain situations. See SBLDR Appx.
A, § A.3(c). The fact that Section A.3 (Noise) includes an exemption provision but Section A.2
(Vibration) does not is further evidence that the vibration performance standards are non-
waivable. See generally In re D.C., 2016 VT 72, ¶ 31, 202 Vt. 340, 149 A.3d 466 (“As per the
canon expressio unius est exclusio[] alterius, when a drafter itemizes members of an associated
group or series, we may justifiably infer that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate
choice, not inadvertence.”) (internal quotes omitted); and In re Estate of Maggio, 2012 VT 99, ¶
24, 193 Vt. 1, 71 A.3d 1130 (recognizing the “time honored precept of expressio unius est
exclusio alterius – the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”) (internal quotes
omitted).
Letter to DRB Acting Chairperson Dawn Philibert
May 27, 2021
Page 3 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
Given the serious traffic safety problems associated with the proposed project (please see
my February 22, 2021 letter), as well as the density, aesthetics and blasting issues that have been
raised at the recent DRB hearings, the HOA’s urge the DRB to reject the Final Plat Application.
Thank you for your attention to this critically important matter of public health and
safety.
Respectfully submitted,
MSK ATTORNEYS
By: /s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff, Esq.
P.O. Box 4485
275 College Street
Burlington, VT 05406-4485
Phone: (802) 861-7000
Fax: (802) 861-7007
Email: dseff@mskvt.com
Attorneys for the Gleneagles Homeowners
Association and the Inverness Homeowners
Association
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail)
Mr. Ben Avery, BlackRock Construction, LLC (via e-mail)
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
February 22, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL –
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Matt Cota, Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: mcota@sburl.com
Re: 550 Park Road, Final Plat Application No. SD-21-06
Dear Chairperson Cota and members of the South Burlington DRB:
I represent the Gleneagles Homeowners Association (“Gleneagles HOA”) and the
Inverness Homeowners Association (“Inverness HOA”), collectively, the “HOA’s.” The
Gleneagles HOA is made up of 54 member homes and the Inverness HOA is made up of 32
member homes, all in South Burlington. The HOA’s asked me to contact the DRB concerning
the above-referenced Final Plat Application.
The HOA’s have serious traffic safety concerns regarding the current PUD design, and in
particular the two curb cuts along Park Road. Park Road is a steep winding slope from the PUD
site to Dorset Street. Inverness resident John Bossange expressed his concerns in a March 31,
2020 e-mail message to Department of Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner. Mr.
Bossange wrote in part as follows (with non-substantive typographical edits by me for added
clarity):
Is there a reason why this proposal does not show an entrance
further down Dorset Street? Why use Park Road? Here’s my
concern. The top entrance intersection is a windblown sheet of
black ice most of the winter, or covered with windblown snow. It
is very slick because that stretch of Park Roads is exposed to the
blowing snow. To imagine vehicles stopping and turning into the
new road and out onto Park Road without skidding is hard to see.
That’s a dangerous first 100 yards of Park Road, just where there
does not need to be intersection.
Further, the lower entrance is at the bottom of an “S” curve hill,
much steeper than shown on the sketch plan. Everyone gains
speed each way and negotiates the curves carefully. Again, to
have an intersection at that point could be dangerous, as well. This
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
February 22, 2021
Page 2 of 5
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
winter, as in all winters, cars have ended up off the road there
because they were going too fast down the hill, either way, and
skidded into the shoulder of grass or into the woods.
On October 5, 2020, four area residents – Randee Bloomberg (Park Road), John
Bossange (Golf Course Road), Karen LeFevre (Golf Course Road) and Alan Luzzatto (Nicklaus
Circle) – sent the DRB a memorandum that included the following bullet points at page six (with
non-substantive typographical edits by me for added clarity):
• Road is narrow. Two cars that pass by each other going opposite
ways just make it;
• Has no safe stopping or turning places from top to bottom along
its natural field area;
• Has no streetlights or path lighting;
• No shoulders. No sidewalk but has a walking/biking path
alongside;
• Has 2 curved slopes which make vision difficult and make for
slippery winter conditions, cars going off the road;
• Runs over a stream, with rusty guide rails placed along the curve;
• Has seasonal challenges when very rainy or snow covered. Snow
and wind, especially from near its entrance from Dorset and above
from Golf Course/Park Road juncture. Braking or delaying or
back-upped traffic can be hazardous. Difficult to get moving again
on slopes without spinning; and
• Snowplowing challenges: to keep up with it, find places to park
the snow, sometimes making it narrower; plow sometimes
alarming drivers because road is so narrow, no center line.
The neighbors’ October 5, 2020 memorandum raised other traffic safety concerns as
follows (with non-substantive typographical edits by me for added clarity):
Currently these new road cuts are shown, we are told, where two
staked road markers have been placed on the side Park Road.
Unfortunately, they are positioned at points which current residents
consider to be particularly troubling points on Park Road, with
risks already:
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
February 22, 2021
Page 3 of 5
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
A. One new road cut for the project would appear just after the
intersection of Park and Golf Course Road, running
downward on a somewhat obscured bend in Park Road, just
past where rusted guard rails line Park Road as it crosses a
stream. The new road cut would be near where the existing
Rec /Bike/ Pedestrian path and the existing Park Road
closely co-exist.
B. One new road cut is also proposed at the opposite end, near
the entrance intersection between Dorset Street and the
existing Park Road. Almost immediately after the turn
from Dorset Street, Park Road has a downward slope just
past the new road cut. In winter, this slope becomes very
icy, with cars at times sliding off the slope into a field.
This could be worse if drivers turning in from Dorset Street
must brake suddenly when cars come out of the new road
into the development.
We want to keep another safety challenge in mind, too: if cars are
obstructed or delayed at either of these slopes, the only way out
might be to back up quite a distance – a harrowing task – while
being endangered by other cars which might be coming down the
slopes. There are no road pull-offs, no shoulders, no cut-ins. And
the road is too narrow (narrower still with winter snow piled on its
sides) and dangerous to attempt U-turns. Does the current
proposal anticipate such issues, and are there plans to mitigate
them?
In addition to the above, I understand that numerous letters were submitted to the DRB in
the past two months or so from area residents detailing traffic access/safety concerns (among
other issues).
In November 2020, the Applicant submitted a traffic study to the DRB entitled, “Wheeler
Parcel Residential Development Traffic Impact Assessment” (Nov. 13, 2020) (“L&D Traffic
Study”). The L&D Traffic Study focuses on the number of new trips the proposed PUD would
generate. But there is no discussion about the neighbors’ traffic access/safety concerns. Indeed,
the 26-page L&D Traffic Study does not contain any of the following words (or their variants):
“slope,” “steep,” “narrow,” “curve,” “shoulder,” “snow,” “ice,” “danger,” or “hazard.”
Also troubling is the L&D Traffic Study’s apparent failure to take Park Road’s steep
grade into account. The “Two-Way Stop Control Summary” near the end of the L&D Traffic
Study states several times that the “Percent Grade” of the “Eastbound”/“Westbound” street in
question – which apparently refers to Park Road – is Zero. See, for example (my emphasis):
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
February 22, 2021
Page 4 of 5
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
The HOA’s maintain that there is a solution to the numerous dangerous traffic safety
issues which would be created by having curb cuts along Park Road, namely to abandon them
and replace them with a single access on Dorset Street. A single Dorset Street access would
cross the bike path paralleling Dorset Street only once, whereas the current proposal crosses the
bike path paralleling Park Road twice.
Numerous South Burlington developments have Dorset Street accesses. Driving south
from Park Road, the following developments are on the west side of Dorset Street:
Willowbrook Lane (9 homes);
Weeping Willow (2 homes);
Minor Farms (6 homes); and
Sutton Farms (2 homes).
Driving north from Cheese Factory Road/Barstow Road, the following developments are on the
east side of Dorset Street:
Johnson Way (2 homes);
Sadie Lane (8 homes);
Link Road (9 homes); and
Foulsham Hollow (5 homes).
The HOA’s and their members are spending time, energy and money to alert the DRB to
the serious traffic safety hazards which would result if the project is built as proposed currently.
The DRB need not need simply take the neighbors’ word for it, though. The DRB can require an
independent technical review of the Applicant’s proposal. Section 14.05(J) of the applicable
Land Development Regulations states as follows:
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
February 22, 2021
Page 5 of 5
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
Technical or Consultant Review of Site Plans. The
Development Review Board may require a site plan review
applicant to pay for reasonable costs of an independent technical
review of the application. The Development Review Board may
table review of the application pending receipt of an independent
technical review.
SBLDR § 14.05(J) (Jan. 25, 2016).
The Land Development Regulations require the “location and design of [PUD] project
access” to take “traffic safety” into account, including “provisions for safe access. . . .” SBLDR
§ 15.12(F)(4)(e) (Jan. 25, 2016). The HOA’s submit that the project’s proposed Park Road
accesses would be severe traffic safety hazards. To avoid creating the conditions for tragic
consequences to occur, the HOA’s urge the DRB to table its review of the Final Plat Application
and require the Applicant to pay for an independent technical review.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MSK ATTORNEYS
By: /s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff, Esq.
P.O. Box 4485
275 College Street
Burlington, VT 05406-4485
Phone: (802) 861-7000
Fax: (802) 861-7007
Email: dseff@mskvt.com
Attorneys for the Gleneagles Homeowners
Association and the Inverness Homeowners
Association
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail)
Mr. Ben Avery, BlackRock Construction, LLC (via e-mail)
1
Marla Keene
From:John Bossange <johnbossange@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:19 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:EXTERNAL: DRB Meeting tonight
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good morning, Marla,
I noticed there is no time on the agenda for any public comment related to the proposed development.
I understand the need to, at some point, stop hearing the same public comments on the same issues. However, the DRB
has yet to give us a "yes" or "no" to the four questions sent to them on May 5th. Have they seen this document so they
can at least respond to residents tonight?
Blasting, as explained by our attorney, remains a key issue with very confusing assessments and definitions. And this
issue has not been fully vetted with enough conversation or public comment from the neighbors. It needs much more
time for discussion so everyone understands what is proposed.
With all due respect, I'd like 30 seconds at the beginning of the meeting to address the Board, not to rehash the details
of the issues, but more about the loss of public trust and the likelihood of a subsequent appeal if the Board continues to
disengage with the neighbors.
Please share this with the acting‐ chair. Thank you.
John