HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SD-21-22_47 Cheesefactory_HickoryHillside_PP#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
1
1 of 13
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-22_47 Cheesefactory_HickoryHillside_PP_2021-09-
08.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 3, 2021
Plans received: June 14, 2021
47 CHEESEFACTORY ROAD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-22
Meeting Date: September 8, 2021
Owner/Applicant
Hickory Hillside LLC
32 Main Street, Suite 302A
Chatham, NY 12534
Engineer
Lamoureux & Dickinson
14 Morse Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0360-00047
SEQ Zoning District- Natural Resource Protection
67.32 acres
Location Map
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
2
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-21-47 of Hickory Hillside, LLC to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre
parcel into three lots of 66.4 acres (Lot 1), 0.6 acres (Lot 2), and 0.6 acres (Lot 3) for the purpose of
constructing a single family home on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and conserving the unbuilt portion of Lot 1,
47 Cheesefactory Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The related sketch plan application was reviewed by the Board on April 6, 2021.
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection district. The applicant is
proposing a three lot subdivision. The subdivision is largely governed by LDR 9.12, which allows lots that
have been in existence since June 22, 1992 to be subdivided and developed with one or more detached
single family units subject to conditional use review if they meet certain standards, discussed below.
This property has been in existence in its current form since before June 22, 1992 therefore subdivision
is allowed.
CONTEXT
The property is located in an area exempt from Interim Zoning. The property is located in the Natural
Resource Protection district. Development within the SEQ-NRP district is permissible pursuant to a
conservation plan approved by the Development Review Board (Section 9.12A (2))). Section 9.12B
further states that the DRB may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of
one (1) single family dwelling unit on each of the lots except where there is sufficient space to develop
three units outside the natural resource protection (NRP) zoning district. This entire lot is located in the
SEQ-NRP therefore three lots with a dwelling unit on each are allowed. No portion of the development
may be within a primary natural community or its related buffer. Such development is subject to DRB
approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and conservation.
On an overall basis, the applicant proposes to construct three homes with a shared driveway. The
applicant is proposing that the three homes be relatively clustered together, and that the remaining
lands remain in agricultural use.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
A) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant - Natural Resource Protection (SEQ-NRP) district.
Dimensional standards are as follows.
SEQ-NRP Required Proposed
Lot 1
Proposed
Lot 2
Proposed
Lot 3
Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf 2,890,896 26,986 26,986
Max. Building Coverage 15% 0.1% 6.5% 6.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 30% 0.5% 9.1% 8.4%
Min. Front Setback* 20 ft. > 20 ft. 35 ft. 25 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 44 ft. 44 ft. 44 ft.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
3
3 of 13
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. 129 ft. 139 ft.
Building Height (pitched
roof)2
28 ft. 28 ft. max. 28 ft. max. 28 ft. max.
*the private road is located on an easement on Lot 1. Front setback for Lot 1 is measured to
Cheesefactory Road. Front setbacks for lots 2 and 3 are measured to the private road.
1. The applicant has shown what potentially appears to be a building envelope on the plans, though it
is unlabeled. The regulations do not require a building envelope, but if the applicant is asking for
flexibility in locating the homes other than in the location shown on the plans, a building envelope
may facilitate that request. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the purpose of
the dashed line on each lot and describe if their intention is to modify the buildings from the locations
shown in any way.
B) ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS
9.12 SEQ-NRP SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to the following supplemental
regulations:
(1) N/A
(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) N/A
The applicant is proposing to conserve a portion of the property and restrict development to a limited
portion of the existing parcel. They have provided a draft conservation easement which provides
restrictions over the parcel. The conservation easement has a general agricultural intention, and
includes a number of exceptions, as follows.
• a farmstead complex consisting of non-residential buildings
• farm labor housing consisting of three (3) single family homes
• additional farm labor housing that can be converted to farm related uses when not in use as
housing
• additional minor structures for the purpose of non-commercial periodic camping or hunting
purposes
The full draft conservation easement is included in the packet for the Board. Staff recommends he
Board include a condition that while the conservation easement allows for farm labor housing, no such
approval is granted with this application and would instead be the subject of an amendment should the
applicant wish to pursue it at a later date. Staff otherwise considers the conservation plan meets this
criterion.
B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within
a SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject
to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards:
(1) N/A
(2) Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board
may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
4
4 of 13
dwelling unit on each of these lots only if:
a. The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district
is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family
dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations.
No portions of the lot are outside the NRP sub-district. Staff considers this criterion met.
b. such lots shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and,
Staff considers this criterion met.
c. the location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated
primary natural community or its related buffer, and,
This standard refers to the natural communities identified in the 2005 Arrowwood
Environmental Report, included in the packet for the Board. Staff considers this criterion met.
d. The location of structures and access drives are clustered such that no dwelling unit is
located more than one hundred (100) feet from any other structure, and,
The applicant has requested waiver of this criterion to allow homes to be located in a line,
with the homes approximately 100-feet apart in a line, placing the outermost homes more
than 250 feet apart. At sketch, the Applicant stated that they believe this configuration is
best because of ledge, existing trees, and requirements of wastewater disposal systems.
The Board was generally supportive of this configuration for the reasons the applicant
provided. Staff recommends the Board make an affirmative finding that this criterion is
waived for the aforementioned reasons as part of their decision on this application.
e. The dwelling units shall be detached single family dwellings, and,
Staff considers this criterion met.
f. Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of
a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development.
See discussion under 9.12A above.
9.06 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT 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 are not available for structures
with the SEQ zoning district.
Staff recommends the Board include a finding that the applicant must demonstrate building heights
at the time of application for each zoning permit.
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
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
5
5 of 13
The applicant is proposing to cluster the three homes near the north end of the site. The applicant
has modified the location of the homes slightly compared to sketch due to the identification of a
Class II wetland near the location of the proposed access road to the three development lots. A
discussion of wetland standards follows.
12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer
areas is generally discouraged.
The applicant has determined, in cooperation with Tina Heath of the VTANR Wetlands
Program, that there is an existing class II wetland in proximity to the proposed private access
road for the three development lots. The State wetlands program determined the wetland
and its 50-ft buffer are exempt from State regulation at this time due to an agricultural
exemption. However, if the applicant were to disturb the wetland for the currently proposed
project, the wetland and buffer would become jurisdictional. Therefore the applicant has
modified their plan to remove impacts to the Class II wetland in order to preserve exemption
status.
The City’s wetland rules do not include the agricultural exemption employed by the State.
Therefore, impacts to wetland buffers are subject to the standards of 12.02E.
The applicant has not supplied areas of proposed Class II buffer impacts. Staff estimates
1,900 sf of permanent Class II buffer impacts and an additional 1,900 sf (total 3,800 sf) of
temporary Class II buffer impacts.
(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.
No Class II wetland impacts are proposed.
(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:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry
or store flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(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 applicant has described the following functions and values of the wetland.
5.1 Water Storage for Flood Water and Storm Runoff: This wetland is over 50’ higher in
elevation than the floodplain associated with Muddy Brook. In addition, the existing
topography and the unconstricted outlet do not lend to storage of flood waters or
stormwater runoff. No evidence of seasonal flooding or ponding was noted.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
6
6 of 13
5.2 Surface and Ground Water Protection: While this wetland may provide some
treatment to runoff from adjacent uplands and roadway as it travels through the existing
vegetation the minimal impact to the City wetland buffer by the new access road does not
significantly reduce this function. This wetland is currently used, and will continue to be
used, for rotational grazing which has likely limited the function of this wetland to provide
surface water treatment.
5.3 Fish Habitat: No open water.
5.4 Wildlife Habitat: The current, and future use of the wetland is rotational grazing, with
limited habitat diversity.
5.5 Exemplary Wetland Natural Community: This wetland is not hydrologically connected
to the wet clayplain forest (significant natural community) mapped to the northwest.
5.6 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species: No RTE species are mapped within the area
of the subject wetland.
5.7 Education and Research in Natural Sciences: Not applicable.
5.8 Recreational Value and Economic Benefits: Not applicable.
5.9 Open Space and Aesthetics: While the wetland is visible from Cheesefactory Road and
the new proposed access drive, it appears more as a field than a wetland. Larger and more
significant wetlands are located elsewhere on the parcel and will not be disturbed through
this project.
5.10 Erosion Control through Binding and Stabilizing the Soil: No erosion forces were
identified; the upland contributing area is extremely limited.
Staff considers that criterion (a) pertaining to flood waters and criterion (b) pertaining to
stormwater treatment are met.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they have “minimized and/or
offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other
mitigation measures” the proposed wetland impacts in the context of the functions and
values provided. Staff considers if the Board finds minimization or mitigation to be insufficient,
there may be simple measures that can be taken to offset the proposed driveway and grading
impacts. Staff recommends the Board and applicant work together to develop specific
changes, if any, such that the preliminary plat hearing can be closed and the modifications
addressed at the final plat stage of review.
(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
the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The subdivided property may only be developed with three single family dwelling units as
discussed under 9.12 above. Staff considers 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.
See discussion under 9.12 above.
(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
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
7
7 of 13
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.
The applicant has provided an erosion and sediment control plan. Demonstration of
compliance with the erosion control standards of Article 16 is a required element of final plat
review. Staff will provide recommendations on the proposed erosion and sediment control
plan at the final plat stage of review.
(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.
3. No buffering or fencing is proposed. Staff considers landscaping or fencing buffers may be an
appropriate measure for protection of the impacted Class II wetland buffer, and recommends
the Board discuss whether it should be required.
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 primary use of this property will remain agricultural. Staff considers 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.
The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems. Staff
considers 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.
No additional development may take place on this parcel, as discuss under 9.12 below,
therefore Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable.
(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.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
8
8 of 13
The applicant is proposing to serve three homes with a private access road. The applicant has
indicated electric lines from Cheesefactory Road will serve the proposed homes, and will be
located along the driveway serving those homes.
(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.
Staff considers the proposed road generally consistent with fire department standards and
recommends the Board consider this criterion at final plat. Staff notes that because the homes
will be located greater than 150-feet from a public right of way, all homes must have a 13D
compliant sprinkler system.
D. 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.
The road is designed to meet City standards.
(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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
Staff considers the conservation easement precludes extension of the roadway to adjacent
properties.
3.05B. Lots with No Road Frontage
(2) The Development Review Board may approve subdivision or development of
lots with no frontage on a public street, as long as access to such a street by a permanent
easement or right-of-way at least twenty (20) feet in width is provided, according to the
following procedures:
(a) …
(b) Conditions of Approval. Any application to create a new lot with no road
frontage shall be subject to the requirements and major subdivision criteria of
Article 15 of these Regulations in addition to this section.
(i) Number of lots and/or dwelling units on a private right-of-way. The
Development Review Board shall limit the number of developable lots on a
private right-of-way to three (3) and/or the number of multi-family units to
ten (10), whichever is less, beyond which a public street shall be required
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
9
9 of 13
(See Article 15, Subdivision). The Development Review Board shall require a
public street if the number of developable lots is greater than three (3)
and/or the number of multi-family units is ten (10) or more, whichever is less. The Development Review Board may also limit the length of a private
right-of-way, and may impose other conditions as may be necessary to
assure adequate emergency access to all lots and dwelling units.
(ii) The Development Review Board may require a right-of way wider than
the twenty (20) foot minimum if it is to serve more than one (1) lot.
(iii) The Development Review Board may impose conditions to insure the
maintenance and permanency of a private right-of-way and to insure that
a right-of-way will not place a burden on municipal services.
Staff considers these criteria met for the private road serving the three homes.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways
(3) Private Roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway or
roadways within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more of the following
situations applies:
(a) (b) not applicable
(c) The proposed roadway serves five (5) or fewer single-family or duplex dwellings,
an any combination of the two types of dwellings.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Connections to adjacent parcels
(a) if the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to
an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to
construct the roadway to the property line or contribute the cost of completing the
roadway connection.
Staff considers 9.12 and the conservation easement prohibit additional development on
the parcel, therefore no connection may occur.
E. Standards for Construction of Roadways
(1) all streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant.
(2) N/A
(3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this
section with the exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be
a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet with parking and twenty (20) feet
without parking.
Table 15-1 specifies a road width of 20 ft for private roads without parking. Figure
15-1B specifies a specific roadway cross section.
Section 15.12, discussed above, also requires private roads to be a minimum of
20-feet wide.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
10
10 of 13
The Land Development Regulations contemplate an 18-foot width for wetland
crossings in certain sub-districts of the Southeast Quadrant. The NRP district is
not one of those districts, because no new roads were contemplated at the time
the regulations were developed.
4. Staff recommends the Board determine whether the road should be reduced to
18-ft wide at the wetland buffer crossing. This reduction would slightly reduce
wetland impacts, but its location near Cheesefactory Road would make the turn
into the private road more difficult.
9.07 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT REGULATING PLANS
A. N/A
B. General Provisions
(1) N/A
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub-district
shall confirm 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
Proposed lots 2 and 3 have a width to depth ratio of 1:1.57. The minimum lot size in this district is
12,000 sf. The applicant is proposing lots double this size. The applicant testified at sketch the lot
depth is based on the area needed for the wastewater disposal systems but that they would be able
to tighten up the back of the lots to the back of the septic mound if the Board desired. The Board
has discussed this specific criterion before and did not require the applicant to reduce the width of
the lots to meet this requirement.
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will require the applicant to reduce the width of
the lots to meet this criterion. Staff notes the Board approved the proposed lot dimension in SD-19-
35, but since that approval is expired, the Board is in no way beholden to that decision.
C. – D. N/A
C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
All subdivisions for more than a single or two family residence in the SEQ district are required to be a PUD.
As a PUD, the applicant is requesting certain waivers, discussed under SEQ standards below.
(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.
The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems. Staff considers
this criterion met.
(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
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
11
11 of 13
Department of Environmental Conservation.
See discussion under 9.06B(4) above.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on
the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review
by City staff or consultants.
This criterion differs slightly from the SEQ criterion pertaining to circulation in that it specifically
addresses congestion. Staff considers the proposed development of three residential units served by a
single curb cut will have no adverse impact on congestion of adjacent roads.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to
wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with
respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
See discussion above under 9.06B(1) Open Space Protection.
(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.
For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot lines, streets and
street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed development visually compatible with the low density development
patterns identified for the Natural Resource Protection district.
(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.
This criterion is discussed under 9.06B above.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that
adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be
limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions
where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of
hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with
applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect
Zone subdivisions.
See discussion under 9.06D(4) above.
(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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location
and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
(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.
See discussion under 9.06D(3) above.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
12
12 of 13
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the municipal Plan for the affected
district(s).
The Project is located in the area identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as subject to Objective #60
and Strategies #135 and #137, as follow.
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.
Strategy 135: Continue to work with Shelburne on strategies to create a conserved
agricultural and natural area, with appropriate public access and paths, from
Shelburne Pond and Pond Road north to the Cider Mill development, consistent with
the goals of the Open Space Strategy.
Strategy 137: Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives,
and development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition
of supplemental conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands.
See discussion of conservation plan under SEQ-NRP supplemental regulations above. 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.
Staff considers the low density of the proposed development adequately protective of natural features.
The total impervious proposed does not exceed the half-acre threshold for requiring compliance with
Section 12 standards pertaining to stormwater. The applicant has provided two stormwater conveyance
systems to convey runoff from the private road. One consists of a 15-inch pipe followed by a stone ditch
of unknown width, and the second consists of a 15-inch pipe with no outfall protection. If a 15-inch pipe
is necessary, outfall protection to dissipate flows and prevent erosion may also be necessary. Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide erosion prevention at the downstream end of the
unprotected outfall, and to indicate the width of the stone ditch on the plans at the final plat stage of
review. If the applicant believes outfall protection to be unnecessary, they should demonstrate the
anticipated outfall velocity during the 25-year 24-hour event is non-erosive.
D) CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 9.12B of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (development of lots
in SEQ-NRP district), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the
following standards of Section 14.10(E):
14.10E General Review Standards
The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all
applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in
an undue adverse effect on any of the following:
(1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met.
#SD-21-22
Staff Comments
13
13 of 13
(2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district
within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal
plan.
The purpose of the zoning district is, in part, to encourage open space preservation, and well-planned
residential use. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Staff considers this project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
Staff considers this criterion will be addressed when other comments in this document are addressed.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner