HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-07 - Supplemental - 0047 Cheesefactory Road#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
1
1 of 13
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-22-07_47 Cheesefactory_HickoryHillside_FP_2022-06-
07.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 1, 2022
Plans received: May 13, 2022
47 CHEESEFACTORY ROAD
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-22-07
Meeting Date: June 7, 2022
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-22-07
Staff Comments
2
2 of 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD-22-07 of Hickory Hillside, LLC to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre parcel
into four lots of 65.31 acres (Lot 1), 0.69 acres (Lot 2), 0.69 acres (Lot 3), and 0.91 acres (Lot 4) for the
purpose of conserving Lot 1 and constructing a single family home on each of Lots 2, 3, and 4, and, 47
Cheesefactory Road
PERMIT HISTORY
The related sketch plan application was reviewed by the Board on April 6, 2021. Preliminary Plat
Application #SD-21-22 was approved on October 11, 2021. The project is subject to the LDR adopted
December 28, 2020.
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection district. The applicant is
proposing a four lot subdivision. The preliminary plat proposed a three lot subdivision. The proposed
final plat involves establishing a fourth Conservation lot as its own lot instead of being combined with
one of the house lots. 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 and 9.12B). 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 and be permanently conserved.
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) 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) 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.
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
3
3 of 13
(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:
(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.
The applicant is proposing to conserve 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 the
Board include a condition that while the conservation easement allows for additional farm labor housing
beyond the three proposed herein, 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 and if it were ever
allowed by the LDR. Since the conservation plan will become a permanent restriction through non-
regulatory modes, Staff has no concerns about retaining a future private allowance, and 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
dwelling unit on each of these lots only if:
The applicant is proposing four lots but one is purely for the purpose of conservation. See
additional discussion below.
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,
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
4
4 of 13
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 preliminary plat, the Board granted waiver of this criterion because
of the applicant’s testimony that they believe this configuration is best because of ledge,
existing trees, and requirements of wastewater disposal systems. No changes affecting this
criterion have been proposed.
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.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide off the lot proposed for conservation as its own lot,
Lot 1. The purpose of the lot is conservation, and the only development on it consists of
driveways, roads, underground utility services, landscaping, and regrading necessary to the
creation of a buildable lot that the Board (elements allowed on lots within the SEQ-NRP
subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan). The LDR clearly
allows for 3 building lots and requires a conservation plan. The LDR also actively supports the
conveyance of land to a qualified conservation entity, which most cleanly takes place as its
own lot, and so Staff considers this to be a desirable arrangement.
1. Staff recommends the Board allow this additional lot as a conservation lot in addition to the
three development lots.
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.
At preliminary plat the Board found 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
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
5
5 of 13
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
The applicant is proposing to cluster the three homes near the north end of the site. The applicant
has modified the lots slightly compared to preliminary plat due to a revised wastewater disposal
system but otherwise has retained a substantially similar conservation area, including the
provision of building envelopes. The proposed driveway on Lot 1 crosses a Class II wetland buffer.
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 State
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.
2. The Board at preliminary plat found that the applicant must supply the area of proposed
Class II buffer impacts at the final plat stage of review. The applicant has not supplied this
information. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to supply this information
prior to closing the hearing.
(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 described the functions and values of the wetland at preliminary plat, and the
Board found this criterion met. No changes to the proposed impacts have been made
therefore Staff considers no changes to the Boards previous findings to be necessary.
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
6
6 of 13
(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
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 prevention and sediment control plan. The City
Stormwater section reviewed the provided erosion prevention and sediment control plan on
May 27, 2022 and provided the following comments.
1. Per the page 117, of the VT Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and
Sediment Control Manual (VTDEC, Feb 2020), the maximum allowable slope length of
contributing runoff to a silt fence placed on the slope shown on the site plans (~8%) is
100ft. The site length exceeds 100’ and a second row of silt fence should be added closer
to the building construction activities.
2. Plans should show the limit of construction disturbance.
3. It is not clear where on the site the stone-lined swale labeled section A-A on the Stone
Check Dam detail on page 4 is to go. This detail shows rock size of 2”-6”. The typical
ditch detail shown on page 3 looks to be the one intended for the stone-lined ditch that
outlets stormwater to the south/east. This typical calls out Type 1 Stone (up to 12” rock
size). Plans should be clear about which typical detail is intended for each swale.
4. It is not clear where on the site plan the typical stone spillway detail is intended to be
placed.
5. It is not clear if the ditch on the north side of the private road is to be stone-lined or
vegetated between stone check dams.
6. Plans should include a detail for rock outlet protection for both 15” drainage outlets.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City
Stormwater Section as conditions of approval.
(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. At preliminary plat, the Board found the applicant must include demarcation of the
undisturbed buffer area, in the form of landscaping, fencing, or boulders, at the final plat stage
of review. The applicant has provided a row of boulders spaced 25-ft on center with a
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
7
7 of 13
minimum dimension of 24-inches and a minimum above-ground height of 12-inches. They
have also included a provision that a continuous split rail fence may be provided instead. Staff
recommends the Board determine whether they consider the proposed boulders to be
adequate.
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. The
applicant has indicated they are in the process of obtaining a state Wastewater and Potable
Water Supply Permit. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate these
permits have been obtained prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the project.
(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 discussed under 9.12 above,
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.
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.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on May 25, 2022 and confirmed 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. The applicant is reminded the applicant will need a permit for the sprinkler from
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
8
8 of 13
the fire department. The Fire Chief recommends the applicant contact the fire department
regarding the sprinkler system in order to ensure a cost-effective system is installed. Staff
considers this criterion met.
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
(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
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
9
9 of 13
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.
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. Because the wetland crossing is very near to
the access point on Cheesefactory Road, a narrower width could create
difficulty in making the turn and would result in an insignificant reduction in
wetland buffer impacts. The Board at preliminary plat found the road width
acceptable and found this criterion met. No changes to the road are proposed.
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
10
10 of 13
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
At preliminary plat, the lots did not meet the required minimum lot ratio. The Board allowed the
proposed ratio since the objective of this standard is to create a neighborhood feel with homes close
together and the applicant achieved this objective through other means. In addition, at preliminary
plat, the conservation lot was included with one of the house lots. The applicant has modified lots 2
and 3 such that they now provide nearer to 1:2, while Lot 4 has a lot ratio of 1:0.62 due to the irregular
shape to encompass the wastewater system. Proposed lots 2 and 3 have a width to depth ratio of
1:1.76. Staff recommends the Board allow the lots as designed.
C. – D. N/A
B) 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
Proposed
Lot 4
Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf 2,845,173 30,032 30,032 39,632
Max. Building Coverage 15% 0% 5.8% 5.8% 4.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 30% 0.4% 8.9% 8.2% 5.7%
Min. Front Setback* 20 ft. N/A 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 104 ft. 129 ft. 129 ft.
Building Height (pitched
roof)2
28 ft. N/A 28 ft. max. 28 ft. max. 28 ft. max.
*the private road is located 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.
4. The applicant has shown a building envelope on the plans to facilitate flexibility in locating the homes
other than in the location shown on the plans. The Board at preliminary plat found the homes may
be located anywhere within the building envelope. With the revised lot configuration, the applicant
has proposed to increase the size of the building envelope for Lot 2 compared to the size of the building
envelopes on Lots 3 and 4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant why they have proposed a
larger building envelope for Lot 2, and discuss whether it should be reduced to better support the
environmental protection goals of the zoning district. Staff notes the regulations do not require a
building envelope but without one the applicant must construct the homes as shown on the plans.
5. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that overall coverage for each building lots (Lots 2,
3, and 4) shall not exceed 30% and building coverage not exceed 15%. Staff recommends the Board
discuss an acceptable analogous maximum for the conservation lot, Lot 1.
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
11
11 of 13
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 above.
(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
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
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
12
12 of 13
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.
(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 2 ft wide
and 1 ft deep stone ditch, and the second consists of a 15-inch pipe with outfall protection. Staff
considers this criterion met.
#SD-22-07
Staff Comments
13
13 of 13
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.
(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 work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner