HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (4)
1
1 of 29
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-10 500 Old Farm Road Final Plat Application
DATE: October 6, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC to create a planned unit development of six
existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres.
The development is to consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family,
duplex, and three-family dwellings on eleven (11) lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen (18) commercial
development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500
Old Farm Road.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The applicant has notified Staff that they inadvertently used an outdated abutters list for the initial
warning and thus some of the newer owners in the adjacent O’Brien Hillside neighborhood did not
receive a public meeting notice by mail. Staff worked with the applicant to send supplemental letters on
September 29, with a note indicating that an opportunity to provide public comment would take place
on October 6 (less than 15 day notice) and again at a continued hearing in November. 24 VSA 4464
states “No defect in the form or substance of any requirements in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection shall invalidate the action of the appropriate municipal panel where reasonable efforts are
made to provide adequate posting and notice. However, the action shall be invalid when the defective
posting or notice was materially misleading in content.” Staff considers reasonable efforts to have
been made and therefore recommends the Board proceed with the hearing as scheduled.
CONTEXT
The Board held hearings on this application on July 19 and September 7, 2022. On those dates, the
Board reviewed what has changed since preliminary plat, connection to Tilley Drive, the sidewalk on Old
Farm Road, lot coverage, general site plan review standards, and the applicant’s proposed plan for the
C1-LR zoning district. Remaining topics newly included herein include the detailed site plan review
standards of 14.07, PUD standards, inclusionary housing standards, and miscellaneous final details such
as stormwater, lighting and other utilities.
The applicant has not provided revised materials since the September 7 hearing. Instead, the applicant
intends to submit a set of revised materials incorporating all the Board’s feedback after initial review of
all criteria is complete. Therefore Staff recommends the Board proceed by reviewing these staff
comments with the Board and then continue the hearing to a future date to allow time for the applicant
to prepare revised materials and Staff to review those materials fully.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
2
2 of 29
Plans and documents included in this packet are ordered to mirror this staff report and are limited to
items Staff is highlighting for the Board’s attention. The September 7 packet included a full set of
submitted materials
Staff reminds the Board that this project is subject to the LDR effective December 28, 2020 since those
were the regulations in effect when a complete preliminary plat application was submitted. For lots
being created in the C1-LR and I/O district for which no site plan has yet been submitted, the regulations
in effect at the time of application will apply, modified by any approvals that the Board may elect to
grant at this stage of review.
The remaining paragraphs of this Context section of this report are unchanged from the July 19, 2022
Staff Comments.
The project is located in the Residential 12, Commercial 1-LR, Residential 1-PRD, and Mixed Industrial-
Commercial Zoning Districts. The project also lies in Traffic Overlay Districts Zone 1 and 3 as well as the
Transit Overlay District. The fraction of the project in each of the applicable zoning districts, and the
allowable coverage in each district, follows.
Zoning District Fraction of Project Area Allowable Lot Coverage
R1-PRD 38% 30%
C1-LR 23% 70%
R12 1% 60%
IC 38% 70%
The development is subject to PUD/subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the standards of the
applicable zoning districts, including allowed uses. The project is also required to provide inclusionary
housing. The project contains both Class II and Class III wetlands, though only Class III wetlands and
their buffers are proposed to be impacted.
The project is adjacent to the Hillside phase of the O’Brien development, referred to as MP1 and Hillside
herein. Hillside includes 490 homes, plus bonus inclusionary units, of which two buildings containing
approximately 81 units have as yet only received preliminary plat approval.
As noted in the project description, this proposed final plat consists of the following elements:
• 155 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings. These homes are centered along
Old Farm Road. This represents an increase of nine (9) units over what was approved at
preliminary plat
• eighteen (18) commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres. This is 4.2 acres and one lot
fewer than was proposed at preliminary plat. These development lots are located in the C1-LR
and I-C zoning districts, which have different allowed uses but similar dimensional standards.
No development of these lots is proposed at this time, but the road network serving these lots
and a framework for development of the lots in the C1-LR, including connectivity to the
currently proposed residential phase, is presented for approval. Staff proposes to discuss these
areas at a later hearing date.
• 25.2 acres of spaces of undeveloped and recreational spaces, including spaces used for
stormwater treatment.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
3
3 of 29
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on June 10 and August 22, 2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered
items for the Board attention are in red.
UPDATES FROM SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 HEARING
C1-LR Zoning District
The Board deliberated on the applicant’s presentation of September 7 and directed Staff to provide
feedback, including that there must be a minimum of two stories in the C1-LR. Staff recalls the
Board’s discussion focusing on the buildings transitioning from the proposed 155 homes to the C1-
LR district. The applicant has asked whether other buildings could be allowed to be one story or to
have the appearance of two stories.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow certain buildings to be one story or to
have the appearance of two stories. Staff considers the Board may choose to limit such an allowance
to buildings under a certain footprint, or buildings on the interior of the C1-LR district without
frontage on Kennedy, Kimball, Old Farm or O’Brien Farm Road.
TOPICS NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AT FINAL PLAT STAGE OF REVIEW
14.07 SPECIFIC REVIEW STANDARDS
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
Business Park North Lot 4: Staff understood there to be existing dedicated pedestrian easement across
the northern side of Business Park Lot 4 as a “placeholder” for a future trail network. Based on the
provided plat plans, it does not seem that this easement in fact exists. The Applicant asked where the
future trail network is supposed to go. The purpose of the easement on this and adjoining lots is to,
over time, create a walking path along the south side of Potash Brook and is shown on the City’s official
map. The preliminary plat finding was for the applicant to include an off-road footpath across this lot.
Due to designation of Lot 4 as a sensitive archaeological resource area, the applicant has removed
proposed development from this lot. They have indicated in their narrative that they have provided an
easement, but no such easement is shown on the provided plat plans. Staff recommends the Board
direct the applicant to provide a 20-ft easement in the location of the future trail as shown on the City’s
official map. Staff considers since no development is proposed, a simple easement is sufficient.
See additional findings pertaining to access under 14.06B(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
4
4 of 29
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Proposed utilities are underground. Old Farm Road is currently served by overhead utility lines. The
applicant is proposing to relocate the lines underground through the project area, but it does not appear
provision has been made for connecting to the existing home located at 200 Old Farm Road. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to provide for connection of the existing home to the
relocated utility line as a condition of approval.
The telecom cabinet on Lot 42 conflicts with the proposed driveway. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to relocate the cabinet outside the right of way as a condition of approval.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum)
shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
No solid waste disposal areas are proposed.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
This criterion was not reviewed in detail at preliminary plat. The Board notes landscaping standards
applicable to parking lots will apply to both off-street parking areas and the plans must be revised to
show compliance at final plat.
13.06A Purpose [excerpt]. Street tree planting shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision
or planned unit development. In evaluating landscaping, screening, and street tree plan
requirements, the Development Review Board shall promote the retention of existing trees while
encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
The applicant has provided street tree spacing of 30-ft. The applicant has requested the Board
consider allowing street tree spacing up to 40-ft. Up until this point, the Board has been reviewing
the plans with the 30-ft spacing and has used those plans as the presumed backdrop for decision
making.
2. The applicant has provided a plan demonstrating their proposal. Staff considers the larger spacing
should still result in the feeling of a treed street when trees reach maturity, perhaps to include larger
trees or more varied, rather than simply taking the same trees and spacing them farther apart. Staff
recommends the Board review the alternative tree spacing plan and determine whether to accept it.
13.06B. Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or
two-family dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review
Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including
ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are
permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach
stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board
shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe,
convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
(1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
5
5 of 29
for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking
lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy
for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between
the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
The applicable parking areas are limited to those at the barn amenity and at the dog park. Staff
considers this criterion met for the barn amenity.
3. At the dog park amenity, the area where landscaping would be located is not yet programmed
(will be the perimeter of the C1-LR zoning district). Staff recommends the Board determine
whether to require additional landscaping at the dog park parking area.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or
in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior
of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
Not applicable.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed
as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are
encouraged.
4. In the barn area parking, no curbing is proposed, and the sidewalk is proposed to be
differentiated from the parking by using different colored gravel. Curbing is recommended for
protection of both landscaping and pedestrians. Staff considers a softer option, such as curb
stops or bollards, could be effective and recommends the Board direct the applicant to propose a
solution.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
6
6 of 29
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff
or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed
a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
More than 5 trees are provided for the 17-space barn amenity therefore this criterion is met.
Fewer than 5 spaces are provided at the dog park therefore this criterion is met.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
Paring lot trees are proposed to be greater than 2 ½ inches. This criterion is met.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species
should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the
parking lot and the site.
Fewer than ten parking lot trees are proposed, therefore this criterion is not applicable.
However, the Board typically applies this criterion to entire sites, not just parking lots. Staff
considers this criterion to be met for the project as a whole.
(5) Planting islands – Not applicable
(6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential
for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
The applicant has not specified snow storage areas. However, Staff considers that since each
parking area is to serve an open space, snow storage is not an issue. Snow storage for the project
streets will be along the green strip between street and sidewalk, recreation path, or property
line, as applicable.
13.06C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping,
fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it
determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each
other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively
with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial,
industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use.
The applicant requested two waivers at preliminary plat related to the requirement to screen
between adjacent properties. The first is that screening between commercial and non-residential
uses be allowed to be on either the residential or the commercial lot. The Board accepted this waiver
request, but on more detailed review of this criterion, Staff considers no waiver to be necessary as
there is no requirement as to which lot contain the screening.
Utility cabinets are required to be screened with evergreens, a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees
and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. The applicant has proposed screening for utility cabinets within the
residential area but has not shown screening of utility cabinets in the commercial and industrial areas.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition that utility cabinet screening be provided when
development occurs on lots containing or adjacent to approved utility cabinets.
13.06G. Landscaping Standards
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
7
7 of 29
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are
cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of
three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next
$250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over
$500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional
landscape designer.
The required minimum landscaping value is calculated based on the cost of buildings on shared lots.
Single family homes and duplexes on their own lots are not subject to minimum landscaping budget
requirements. The provided landscaping value excludes the value of street trees. Staff has also
excluded the value of foundation plantings for the homes from the landscaping value because the
applicant has previously made the request that foundation plantings not be required to be retained
in perpetuity. This is discussed below under landscaping maintenance.
The applicant has provided a computation of required minimum landscaping budget and provided
landscaping value. No homes on their own lot are proposed, and the computations correctly
exclude street trees. The applicant has also indicated that the value of proposed plantings outside
of the red line on the landscaping plan are excluded from the provided value. They do not intend to
install these plantings until such time as the development occurs in those areas. The areas outside
the red line include the dog park, the walking trail through the I/C zoning district, and the street
trees on Potash Road. Staff notes the Board is requiring construction of the dog park be tied to
construction of the residential and C1-LR areas, and is otherwise establishing its phasing. The
landscaping in the dog park will be required as part of the construction of the dog park regardless of
whether the applicant considers it as contributing to the required minimum landscaping budget.
The required minimum landscaping value for 155 homes with a cost of $52,700,000 is $534,500.
The applicant is proposing the following landscaping.
Trees $526,675.00
Tree Whips $5,950.00
Shrubs $146,710.00
Perennials & Grasses $22,233.00
Total $701,568.00
Required Minimum $534,500.00
Staff considers the required minimum landscaping to be provided. The applicant has requested the
Board allow the excess landscaping expenditure to be applied as credit towards future phases, and
has also requested the landscaping be allowed to be provided anywhere within the PUD. Staff
recommends the Board allow the excess landscaping expenditure be allowed as credit towards
future phases of the O’Brien Eastview project, and that it be allowed anywhere within the PUD, so
long as required landscaping standards including those pertaining to screening are met. In other
words, just because the Board may permit landscaping required for construction of a building to be
installed in a park, they are not required to if such an approval would result in the building site being
poorly landscaped. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the requested amount of credit is
available at the time of each application for which they wish to use the credit. The Board made the
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
8
8 of 29
following relevant finding at preliminary plat, which Staff recommends the Board continue to hold
as a finding of this final plat.
Landscaping design shall result in the following criteria being met.
• each lot must be adequately landscaped
• each lot must have a reasonably proportionate amount of open space, with adequate
landscaping
• the landscaping shall not be inconsistent with the development program approved by the
Board
Further pursuant to landscaping in the dog park, the applicant has proposed a wooded area to
remain, but has not identified specific trees or specific tree preservation measures which will be
employed. Staff recommends the Board defer detailed review of the wooded area to remain until
after such time as the City’s recommendations on open space ownership are available, but notes it
here as an outstanding issue for later discussion.
13.06I. Landscaping Maintenance
The applicant is requesting waiver of the requirement to maintain landscaping in perpetuity in the
single family, duplex and three family home area currently proposed for development. The Board at
preliminary plat denied this request since the applicant has not shown individual lots; all lands are
proposed to be common lands. Staff notes if the applicant wishes to propose individual building
lots for the single family and duplex homes, such a waiver would not be necessary as there is no
requirement for minimum landscaping on single family home or duplex lots.
The applicant has revised their request to be that non tree and shrub vegetation be allowed to be
modified by the homeowners. Staff considers the Board may permit vegetation to be removed or
replaced if it is not counted towards the required minimum landscaping budget and if the Board
does not consider the landscaping to be necessary to create the type of development stipulated by
the LDR and reviewed by the Board. Staff notes the applicant’s landscaping plans show vegetation
around the footprints of homes that does not necessarily match the proposed foundation plantings
on the provided detail sheets.
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed foundation plantings are necessary to
create the type of development stipulated by the LDR and reviewed by the Board and determine
whether to allow the applicant waiver of the requirement to maintain foundation plantings, be they
woody or non-woody vegetation, in perpetuity.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure
less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land
development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing
condition exceeds the applicable limit.
At preliminary plat the applicant provided a list of 25 requested waivers. The applicant has not
submitted a revised list of waiver requests therefore Staff assumes there are no changes. Some of the
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
9
9 of 29
applicant’s requested waivers have been incorporated into this report as applicable, while others were
determined to not be applicable at a previous stage of review. The remaining applicable waiver
requests are discussed below.
Residential Lot Setback waivers: At preliminary plat the Board found that they generally accepted of the
configuration in the residential lots shown on the plans, but the applicant must present a simplified
setback waiver request. The applicant has requested that the Board approve the development program
shown including footprint lots with a minimum setback of five (5) feet. Staff considers this to be a
problematic proposal for three reasons. First, the City does not recognize footprint lots. Second, the
homes are depicted as being set back 10-ft or more on the provided plans. Third, the applicant is
proposing a range of home types be allowed to be built on each lot and therefore limiting the applicant
to what is shown will necessarily limit their available offerings.
6. Staff instead recommends the Board provide a waiver within the residential area of the front setback
requirement to 10-ft, with open porches or decks less than 12-ft in depth allowed to encroach into
the front setback up to 5-ft. Staff recommends a waiver within the residential area of side and rear
setbacks to 5-ft. Staff also recommends the Board include a condition that for street-facing garages
there be enough room between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full size car
without overhanging the sidewalk, or that there be clearly not enough room (ie a car would be in the
street).
Landscape Screening: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to screen between
residential and commercial lots. The applicant clarified that the intent of this request is that they intend
to provide screening, but would prefer to be allowed to provide it on either the residential lots or
commercial lots. The Board at preliminary plat found the clarified waiver request to be acceptable.
Heights: The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement that building heights on commercial
lots be no more than one story higher than adjacent residential buildings. The Board found at
preliminary plat this requirement will be waived if the framework for the C1-LR zoning district is
accepted at final plat.
Porches: The applicant requests that all single family, duplex and three family homes may convert their
porches to covered porches with only the issuance of a zoning permit. Porches are generally considered
to be covered and constitute building footprint, while decks are uncovered and do not count as building
footprint, though they do count as lot coverage. The Board directed the applicant to clarify this request
at final plat. The applicant has provided the following statement.
In a single-family home on its own lot, if an owner wanted to redo the roof on their porch and
potentially change the roof angle or aesthetic, and screen in the porch at the same time, they
would file a zoning permit on one piece of paper and it would issue. In this PUD, the Applicant
wants to make sure the permits allow similar flexibility. The Applicant is worried that since a
change to roofline or structure is not shown in the plans presented, a PUD amendment could be
required. The Applicant is merely requesting a procedural waiver to ensure that the
administrative officer can have the authority to approve and deny requests pertaining to
converting decks shown on the proposed elevations to covered decks and three season rooms.
This seems fairly straightforward, and will simply reduce the complexity and administration of
these requests.
Staff considers that redoing the roof on a porch or adding a screen is subject to a zoning permit and no
waiver is needed. Staff notes that enclosing a porch to make it “three season” by adding walls would be
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
10
10 of 29
a modification of the approved building and would require review against the allowances of the PUD,
such as the Board will adopt. This would not necessarily require PUD amendment but may.
Process Waivers: The applicant requests that sketch plan and preliminary plat not be required for
subsequent applications within the PUD, and that site plan review be allowed instead of final plat review
for single buildings on single lots. The LDRs reserve the authority to grant procedural waivers to
applications for master plan as described in 15.07D(2). As there is no master plan, this waiver request is
not appropriate and the Board denied the request at the preliminary plat level.
Staff considers that the applicant’s request is not necessarily for a waiver, but instead is for the Board to
establish a procedure for review of projects within the PUD. Staff considers the Board may establish, as
part of this final plat decision, that site plan review is allowed by right for single buildings on single lots.
Staff considers that under the LDR applicable to this decision, all modifications of lot lines or applications
involving multiple lots require subdivision review, including sketch and preliminary plat. However, since
there is no vesting, any future amendments to the PUD would be reviewed under the PUD in effect at
the time of application. The latest LDR has a process by which subdivision amendments (of which PUD
amendments are a subset) are categorized as minor or major, which would apply to future applications
within this PUD.
Parking: Staff recommends the Board carry forward this preliminary plat finding as drafted. “Applicant
requests a finding that parking may be permitted with only site plan and conditional use review in the
context of site plan review for a building on any approved lot in the PUD.” The applicant explained they
are asking to be allowed to permit shared parking on an adjacent lot when no other development is
proposed on that lot. The Board notes such a configuration would not be allowed with individual site
plans such as requested in waiver requests 18-20. The Board finds this to be allowed if the following
additional criteria are met.
• Parking must be to the sides and rear of existing or proposed buildings.
• Parking without a building shall be allowed for three (3) years without a development proposal,
otherwise the applicant shall be required to install buffering. A buffering plan shall be
submitted at the time of application for parking on a lot not otherwise proposed to be
developed, and bonding for the proposed buffer shall be provided in accordance with 15.15 at
the time of zoning permit issuance for construction of the parking.
Sureties: This waiver request pertains to bonding requirements. The preliminary plat finding stated that
the applicant must work with City Staff, including the Director of Public Works, to develop a specific
proposal for presentation to the Board at final plat. However, since preliminary plat, the applicant and
Staff have had several meetings and determined that bonding requirements can be largely handled
administratively and need not be reviewed by the Board. The applicant has most recently requested
that the Board allow the applicant to establish separate sureties for earthwork and for infrastructure
construction. Staff considers they can draft the surety language such that it does not preclude such an
arrangement, which will allow Staff and the applicant to continue to develop appropriate sureties
without the needs for Board review.
I/C Zoning District: the applicant requests waiver of the requirement that construction in the IC zoning
district be exempt from the requirements to have common elements with the remainder of the PUD.
The specific standards are as follows.
14.06B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
11
11 of 29
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
14.06C Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
The applicant noted that the approved uses in the I/C cover a broad range, and therefore the
function of the buildings may not lend themselves to matching residential structure. The Board
notes this criterion does not require industrial buildings to look like single family homes, but to
prevent the industrial buildings from being disharmonious with the residential buildings. The Board
found at preliminary plat that there are a number of ways to meet these criteria. The presence of
an intervening open space and roadway reduces the needed reliance on architectural similarity.
Common elements can be complimentary without needing to be exactly the same. The site design
should also support complimentary relationships. The Board denied the requested waiver at the
preliminary plat stage of review. The applicant at this final plat stage of review is requesting more
robust findings. Staff considers the finding to be sufficiently descriptive to establish the
expectations for how these criteria will be met, and, in addition, since development on the lands
within the I/C zoning district is not proposed at this time, they will be subject to the LDR in effect at
the time of application. The currently effective LDR significant modifies and explains these criteria.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is
required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The City Stormwater Section provided the comments via email on July 8, 2022 which were included in
the packet for the July 19, 2022 hearing. The applicant has not yet provided a response. Since a number
of comments may have an impact on the project design, Staff recommends the Board require them to
be addressed prior to closing the hearing.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See above under transportation
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
12
12 of 29
15.18A SUBDIVSION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
These criteria apply to both the portion of the project proposed for development at this time and the
commercial lots proposed for subdivision but not development.
(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 applicant has received preliminary water and wastewater allocation for 155 homes. The Board
at preliminary plat found no allocation for the commercial lots to be necessary at this time. Staff
recommends the applicant coordinate with the Department of Public Works as they develop their
program for the commercial lots as there may be necessary system upgrades.
The South Burlington Water Department provided comments on the water line design at preliminary
plat, which Staff has reviewed and found to be incorporated into the final plat plans. Staff considers
additional changes to the water system will be incidental and can be incorporated as a field change.
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.
The comments of the City stormwater section included review of erosion prevention and sediment
control measures. Staff recommends the Board require the EPSC comments of the City stormwater
section to be addressed prior to closing the hearing.
(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.
15.12F(1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB
shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the
anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of
service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or
better at full buildout.
The Board discussed access, circulation, and traffic management at the July 19 and September 7
meetings. Staff generally considers this criterion to be met. Specific follow-up items from the
preliminary plat decision follow.
• Off-site Improvements
o Installation of turn lanes on Kimball Ave. At preliminary plat, the Board found the applicant
must work with Staff to determine when installation of exclusive turn lanes be installed.
Staff at preliminary plat recommended a framework for reservation of funds for this work
such that each commercial lot contribute towards the necessary improvements that will be
eventually required when sufficient trips are generated. This would allow the applicant to
exclude from their bonding the cost of the off-site intersection improvements.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
13
13 of 29
The applicant is instead proposing to install turn lanes on Kimball Ave at Old Farm Road and
at Potash Road at the time these intersections are constructed. BFJ’s preliminary plat
recommendation was to delay installation of exclusive turn lanes until movements reach
LOS E. Staff considers that premature installation of infrastructure may create higher
speeds and the expectation that a high LOS will persist. If the applicant wishes to construct
necessary pavement at the time of intersection construction, temporary measures like line
striping or concrete barriers can be installed until such time as the turn lanes are warranted.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss and provide DPW an opportunity to consider and
provide feedback on any proposal.
o Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road. At preliminary plat, the applicant had proposed a right
and left turn lane onto Hinesburg Road at Old Farm Road. It appears the applicant may no
longer be proposing improvements at this intersection, though the applicant’s pavement
marking plans do not cover it.
8. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that they still intend to make minor
alignment and lane modifications at this intersection and require the plans to be updated to
include this area.
The Board at preliminary plat found that the first application for development in the commercial
zoning districts, and the application that occurs every 5-years after that initial application, shall include
an updated traffic evaluation if the commercial development varies from the uses included in this
initial traffic study. Notwithstanding development, an updated traffic study shall be prepared after
10 years. Staff considers this condition should be reworded to specify that the traffic evaluation shall
be updated concurrently with development applications in the C1-LR or IC areas at the time of first
application and every 5 years thereafter.
Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road: The Board at preliminary plat required the applicant to
provide an executable plan for a signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road. The applicant has
provided a plan that shows a full signal. Staff recommends at this time the Board require the applicant
to only install conduit sleeve as shown on the provided plan at the time the intersection is constructed.
The applicant’s traffic study concludes no signal at this intersection is required, therefore Staff
considers installation of conduit sleeve should be the limit of the applicant’s obligation for this
intersection.
Traffic Overlay District: The north end of Old Farm Road presently is in the Traffic Overlay District
Zone 1. The applicant may not generate more than 15 vehicle trips per PM peak hour per 40,000 sf
of development area at the Old Farm intersection without access management, additional
connections between properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access that produces “a
net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project” (LDR 10.02H(1)). This
calculation allows for a trip budget of 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips. The current traffic study
demonstrates the development build-out projections are consistent with the traffic overlay district.
Staff considers updated traffic studies should confirm the development remains in compliance with
the traffic overlay district at each subsequent phase of development. Should applicant develop a
program that generates more than 1675 pm peak hour vehicle trips, they may at a future
application provide a quantifiable demonstration of the increased capacity due to the relocation of
Old Farm Road and installation of a signal at the Old Farm Road/Kimball Road intersection.
(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
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
14
14 of 29
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to
wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with
respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The applicant has updated their plans to show wetlands and wetland buffers.
The applicant has updated their wetland delineation since preliminary plat and has identified an
additional Class III wetland within the IC area. The applicant is proposing to impact three Class III
wetlands and their buffers for the purpose of stormwater treatment. The applicant has submitted a
field delineation and wetland report as required by the LDR.
12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3)
below.
No encroachment into Class II wetlands or buffers is 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 impacted wetlands were found to have low function as water storage and surface and
groundwater protection/nutrient removal. The proposed impacts are for the purpose of
stormwater treatment, therefore Staff considers these criteria met.
9. At preliminary plat, the Board found that the applicant must enumerate permanent and temporary
wetland and wetland buffer impacts as part of the final plat application package. No numerical
assessment of impacts has been provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide areas in square feet of permanent and temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts.
(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.
This criterion is addressed under 14.06B(1) and (3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) above.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
15
15 of 29
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas
The applicant is proposing 18.24 acres of active or passive recreation space plus an additional 6.96
acres of undeveloped lots not proposed for use because of encumberance with wetlands or
archaeologically sensitive sites. Other wetland and archaeological sites exist throughout the
development and are distributed between the residential, commercial, and recreational lots. Some
of the areas proposed to be left open are at the perimeter of the site adjacent to natural resource
areas. Staff considers this criterion met.
The Board’s preliminary plat findings discussed the design and ownership of the proposed recreational
spaces as part of review of this criterion. Staff notes this could have also been reviewed under 14.06
Site Plan General Review Standards.
The applicant has proposed an initial recommendation for ownership of the proposed recreational
spaces. Staff and the applicant are presently meeting on this and anticipate having a recommendation
for ownership at the continued hearing.
Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to include a detail of the proposed dog park fence
as a condition of final plat.
The Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed the project and provided comments on the
preliminary plat, which were incorporated into the preliminary plat decision.
(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.
The Deputy Fire Chief reviewed the plans on August 18, 2022 and did not indicate any specific issues.
(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.
Detailed review of the proposed roadway network, including street trees, utilities, lane markings,
lighting, signage, etc., was provided in the Staff report for July 19, 2022. Specific updates on
preliminary plat findings are as follows.
Street segments:
The Board directed the applicant to extend road stubs to the property line as required by 15.12D.
The applicant has not done so on Barn Road. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
revise their plans to extend Barn Road to the property line. Staff notes the Director of Public Works
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
16
16 of 29
had requested a turn-around in this location, but Staff alternatively suggested that the extension
beyond Daniel Drive be used as a turn around. The Director accepted this suggestion, but indicated
that the extreme end of Barn Road would not be plowed until such future time as it is connected to
the adjacent parcel since it does not serve as access.
Curb cuts:
The preliminary plat approval include several conditions related to curb cuts. These comments have
been addressed with the revised plans. Staff recommends the Board including a finding that the
curb cuts on the approved plans are the approved curb cuts, and additional curb cuts shall not be
permitted without a PUD amendment. In other words, modifications to curb cuts shall not be
allowed to be reviewed as part of site plan review for individual lot development. Staff
recommends the Board retain the following two preliminary plat findings as conditions of final plat
approval.
There shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between Kimball
Ave and O’Brien Farm Road.
No additional curb cuts beyond that for I/C Road, and those needed for infrastructure
maintenance, onto Kennedy Drive or Kimball Avenue shall be permitted.
The proposed cul-de-sac has three driveways which are proposed to be located off of it. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to orient the driveways perpendicular to the arc of the
cul-de-sac and not perpendicular to the centerline of the street. This may require adjustment of the
angle of the homes as well. Further, the cul-de-sac should be signed for No Parking as it is designed
to be the minimum size necessary for vehicular circulation.
Sidewalks and Recreation Paths:
The Board required recreation paths to be 10-ft wide, though left room for the applicant discuss
site-specific exceptions with the Board at final plat. The applicant has proposed for the recreation
path to be 8-ft wide through the core of the development where the triplexes are located. The
Board has reviewed and accepted the bike and pedestrian design at prior hearings, therefore Staff
assumes there are no concerns with this proposal.
10. The fitness trail is outlined by a dashed line on either side, with a different shading indicated inside
the dashed lines on the landscape plans. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to identify
the meaning of this line and shading on the plans, and, if it is necessary and acceptable, require it to
be properly identified on the civil and landscape plans. See below screenshots.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
17
17 of 29
The site plan sheeting does not cover the dog park parking area, therefore it cannot be determined if
curbing is proposed. The parking is adjacent to a sidewalk, therefore curbing is recommended. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate the dog park parking area is curbed.
The Board included the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the eastern side of Old Farm
Road from the southern terminus of the proposed rec path on the western side to Hinesburg Road
in their preliminary plat review of this criterion. The Board reviewed this sidewalk design on July 19,
including the Director of Public Works’ comments about maintenance, and the applicant indicated
they would provide a revised plan that attempted to satisfy both the directives of the Board and the
comments of the Director of Public Works. Staff anticipates the applicant will provide this revised
layout for a continued hearing and will review when the applicant provides it.
11. The landscaping plans show additional lines on Old Farm Road towards the north end. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to identify the meaning of these lines on the plans, and, if it
is necessary and acceptable, require them to be properly identified on the civil and landscape plans.
See below screenshot.
The sidewalk along Legacy Farm Extension must be extended to the terminus of the ROW as
required by 15.12D.
The Board required the applicant to revise plans throughout to ensure that sidewalks and recreation
paths are aligned with one another as they cross streets and driveways. This has not been done in
places, as identified in the DPW comments provided to the applicant at the July 19 hearing.
The Board required the applicant to identify the surface for pedestrian connections. The applicant
has indicated materials are called out in the pedestrian report. Staff notes some materials are called
out on landscaping plans, but has generally been unable to locate materials on the civil drawings.
Materials should be called out on the plans since the plans represent the approved condition for the
project. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct the plans to provide this
information.
15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways:
The Board found that all roads with the exception of the proposed alley on Lot 32 are required
to be public. The applicant has added a second alley on Lots 23 and 24. Staff recommends the
Board include a condition that both alleys shall remain private.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
18
18 of 29
This section was reviewed under PP as part of 14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards. Staff
considers it to be equally applicable under this criterion. The applicant is proposing an east-
west easement in the I/C district, between lots 41 and 42. This easement is proposed to be 50-
feet wide and is presumably to address the fact that Lots 43 and 44 otherwise have no access to
a road. As a condition of approving the subdivision of land in the IC zoning district as part of this
application, the Board included a preliminary plat finding that the applicant must provide this
road as a ROW rather than an easement, and meet the minimum ROW width for a commercial
road of 60-ft. The applicant has requested to not comply with this preliminary plat finding.
Commercial roads are required by 15.12D(2) to be built to public roadway standards and be
dedicated to the City as a public roadway. LDR 14.06 requires parking to be located to the rear
or side of the building relative to the public street. The applicant is concerned that by offering a
ROW, they will be required to locate parking to the rear or side relative to the ROW. Staff
recommends the Board require the road to be built to public roadway standards but include a
condition that the road is not intended to remain a private road, as allowed under 15.12D(3)(a):
The DRB may it is discretion approve a roadway to be private if the proposed roadway
functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD).
14.06B(2) Parking
The Board is prohibited by 15.02A(4) from granting waivers of this criterion even in the case of a
PUD.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
(b) The development review Board may approve parking between a public street and one
or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more or of the following criteria are met.
The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirement of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ii) the parking area will serve a single or two-family home
Most of the parking falls under this exemption.
(iii) and (iv) Not applicable
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation
The Board preliminarily that as configured, the Resident Club (open space Lot 32) to be
principally for public recreation and accepts the parking as proposed. Staff considers no
modification of this finding to be necessary. Staff considers a similar finding to be
appropriate for the dog park parking.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
See above under 14.06A Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
(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
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
19
19 of 29
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.
See discussion of similar criterion under 14.07F above.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Board found at preliminary plat that if the project meets the objectives and considerations discussed
elsewhere in this document, minor modification of specific dimensional standards needed to provide the
well thought out and activated neighborhood design discussed herein will be granted.
Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout.
• Density
• Setbacks
• Heights
• Lot Size
Density
The applicant has calculated that 102.6 acre project has an available density of 452 homes based on the
acreage of each included zoning district. The applicant has proposed 155 homes. Staff considers this
criterion met.
Setbacks
Setbacks are discussed under waivers above. Staff will incorporate the Board’s findings on setbacks into this
section of the final plat decision.
Heights
151 homes are proposed in the R1-PRD, and 4 homes are proposed in the C1-LR. Heights in both zoning
districts are limited to 28-ft for a pitched roof. Height waivers for the C1-LR district are discussed above and
will be incorporated into this section of the final plat decision. The provided homes appear able to
accommodate the required maximum height, taking into consideration that height is measured from
average pre-construction grade. Staff considers this criterion met.
Lot Size
The homes are proposed on shared lots therefore minimum lot size does not apply. The applicant has
proposed footprint lots. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that the City does not recognize
footprint lots. The footprint lots are not considered in review of this application.
18.01 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
B. Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered
for rent. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered
for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative
ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
20
20 of 29
Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or
Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or
sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition:
(a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional
dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than
n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but
less than n+1.00 are rounded up).
The applicant is proposing to construct 155 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the
applicant must provide 15.5, rounded to 16, inclusionary units.
At preliminary plat, the Affordable Housing Committee testified that they were happy with the
applicants proposal, including the proposal to provide inclusionary units with higher bedroom
counts, provided that amenities be available to all units.
The applicant is proposing eight (8) three bedroom inclusionary units and two (2) four bedroom
units. 18.01E allows three bedroom units to count as 1.5 inclusionary units each, and four
bedroom units to count as 2.0 inclusionary units each, provided they not be used as offset or
bonus units. Therefore the applicant has provided 8 x 1.5 + 2 x 2 = 16 inclusionary units, meeting
the required minimum.
12. The applicant proposes to achieve a four-bedroom unit by providing a finished basement. The
applicant has indicated that they are not committing to four bedroom units and are instead
leaving the option of whether to provide three or four bedrooms to the home buyer. If four
bedroom units are not provided, the project will not achieve the required minimum number of
inclusionary units. Staff therefore considers the Board should require the applicant to commit to
the specified bedroom mix or instead commit to a higher number of 3-bedroom or smaller units.
Whichever solution, Staff considers the commitment must be made now, at this final plat stage
of review.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b)
(Off-Site Construction) of this Article.
The units are proposed to be constructed on site.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall
layout, scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in
a single building or multiple buildings.
The inclusionary units are proposed to be the middle unit in the eight three-family buildings
and two of the units on the north end of lot 16 (Units 16-15 through 16-20).
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and
architectural design details quality of those of the market rate units in the development.
However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the
market rate units.
As long as no architecture specific to inclusionary units is developed, the Board found at
preliminary plat that criterion will be met.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
21
21 of 29
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
O’Brien Brothers has touted energy efficiency as in important element of this development.
They testified that all units will meet the stretch code and will include measures such as
additional insulation and higher efficiency fixtures. Additional costs will be required for
measures such as solar panels and heat pumps. The Board preliminarily found this criterion
met. Staff considers no changes are proposed which would result in a change in compliance
with this criterion.
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior
amenities and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of
inclusionary units shall be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom
units, 900 square feet for 2-bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more
bedrooms. If the average (mean) area of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is
less than the minimum area required for the Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then
the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no less than 90% of the average
(mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units.
The applicant has testified that the available footprints for the units planned to be affordable
is 1,256 sf or greater, therefore this criterion is met.
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market
rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units
developed as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be
accommodated in buildings containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the
appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing, and architectural style.
The Board’s preliminary plat decision considered this criterion as restricting inclusionary units
to buildings with no more than four units and with the appearance of single family homes and
found this criterion met. Staff considers no change has been proposed which would alter
compliance with this criterion.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no change has been
proposed which would alter compliance with this criterion.
(vi) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer
than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving
50 or more dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the
Administrative Officer at each interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall
account for the differences in estimates vs. actuals for the units permitted to date and
shall apply to inclusionary units for which the Administrative Officer has not issued a
zoning permit.
The applicant has provided a chart demonstrating compliance with this criterion. In summary,
12% of the offered floor plans are for two bedroom units, while 75% of the offered floor plans
are for three bedroom units and 13% of the offered floor plans are for four bedroom units.
75% of the inclusionary units will be three bedroom units, and the remaining 25% will be four
bedroom units. Staff considers this criterion met, though the applicant is still obligated under
this criterion to update this computation at each interval of 50 dwelling units.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
22
22 of 29
(vii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed
as bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more
than one (1) bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.
13. All units are proposed to have unfinished basements. The applicant does not intend to
include egress from unfinished basements unless the buyer requests it. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to explain how this criterion affects their
proposal to offer buyers the option for three or four bedroom units. As noted above, the
applicant is relying on the presence of four bedroom units in their inclusionary unit
calculation.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The
applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and
occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board
may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on
documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints,
approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
The Boards preliminary plat finding is as follows:
The inclusionary units are proposed in the first phase that includes dwelling units. However,
since the applicant has requested that subsequent phases be allowed to proceed concurrently
with the first phase, the Board finds that 25% of the inclusionary units shall be constructed and
made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units, and so on for each
additional 25% construction. This condition need not come into play unless things evolve in a
different manner than the applicant is anticipating.
Staff considers no change has been proposed which would require modification of this finding.
Staff understands that three and four bedroom inclusionary units count at 1.5 and 2 times the
rate of two bedroom inclusionary units, respectively, and anticipates this will be taken into
account in the permitting, but considers it not something the Board need to specifically address.
D. Affordability Requirements The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for
inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary
units under this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and
purchase prices is updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The Vermont specific data is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the
Vermont Housing Finance Agency, in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability
thresholds by income and household size”. Refer to this table in administration of this section.
This section pertains to monthly housing, which may not exceed one twelfth of 30% of the targeted
Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit as measured in number of
bedrooms. It also requires utility costs to be included. Income eligibility must be determined based on
Annual Median Income of no more than 100% Area Median Income targets as measured by HUD.
Administration of continued compliance with these criteria is delegated to the City Manager or their
designees. The Board found at preliminary plat that the applicant must provide the required deed
restrictions for continued affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Staff considers no change
has been proposed which would require modification of this finding.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
23
23 of 29
13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS
The applicant at preliminary plat proposed a “gravel extraction area” and construction staging area on
Potash road. They have revised their proposal to also include a soil stockpile and fill area on the far west
of the PUD near Potash Brook. The gravel extraction and construction staging area is currently the
steepest portion of the Industrial/Commercial zone, is presently wooded, and abuts a large area of Class
II wetland. Without any plans for development, the applicant is proposing significant regrading of this
area, including blasting to remove ledge. The applicant at preliminary plat provided extensive discussion
of why they believe this ledge blasting is advantageous including that the blasting “will facilitate a much
more level and aesthetically pleasing commercial project, and will create a buildable site shielded from
view of Old Farm Road.” Since no commercial development is proposed at this time, the Board found
this proposed ledge removal through blasting shall be reviewed under 13.16 pertaining to resource
extraction, as well as the specific noise and vibration standards of LDR Appendix A, as well as separate
Public Nuisance Ordinances and included specific conditions to be addressed at final plat.
13.16 Earth Products
A. General Requirements. The conduct of a resource extraction operation that involves the removal
of loam, gravel, stone, fill, topsoil, sod or similar substance, except when incidental to or in
connection with the construction of a building on the same lot, shall be permitted in any district,
except as limited by the Surface Water Protection Standards and Interstate Highway Overlay
District, subject to site plan approval by the Development Review Board after public notice.
The Board found these standards apply. The applicant has provided an assessment of proposed
blasting operations and noise impacts due to crushing of materials.
B. Site Plan Requirements. An application for the removal of more than twenty (20) cubic yards
within one (1) calendar year period shall include the submittal of a site plan showing the area from
which earth products are to be removed. Also, the application shall include specific information
pertaining to the following factors and such other information as the Development Review Board
may require. At minimum, the following information shall be required:
(1) Depth of excavation, in proximity to roads or adjacent properties.
Maximum depth of cut is 25-ft.
(2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material.
This is shown on Sheet Q-4. Cross sections are also provided.
(3) Effect upon public health and safety.
(4) Creation of a nuisance.
(5) Effect upon the use of adjacent properties by reason of noise, dust or vibration.
The applicant has prepared a noise study evaluating the impacts of rock crushing operations. The
applicant is proposing to blast materials and crush them on site for use as foundation materials
for the proposed development. The study concludes that continuous noise levels from the rock
crushing will be below ambient levels. Staff has not readily found information on anticipated
noise levels from blasting.
14. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss anticipated noise from blasting,
including whether the noise levels from blasting could be considered a nuisance.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
24
24 of 29
The applicant has stated that dust will not be a problem due to the location of the area relative
to existing development. Dust is proposed to be controlled by use of water, and drill machines
are proposed to be equipped with dust collectors.
15. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to include a condition that places responsibility on
the applicant for removal of dust deposited outside of the approved area.
The applicant has provided a blast impact assessment, which includes the following statement as
to vibrations.
Vibrations may be noticeable and therefore may result in complaints, at PPVs as low as
0.02 to 0.06 in/sec. This is equivalent to the vibrations generated from a heavy truck
traveling down a bumpy road, and vibrations of this magnitude should be expected for
neighboring residences Experience has shown that blasting operations in locations such
as the Project will be felt by neighbors and that the impacts will feel significant, even if
they are well below the design standard. There is no correlation between the design
standard that is studied and documented to be safe for structures, and the human
experience of vibration in their home. The Project Owner is keenly aware of this, having
experience from the Phase I blasting operations. It is impossible to set a design standard
for blasting that is imperceptible as the blasts would be too small to make meaningful
progress, but this Project has set its design standard at 50% of the levels we know to cause
damage, well below what is required. We believe that this reduction in allowable vibration
is meaningful, will greatly reduce the perception of vibrations for neighbors, and will
eliminate the risk of damage to surrounding structures.
Staff considers no additional review of vibration to be necessary.
(6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical
damage on public ways.
The applicant has stated that they will be using “haul roads” to truck material to and from the
construction staging area, but no information about the haul roads appears to have been
provided. Additional discussion of haul roads is below.
(7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover.
The applicant is proposing to use a sediment trap to control runoff. This project will be subject to
a state general or individual permit for stormwater runoff from construction sites, which will
impose design requirements on sediment control measures.
The applicant has indicated that the area could be potentially used for construction staging for as
long as 15 years. The applicant has proposed to vegetated the site six months after when rock
removal and crushing operations are complete. City erosion control measures require the
following.
16.03B Erosion and Sediment Control
(1) The smallest practical area of land should be exposed at any one time during
development. When land is exposed during development, the exposure should be kept to the shortest practical period of time. Areas of disturbance must have temporary or
permanent stabilization within 21 days of initial disturbance.
(2) Land shall not be left exposed between October 15 and April 15.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
25
25 of 29
(3) Where necessary, temporary vegetation and/or mulching and structural
measures shall be required by the Development Review Board to protect areas exposed
during the development.
(4) Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed
and maintained during development to remove sediment from run off water and from
land undergoing development.
(5) The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as
practical in the subdivision. Exposed soil must be seeded and mulched or covered with
erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading.
(6) Adequate and permanent measures shall be taken at culvert outfalls to
minimize or prevent erosion and disruption of drainageway areas.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their stabilization plan to comply
with the timelines in the City’s erosion and sediment control measures. Where bare rock is left
exposed, or excavation is within a fully contained depression, erosion control measures are not
necessary.
The Board required the applicant submit following additional information regarding earth products
as part of their final plat application.
a. specific impacts and durations (both overall and frequency of operations)
The applicant has indicated that 70,000 cubic yards of materials are proposed to be
removed in cuts up to 25-ft. They estimate 75 days of drilling and blasting. Staff notes
drilling and blasting will not occur continuously but instead will have delay windows
while equipment is repaired. They anticipate 5 – 10 blasts per week.
17. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the duration over which they
anticipate the 75 blast days will take place.
Staff notes the 75 days does not include blasting outside of the construction staging
area as may be necessary for construction of the approved project.
b. specific mitigation measures – visual, noise, dust, roadway impacts
Proposed Mitigation measures are generally limited to best practices and do not seem
to include site specific measures.
18. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the impact on Kimball Ave and
Old Farm Road. Blasting operations are proposed to begin at 7AM and end before 5PM
Monday through Friday. The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits use of power
equipment or machinery, and noise resulting from construction, before 7AM. In order to
begin blasting at 7AM, will there be other work taking place before 7AM? Will there be
road closures during the blasting? Staff further recommends the Board prohibit blasting
and crushing work on Federal Holidays.
c. construction access road – location, plans, phasing and how it affects houses. The
construction should proceed from the most remote end back towards the staging area,
and be removed as construction is completed. The plan should show how construction
access road is retired including timing and physical appearance.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
26
26 of 29
The applicant has stated they are not able to provide a location for construction access
roads. Staff considers the factors that should come into play are:
- disturbance to areas not otherwise disturbed, and specifically areas not otherwise
approved for disturbance such as phases for which no zoning permit has yet been
issued or areas within the PUD but outside the area approved for development
- disturbance to areas to remain vegetated
- disturbance to wooded areas
- road crossings
The applicant has provided the following statement as pertains to this requirement of
preliminary plat.
The construction of haul roads and internal maneuvering of equipment is not
something that the Applicant can provide to the Board. The Applicant has
provided some conceptual haul road locations in the EPSC plans. Those roads
may need to move, be relocated, or re-oriented to facilitate construction. This is
a massive site work project that is impacted by hundreds of variables on a daily
basis which are analyzed by our project team of dozens of individuals working to
build the Project. To presume that we can plan to this level of detail with regard
to internal haul roads would be an error. We must have the flexibility to adapt
and to build the project as required by the facts on the ground and simply
cannot provide this level of detail on internal site maneuvering.
Staff recommends the Board clarify whether the described uncertainty is only within
this construction/staging area or if they are referring to the movement of construction
vehicles from this construction/staging area to the project as a whole. It is
understandable that movement of construction vehicles within the construction/staging
area will be variable as materials is excavated, but there should be a plan for movement
of vehicles and materials outside of this area to appropriately mitigate the impacts
describe above.
19. Staff recommends the Board either require the applicant to present a plan for movement
of construction vehicles and materials between the staging area and the project to the
Director of Public Works for consideration prior to closing the hearing, or include a
condition that the construction vehicle management plan requires DPW approval prior
to issuance of a zoning permit to construct.
d. plan for site restoration in the event of work stoppage
As noted above pertaining to erosion prevention and sediment control, the applicant is
proposing to topsoil and seed the site six months after when rock removal and crushing
operations are complete. No provision is made for if the applicant does not complete
the grading as designed.
20. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how the material is proposed
to be removed with the intent of understanding what interim situations may occur. If
there is the potential for leaving a large depression/pit, the Board may wish to require a
surety for site restoration.
C. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting its approval, may impose
conditions on the following:
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
27
27 of 29
(1) Duration of the permit for any length of time that the Development Review Board
deems appropriate.
The applicant has requested six years to complete the work in the construction staging area.
However, they are also asking that the stone pad proposed for crushing and blasting operations
be allowed to remain indefinitely as a construction staging area. They anticipate a timeline of 10-
15 years, but Staff anticipates a longer timeline if the area is allowed to be used as staging for the
entire PUD.
21. Staff instead recommends the Board include a condition that the construction staging area be
restored no longer than eighteen months after the issuance of the most recent zoning permit for
the approved homes. This would mean that should the applicant fail to pull a zoning permit for
the approved homes for 18 months, even if all 155 homes were not built, the applicant would
need to remove the construction staging area. 18 months is suggested as a top-end estimate of
how long it may take to construct a home, though in reality the grading and foundation work
should be completed much more quickly than that. Should the applicant later wish to use the
construction staging area for construction in the C1-LR or IC zoning districts, or there be an
unanticipated but finite delay, they may apply for approval to do so at that time.
(2) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of
the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other
appropriate measures.
The applicants proposed rehabilitation plan has already been discussed.
(3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed.
The applicant is requesting to be permitted to work 7AM to 7PM Monday to Friday with no
weekend hours for blasting or crushing. They request standard construction be allowed on
weekends from 8AM to 5PM.
22. The City’s public nuisance ordinance prohibits construction noise between 9PM and 7AM. Staff
recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposal but also exclude federal holidays from
blasting and crushing operations.
(4) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15
adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations.
The applicant is proposing a $50,000 bond for site restoration. They argue that the crushed rock
has it’s own value and could be used should additional funds be needed to restore the site. The
applicant will also have other sureties in place. However, the other sureties will be for specific
improvements and cannot be applied to restoration in this area.
23. Staff has requested DPW review of the proposed amount and anticipates having an update at
the time of the hearing.
Appendix A Performance Standards
Staff considers that these are written as performance standards for operations, and that construction by
its nature exceeds the performance standards, but they remain a useful guidepost.
A.2(a) No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernable
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.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
28
28 of 29
The proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits. The Board at
preliminary plat determined this standard is not directly applicable because it was written for
permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board reserved the right to include conditions at final
plat or when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for which the numeric
standards in this criterion may be exceeded. Staff considers the above analysis of blasting
operations to adequately address this criterion.
A.3 Noise
(a) The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises and shall be
deemed detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of the City of South Burlington.
(vi) Noise in general. Any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume,
frequency or beat and is not muffled or otherwise controlled.
(b)(i) The creation of, permitting or operation of any of the above sets, instruments, devices or
vehicles causing said noise in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet
(50’) from the building, structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie
evidence of a nuisance and a violation of these Regulations.
(c)(iii) Temporary actions benefiting the public, including but not limited to roadway
construction, sewer and water line construction, and special public events, are specifically
exempt from the provisions of these Regulations upon approval of such an exemption by the
City Manager.
The Board at preliminary plat determined these criteria are not directly applicable because they were
written for permanent operations. Notwithstanding, the Board may include conditions at final plat or
when specific lots are proposed for development limiting the duration for which the numeric standards
in this criterion may be exceeded. Staff considers the above analysis of noise to adequately address this
criterion.
ENERGY
There are no specific criteria in the LDR requiring energy efficiency. The comprehensive plan includes
the following goal.
• Comprehensive Plan Goal: Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability
of a clean and green South Burlington
The Energy Committee provided comments on the preliminary plat on 1/5/2021. Excerpts from the
comments of the Energy Committee follow.
The City of South Burlington has committed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of all of South
Burlington by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The City is not on track to meet that goal and it is
very difficult to see how the City would meet this goal if new homes in the City continue to be built
with fossil fuel infrastructure. It is critically important for the City, the State and the larger global
community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible to avoid the worst effects of
climate change.
• The SBEC’s first and very strong recommendation is that all the homes to be built be fully
electric (and not built with any fossil fuel infrastructure). Since the electric grid in South
Burlington is already very “clean” (94%+ carbon-free), and is targeted to be 100% carbon fee
by 2025, such homes will generate no (or few) greenhouse gas emissions.
#SD-22-10
Staff Comments 2022-10-06
29
29 of 29
• We also recommend that all new homes be built with 240v lines into each garage to
facilitate electric vehicle charging, or better yet that level 2 chargers are pre-installed.
• The residential stretch code already requires that new residential homes be built “solar
ready”. We would further recommend that attention be paid to the orientation and roof
lines of each home to maximize solar potential.
• Consideration should also be given to constructing a community solar array.
• Finally, the SBEC would appreciate if the applicant would provide a submission that
demonstrates how each of the homes will comply with the residential stretch code,
particularly the elements set forth in Table 5.6 of the 2020 Vermont Residential Energy Code
Handbook (attached).
The Board’s preliminary plat finding was that this development, through its mixed use character,
density, and location within the transit overlay district, is consistent with the goal of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Board encouraged the applicant to strive towards incorporating the
comments of the SBEC and requested a report on how they have done so at the final plat stage of
review.
The applicant has indicated they will be installing natural gas but will install electrical heating
systems if the home buyer wishes. They will only rough-in electric car charging where future
modification would be difficult or where requested by the home buyer. They provide solar ready
roofs and rough in conduit for solar charging. They are not requiring roof lines be oriented for
maximum solar gain and instead are leaving it up to the home buyer. They are not proposing
ground mounted solar arrays. They described in detail how the Residential Energy Code Handbook
is used.
Based on preliminary plat comments of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee, the
Board at preliminary plat included a statement encouraging the applicant to use roofing materials
with a reflectance index of 20 or higher.
24. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require a certain percentage of roofs be oriented for
optimum solar gain.
RECOMMENDATION
This completes initial review of relevant criteria. Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant
to address the issues identified herein and continue the hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant to
make modifications necessary to address the feedback of the Board.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner