HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-10 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (21)
1
1 of 37
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING O’BRIEN EASTVIEW, LLC – 500 OLD FARM ROAD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-20-40
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 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 146 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings
on nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (19) commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one
existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on Wednesday, February 17, 2021, Tuesday, March
16, 2021, Tuesday, April 20, 2021, Tuesday, May 18, 2021, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, Tuesday, July 6,
2021 (site visit), and Tuesday, July 20, 2021. Evan Langfeldt, Andrew Gill, Scott Homsted, Roger
Dickinson, Joe Maschek, and Corey Mack represented the applicant. Board member Stephanie Wyman
was recused from the hearings and did not participate in the decision.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and materials
contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes and
decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, O’Brien Eastview, LLC, is seeking preliminary plat approval 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 146 homes in single family, duplex, and
three-family dwellings on nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (19) commercial development
lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open
space, 500 Old Farm Road.
2. The owners of record are O’Brien Family Limited Liability Company, O’Brien Home Farm LLC,
O’Brien Brothers, LLC, Daniel J and Sandra T O’Brien, and Stephanie O’Brien.
3. The application was received on October 26, 2020.
4. The tax parcel IDs for the subject property are 0980-00025, 0980-00050, 0970-00255, 1260-
00100, 1260-00150, and 126-00200F and consists of 102.6 acres. The lots are split by Old Farm
Road and by Kimball Ave, both public streets.
5. The Board reviewed the sketch plan for this project on April 7, 2020 and April 28, 2020.
6. The plans submitted consist of the following:
Plan Title Prepared By Last Revised
Hillside @ O’Brien Farm – Eastview (60 pages
civil engineering drawings)
Krebs & Lansing Consulting
Engineers
5/3/2021
Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave Improvements Lamoureux & Dickinson 3/15/2021
Hillside Bike and Recreation Connectivity VHB 4/1/2021
Architectural Plans (SF-1 through SF-7) BSB Design 6/12/2020
Architectural Plans - Single Family
Streetscapes
BSB Design 6/12/2020
Architectural Plans - Meadow East
Townhomes
BSB Design 6/12/2020
#SD-20-40
2
2 of 37
Architectural Plans – Parkway Village BSB Design 6/12/2020
O’Brien Home Farm Single Family Elevations (8
Sheets)
Hillside at O’Brien Farm Undated
Landscape Concept Plans (7 Sheets) Wagner Hodgson 3/19/2021
Commercial-Limited Retail Lands Krebs & Lansing 5/17/2021
C1-LR Cross Sections Krebs & Lansing 5/14/2021
Industrial-Commercial Lands Krebs & Lansing 4/1/2021
7. The applicant has chosen not to pursue a master plan for this development. There is no
requirement that there be a master plan and many of the things that would be part of a master
plan, such as waivers or specifying levels of review for future applications, can be incorporated
into a preliminary and final plat.
8. 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%
9. 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. While there are no permanent wetland or wetland buffer
impacts proposed as part of this preliminary plat application, the applicant is proposing to
subdivide lots containing wetlands, therefore wetland protection standards are addressed to
the extent applicable.
10. The project is adjacent to the Hillside phase of the O’Brien development, referred to herein as
“Hillside.” Hillside includes 508 homes, of which 390 units have as yet only received Master Plan
and preliminary plat approval.
11. As noted in the project description, this proposed preliminary plat consists of the following
elements:
• 146 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings. These homes are centered
along Old Farm Road.
• nineteen (19) commercial / mixed-use development lots totaling 41.5 acres. These
development lots are located in the C1-LR and I-C zoning districts, which differ from one
another in allowed uses but have similar dimensional standards. No development of these
lots is proposed at this time, but the road network serving these lots, including connectivity
to the currently proposed residential phase, is presented for approval.
#SD-20-40
3
3 of 37
• one existing single family home and associated lot. This single family home is located at the
southern end of the development and is included because the applicant may wish to
incorporate its redevelopment at a later phase.
• 26.2 acres of spaces for passive and active recreation and stormwater management. These
open spaces consist of recreational lots as well as lots reserved for stormwater treatment
and lots preserved for their natural resource features. A detailed breakdown of this open
space is included in this decision.
12. Road names used herein are placeholders only.
A) PHASING
The Applicant has submitted a phasing plan as part of their application package. The nineteen
commercial lots are excluded from the proposed phasing plan, as no proposal for development has yet
been made. The Board reviewed phasing closely on April 20 and May 18 and provided feedback, which
the applicant has partially incorporated into their revised phasing plan last revised 6/22/2021. The
Board finds that the applicant shall modify their phasing plan, for review at Final Plat, to address the
following issues.
1. The construction staging area and soil stockpile and fill area phases (Phase 1 and 4) shall not
commence prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for infrastructure or home construction.
2. Offsite traffic improvements triggers shall be developed based on recommendations from the
modified traffic study, as discussed in response to 15.18A(3) below.
3. The phrase “at discretion of applicant” is superfluous and shall be removed.
4. Triggers to begin on-site non-residential phases other than I/C Road (Phase 14) and O’Brien
Farm Road Extension (Phase 9) shall be tied to percentages of residential zoning permits, and
completion date shall be based on a time elapsed from the beginning of that phase.
5. Old Farm Road relocation (Phase 8) shall commence no later than issuance of 30% of permits for
the approved 146 units, and shall be modified to include connection of O’Brien Farm Road to
Old Farm Road (Phase 10)
6. Triggers to begin construction of I/C Road and O’Brien Farm Road Extension shall be tied to
zoning permits for the I/C and C1-LR zoning districts, respectively, and completion date shall be
based on a time elapsed from the beginning of that phase.
In addition, the phasing plan leaves out certain geographies from inclusion in any phase. While some of
these are referenced with timelines for completion in the traffic analysis, they should be presented in a
manner that is easy for all users to find and implement. Specifically:
• Portions of the planned Kimball Ave recreation path are not included in any phase. Applicant
must provide a proposed phasing for construction of the improvements
• Planned Old Farm Road improvements are not included in any phase or on the Civil drawings.
Planned Old Farm Road improvement include pedestrian, parking and travel way modifications.
Applicant must modify their plans to include these elements and provide a proposed phasing for
construction of the improvements.
• The schematic plan for “Hillside Bike and Recreation Connectivity” shows the construction of a
recreation path within portions of the Hillside PUD connecting to Eastview. Applicant must
provide a phasing plan for construction of those improvements and confirm any permitting
#SD-20-40
4
4 of 37
requirements.
• The non-vehicular connection to Tilley Drive is not included in any phase. Applicant must
provide a proposed phasing for construction of the improvements.
The plan must be amended, clarified, and reviewed all together at final plat.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
The following section addresses additional general (14.06) and specific (14.07) site plan review
standards.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board has reviewed the Comprehensive plan overall goals, the objectives of the northwest and
northeast quadrants, strategies, and land use policies. Particularly relevant elements include the
following.
• the overall goal of being walkable, defined as bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe
transportation infrastructure.
• the northwest quadrant objective of replacing small single-family affordable homes that have
been bought and demolished under the airport’s “Property Acquisition Plan,”
• the northeast quadrant strategy of providing a balance of conservation and business park
opportunities to include the conservation of corridors along tributaries of Muddy and Potash
Brooks.
The Board finds the applicant has paid due attention to the goals, objectives, and stated policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure
to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking
areas.
(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.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
The Board has addressed each element of these and related criteria in detail below.
#SD-20-40
5
5 of 37
Transitions from Structure to Structure
Resident Club: Additional details of the building and site design must be included at final plat. As
shown, it does not appear the homes on Lot 32 have a relationship to the path along the outside of
the club area. The Board finds the applicant shall design the homes on Lot 33 to have the appearance
of fronts from both Legacy Farm Ave and from the sidewalk to the rear. The Board discourages a
heavy buffer in this area. The landscaping should encourage the homes on Lot 33 to use Lot 32 as
their neighborhood play area.
Homes on Meadow Loop: At the North end of Meadow Loop the applicant is proposing six smaller
units in what approximates a “cottage court” configuration with rear loaded driveways. What
makes something a cottage court is a central common space that is clearly defined and made
inviting for use by the residents. The Board finds the applicant shall refine this design to provide a
thoughtfully designed central common space, and demonstrate that the architectural design of
these homes is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Further, the Board finds the applicant
must provide a crosswalk from the cross-lot sidewalk south of the cottage court to the sidewalk on
Meadow Loop.
Homes on Legacy Farm Ave: Of the available single family home types, SF-5 is the only one which
has a garage protruding past the front of the home. The Board finds in order to promote
cohesiveness of the neighborhood, the applicant shall modify the architecture to reduce the
prominence of the garage relative to the porch/home.
Adequacy of Planting
Plantings will be shown at the final plat stage of review. The Board finds the applicant shall prioritize
plantings in the manner recommended by the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee to
support transitions and this criterion while balancing the connectivity needs discussed elsewhere in this
decision. Specifically, the NRCC offers these comments.
A new fifty-foot-wide hedgerow to connect the hedgerow to the south with the wetland corridor to
the north creating a complete protective wildlife habitat corridor across the middle of the property.
Such a corridor could be parallel and adjacent to the planned recreation path. Such a corridor would
utilize the culvert under Kimball Avenue for road crossings.
The paths and green corridors would be excellent areas to plant native trees species and native
flowering plants for wildlife & pollinators. Has this been considered, or are the developers/managers
planning to mow along the paths and green corridors?
If the applicant wishes to plant non-native species, their use should be limited to along the roads and
the parks within the developed area.
Safe pedestrian movement
The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee recommends “the addition of park benches, street trees, public
art features, etc. along sidewalks and shared use paths.” Further, they offer that “the committee is fine
with the internal connectivity except as noted [pertaining to Old Farm Road]. This assumes that all
stairways include ramps for ADA uses, bicycles and strollers.”
The Board notes that final details of internal connectivity have not yet been provided. The Board finds
the applicant shall strive to include ADA compliant ramps where stairs exist, and shall include equitable
access in all cases. Required minimum landscaping dollars may be used to create attractive “pause
places” along bike and pedestrian routes in appropriate locations.
#SD-20-40
6
6 of 37
Adequacy of parking areas
The applicant is proposing seven parking spaces near the dog park and recreation trail, discussed above
pertaining to O’Brien Farm Road East, and twenty-four parking spaces at the “Resident Club.” Driveways
are proposed to be at least one car length long inside of the sidewalk, and the rear-loaded homes have
two car garages and one “guest” space. There are a handful of places on-street parallel parking is
proposed, including near the Lot 18 open space. All non-driveway parking is public. The Board finds,
taken together, that parking is adequate.
C1-LR Zoning District
The applicant has requested approval for the subdivision of land and roadway design within the C1-LR
zoning district, as well as a number of waivers. In support of this request, they have provided a
conceptual design and framework for development of that area.
The purpose statement of the C1-Limited Retail district is as follows:
A. Purpose. A Commercial 1 with Limited Retail C1-LR District is hereby formed in order to
encourage the location of general retail at specific intersections in the city, to serve nearby
residential areas. These commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of
local residents and employees. Their location and design are intended to make them accessible both by motorized vehicle and by foot, thereby somewhat reducing traffic volume in the immediate
vicinity. In these areas, businesses offering goods and services will be limited in allowed floor area
and use. Such regulations generally follow existing Commercial 1 District regulations. Any uses not
expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses.
There is only one C1/LR location in the City, and that is this intersection. The Board finds the applicant
shall refine the concept for the C1/LR at final plat in the following manner.
• There are 2 large blocks proposed. The one to the east has a concept of a green in the center.
There should be a unifying element on the west block as well to unify the design.
• Parking should not be a dominant feature
• The grade difference from north to south should be used to create active spaces. It should not
result in the neighborhood turning its back on other areas. Examples of using the grade include
partial stories, promenades or public spaces, and artwork on walls built into the slope.
• Parking decks should be partially or completely underground
• Buildings should have features that tie the lots together
• The project shall be designed to attract and facilitate a mix of uses promoting evening as well as
day-time and weekend uses including office, commercial and residential. Demonstration of how
this mix will be promoted shall be provided at final plat.
Design Guide
The applicant has provided a “design guide” document for the C1-LR zoning district, modeled after
the Building Envelope Standards tables applicable in the City’s Form Based Code zoning districts, in
which they propose certain characteristics to which development in the C1-LR zoning district will
conform (with the applicant also requesting authority for the Board to waive several of these at the
site plan stage). The Board finds some of the elements of the applicant’s proposal, including the
design guide, to be appropriate, while others are problematic.
#SD-20-40
7
7 of 37
1. Within the C1-LR, the Board finds streets to be appropriate in terms of their general locations.
Evaluation of other aspects of the roadway geometry shall occur at final plat. The applicant
must provide at final plat a pavement making plan, additional details on the proposed drop-off
loop on Lot 28 (or it may be removed and requested for approval at a later date), and
modifications to the cul-de-sac to meet City standards as discussed under 15.18A(9) below.
2. The applicant has provided (generally similar) standards for primary and secondary facades, but
has not offered a proposal for determining which standards apply. The Board finds primary
façade standards shall apply on Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road, with secondary
façade standards applicable on other roadways, and no façade standards applicable on facades
that are separated from a roadway by another development lot.
3. The applicant has proposed a frontage buildout minimum to match the proposed layout, but has
also requested that the first story on the principal facades be allowed to be a garage. The Board
finds that the applicant shall propose a maximum frontage that shall be permitted to be parking,
regardless of whether the parking is in a garage or on the surface, to be reviewed at final plat.
4. For buildings with lower deck parking, parking may face the street if sufficiently broken up with
entrances, lobbies, upper story elements or other features, subject to review and approval of
the Board at the time of application for individual buildings.
5. Traffic calming measures to include at minimum a four-way stop and raised pedestrian crossing
shall be provided at the intersection of O’Brien Farm Road and Old Farm Road. Additional
measures including differentiated surface treatment are encouraged.
6. The applicant has proposed a “Parking Setback Line” on each lot. The Board finds this to be
unnecessarily complex. The applicant shall instead adhere to standard parking configurations
which require the parking to be to the sides or rear of the building.
7. The Board supports the number and general location of curb cuts. An additional curb cut may
be desirable on O’Brien Farm Road East, subject to review and approval of the Board at the time
of application for individual buildings.
8. The applicant is proposing a 20-ft wide landscape buffer on Kennedy Drive and Kimball Ave,
which buildings are proposed to be located 0 to 12-ft behind. Buildings are proposed 0 to 12-ft
from the property line on all other streets. A general concept of the design and use of this
buffer shall be provided at final plat.
9. The proposed 0 to 12-ft setback is very small compared to the standard setback of 30-ft for front
yards. The Board finds this setback shall only be permitted if the applicant provides a very high
quality street presence for the proposed buildings.
10. The Board finds exterior building materials shall be reviewed on an individual project basis.
Additional findings on the design guide are tabulated immediately below.
Applicant Proposed Element Board finding
Stories: 5 story maximum, with upper stories
permitted to be as little as 30% of the footprint
of the first story
Given the prominence of this location, the Board
preliminarily finds that there shall be a minimum
of two stories for all street-facing facades, with a
maximum of four stories. The Board may allow
for exceptions on a case by case basis. If the
applicant wishes to construct a fifth story, the
#SD-20-40
8
8 of 37
fifth story should be stepped back at least 20-
feet.
Entrances: 2 per façade for residential uses;
maximum 100’ between entrances for non-
residential uses
The Board finds the applicant shall focus on
prominence of key entrances at intersections,
similar to those within the Urban Design Overlay
District along Shelburne and Williston Roads.
Parking Maximum: 2 surface spaces maximum
for residential units
Parking shall be determined on a site by site
basis. Given the purpose statement for the
district – for the C1-LR to serve as walkable
destination for nearby residents, the use of the
land should be for buildings and civic spaces, with
structured parking as needed. Structured parking
should be emphasized over surface parking.
Streetscape: benches, café tables and bicycle
parking is permitted within the streetscape
A minimum uninterrupted sidewalk width of 5-ft
shall be required before these elements are
permitted. These elements may not interrupt the
5-ft width. Private café tables or other elements
within any City ROW will be subject to any
permitting / use allowance adopted by the City.
Street trees: 50 ft spacing Street tree maximum spacing shall be 30-ft where
not conflicting with driveways or other curb cuts.
Connections/Transitions between Project and Hillside
As proposed, there is only one vehicular connection between the properties, located at the north end of
the development area, and two off-road sidewalk connections. Hillside contains 158 homes in the single
family, duplex and triplex development area to the south (Hillside Phase 1). Development in the
Industrial-Commercial zoning district could potentially result in 910,000 sf of commercial space. The
Board finds that on balance, the disadvantages of connecting the Eastview Development to Hillside at
the south end of the project outweighed the advantages at this time. Given the potential scale of the
commercial development in the I/C zoning district, additional connections between the project and
Hillside may be required in future phases of the PUD.
Connections/Transitions between Industrial-Commercial area and Tilley Drive area
The Official Map shows a north-south connection between approximate mid-point of Tilley Drive and
Kimball Ave, roughly where the applicant has shown the central walking path and open space area
between the proposed homes and the Industrial-Commercial Area. The Natural Resources and
Conservation Committee provided comments that the official map roadway is located in an area well
suited for wildlife connectivity. 24 V.S.A. § 4421 requires reservation of lands designated for roads on
the official map, but allows the Board to make minor changes to locations of roads at the time as the
parcel containing the future roadway is reviewed. LDR 15.12D(4) requires that roadways be constructed
to the property line if the DRB finds that a connection to the adjacent property may or could occur in the
future. In order to minimize impacts to natural resources, the applicant has proposed a feasible
connection between I/C Road and the Tilley Drive PUD in an alternative location to that shown on the
official map, which the Board finds acceptable.
Connections/Transitions between R1 and I/C zone:
#SD-20-40
9
9 of 37
East-west connections have been identified as a need in South Burlington comprehensive plans since
before zoning existed. The Official Map calls for an “appropriate internal roadway network for
development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public
parkland within the property or an immediately adjacent area.”
The applicant has testified there is a 10% average slope between the proposed I/C road and Legacy Farm
Avenue and therefore a vehicular connection is not feasible. Instead, they have proposed a pedestrian
connection only. They’ve also provided a right of way and stub off Legacy Farm Ext which can connect
to the I/C road on the adjacent property at a more gentle slope if/when that parcel is developed. The
Board finds that on balance, the disadvantages of providing a vehicular connection the I/C zone to the
R1 zone outweigh the advantages at this time. The absence of a vehicular connection in this location
places more importance on the vehicular connection to the Tilley Drive PUD for both I/C Road and
Legacy Farm Extension, and therefore the Board finds both roadways and associated infrastructure shall
be extended to the property line. The Board further finds the pedestrian connection shall be made
accessible to non-pedestrian non-motor vehicle traffic including bicycles and strollers. It shall also be
modified to include a greater visual break so as to obviate and make the path comfortable to use. Such
a change will require a modest realignment of the homes on Legacy Farm Ave.
Connections within the Industrial/Commercial Zoning District
The applicant is proposing an east-west easement in the I/C district, between lots 39 and 40. 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 applicant shall simultaneously provide this road as a ROW rather
than an easement, and meet the minimum ROW width for a commercial road of 60-ft. Commercial
roads are required by 15.12 to be built to public roadway standards.
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 finds that as configured, the Resident Club (open space Lot 32) to be principally for
public recreation and accepts the parking as proposed.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
#SD-20-40
10
10 of 37
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: There is an existing dedicated pedestrian easement across the northern side
of Business Park Lot 4. This easement is a “placeholder” for a future trail network. At this time, some
parcels have formalized pedestrian access through this area. At the previous hearing, 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. The applicant
shall include an off-road footpath across this lot, though it need not go in the location of the existing
easement so long as it can be demonstrated that it connects to pedestrian easements on adjoining
parcels.
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
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.
Utility services have not been reviewed in detail at this stage of review, but are proposed to be
underground as required. More detailed feedback will be provided at final plat.
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 at this time. The Board finds this criterion will continue to
apply if the applicant determines a dumpster facility is needed at the Residential Club.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
As discussed above, only a very high level concept of landscaping is provided. 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.
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.
#SD-20-40
11
11 of 37
The applicant is requesting several waivers beginning on Page 51 of their application narrative.
Waiver requests 1-10: the applicant is requesting setback waivers on the residential lots. The Board will
grant the waivers necessary to establish the development program approved by the Board, except
where the waiver requests less than a 5-ft setback, which the Board is prohibited from granting. The
necessary waivers will be reviewed once other concerns described herein are addressed. The Board
finds the applicant must simplify their requested dimensional waivers so they apply uniformly across the
residential lots.
Waiver Requests 11-12: the applicant is requesting setback waivers on the commercial lots. The Board
has made several findings pertaining to the design of the C1-LR zoning district above. As for dimensional
standards within the residential areas, the Board will grant the necessary waivers to establish the
development program approved by the Board. The necessary waivers will be reviewed once other
concerns described herein are addressed.
Waiver Request 13: 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 finds the clarified waiver request to be acceptable.
Waiver Request 14: 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 finds
this requirement will be waived if the framework for the C1-LR zoning district is accepted at final plat.
Waiver Request 15: the applicant is requesting that minimum required landscaping be allowed to be
provided anywhere within the master plan. The Board finds that since no actual master plan is
proposed, the Board cannot grant this waiver, and further finds that no waiver is required. Generally,
required minimum landscaping budget can be used anywhere within the PUD, but landscaping
standards still require sites to be well landscaped. 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. 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
shall be granted
Waiver Request 16: 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.
They note this is because the lands will be maintained by individual homeowners. The applicant has not
shown individual lots; all lands are proposed to be common lands. The Board therefore does not grant
this waiver and finds landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity as required under 13.06I. 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.
Waiver Request 17: 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
#SD-20-40
12
12 of 37
not count as building footprint, though they do count as lot coverage. The Board finds the applicant
must clarify this request at final plat.
Waiver Requests 18-20: 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 request is denied.
Waiver Request 21: “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.
Waiver Request 22: This waiver request pertains to bonding requirements. 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. The applicant’s proposal does not provide adequate surety for the City, but some
alternative proposal may be acceptable.
Waiver Request 23: the applicant is requesting the Board extend the time the applicant has from the
issuance of final plat to issuance of the first zoning permit from 6 months to two years. The Board finds
this to be unnecessary as the applicant has the ability to request a one-year extension, therefore
allowing 18-months between final plat and the first zoning permit. The applicant has made this request
because of concerns about issuance of other required permits. The issuance of other permits is a
consideration for all projects, without any issues specific to this project. The required timeline is in place
to protect the City in the event of dramatic regulation changes between the time of final plat issuance
and construction of the project, therefore the waiver request is denied.
Waiver request 24: pertains to cul-de-sac, addressed above.
Waiver request 25: 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.
(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.
#SD-20-40
13
13 of 37
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
finds 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 denies the requested waiver.
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 following comments via email on February 5, 2021.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Hillside at O’Brien Farm – Eastview” site plan prepared by
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 1/22/2021. We would like to offer the following comments:
1. The applicant should ensure that there is adequate maintenance access to proposed
infrastructure.
2. Will the rec path adjacent to Gravel Wetland #4 have reinforcement that will allow access by
maintenance equipment, such as a vactor truck and other machinery?
3. Ensure there is adequate maintenance access to any sewer lines, sewer manholes, storm lines
and storm drains located outside of the road right-of-way. This includes providing 10’ wide
setback on either side of any pipe that runs between buildings (such as Unit 31-21 & Unit 31-22)
or adjacent to buildings (such as Unit 31-25), resulting in a 20’ wide maintenance access.
4. For the Kimball Ave expansion, new shared use path and new sidewalk, where will the
stormwater from these impervious areas be treated?
5. For the new storm line running parallel to the Kimball Ave Road widening area, is there a reason
this was not located in the roadway?
6. Any footing drains that connect into the stormdrain system should be installed with a backflow
preventer.
7. Gravel Wetland #3 is currently designed to drain back into the stormwater drainage system on
O’Brien Farm Road. Has the collection system been analyzed during various storm events to
#SD-20-40
14
14 of 37
ensure it is adequately sized to handle the inflow from this system? Where do flows from the
100-yr storm event discharge to? No emergency spillway is shown.
8. On Gravel Wetland #4, can the outlet pipe be extended under the rec path, so that discharge
from the system is not flowing over the path?
9. Provide all required elements from §12.03 of City’s LDRs, including a narrative, drainage area
maps, and HydroCAD models for review in a future application.
10. Comments on the Gravel Wetland Detail on Sheets D-8 & D-9 will be discussed directly with
engineer as final design plans are developed.
11. Site specific EPSC sheets will need to be developed for this project.
Comments #3 and #4 may have an impact on the project design. The Board finds the applicant should
address these comments without additional waivers beyond those already sought. In other words, if a
10-foot drainage easement is required, setbacks should not be further reduced to accommodate it.
The Natural Resources and Conservation Committee offers the following comment specific to low
impact development.
Minimize production of impervious surfaces. Use light colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement
areas to minimize warming of runoff waters. Consider minimizing impervious surfaces on the
project site and use rain barrels, rain gardens and swales where practical to slow runoff. Utilize
light-colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to decrease the warming of runoff, which can
degrade downstream waters and Lake Champlain.
The applicant has provided a written response to this comment, focusing on the minimization of
impervious surfaces. Stormwater management is proposed to occur in gravel wetlands, which have a
limited amount of surface storage and therefore a lower impact on the warming of runoff than surface
ponds.
The Board encourages the applicant to use roofing materials with a reflectance index of 20 or higher.
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
C) 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 provided an estimate of preliminary water and wastewater flows for the currently
proposed homes. The applicant shall demonstrate receipt of preliminary water and wastewater
supply as part of the Final Plat application. The Board finds that no allocation for the commercial lots
is necessary at this time.
#SD-20-40
15
15 of 37
The South Burlington Water Department provided the following comments on 1/29/2021.
Good Afternoon
Here are the SBWD Technical Plan Review comments for SD 20-40 500 Old Farm Road O’Brien
Eastview. I have discussed my two larger concerns (looping) with the engineer who agrees with
my assessment and will forward that information on to the developer. The remaining points are
general.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Jay Nadeau
1. Sheet C-3: General note: Service taps must not be any closer than 36” from a hydrant tee
or fitting.
2. Sheet C-3: General note: No service lines or curb stops may be placed under driveways
or in sidewalks (curb boxes).
3. Sheet C-3: Continue 12” DI water main to connect to south entrance at Meadow Loop
and Old Farm Road (looping requirement).
4. Sheet C-4: Add third valve at tee in front of building 16-15.
5. Sheet C-6: Extend water main from end of cul-de-sac to Legacy Farm Road (looping
requirement).
6. Sheet C-14: Tie in line between cul-de-sac and Legacy Farm Road.
7. Sheet C-15: Show where water main size changes from 12” to 8” on plans.
The Board finds the applicant shall incorporate these comments into the final plat application.
(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.
As noted above by the City Stormwater Section, compliance with this criterion will be reviewed at
final plat.
(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 applicant provided an initial 18-page traffic study dated June 16, 2020 discussing the project’s
proposed impacts on outside roadways. They also provided two conceptual road widening drawings
(Exhibit 015 and 016). Based on Board feedback that the proposed intersection improvements were
conservative and not entirely responsive to the recently-completed 2020 Kimball Ave-Tilley Drive
Land Use and Transportation Study, this traffic study was later superseded by a new traffic study,
#SD-20-40
16
16 of 37
dated March 30, 2021 which concludes, in brief, that more modest traffic improvements are needed
than were originally recommended.
General observations on the updated traffic study follow.
• the applicant has assumed the I/C area will be built out with medical/dental offices and
commercial spaces. Industrial uses are lower traffic generators than the assumed uses.
• the proposed ultimate conditions reflect full building of the R1 and C1-LR zoning districts and
50% buildout of the I/C area
• vehicle trips are reduced by 6% based on the emphasis of alternate travel modes (transit,
walking, & biking)
• in addition to the roadway improvements internal to the project, the following external
intersections are proposed for improvement when warranted
o Kennedy Drive/Kimball Ave – signal modifications
o Kimball Ave at Old Farm Road – restriping to provide left turn lanes onto relocated Old
Farm Road and signal installation
o Kimball Ave at I/C Road - restriping to provide left and right turn lanes onto relocated
Old Farm Road and signal installation
o Hinesburg Road at Old Farm Road – add turn lane on Old Farm Road
o Old Farm Road – traffic calming measures
o Old Farm Road at O’Brien Farm Road – signal installation
The Board ordered an Independent technical review of the updated traffic study. The review,
performed by BFJ, provided a number of recommended modifications to the applicant’s traffic
study. These recommendations (paraphrased), and the Board’s findings on each, follow.
• reduce internal trip capture by half and reevaluate resulting traffic impacts. The internal
capture estimate was based on large mixed use sites. The Board finds the applicant shall update
their traffic study to reflect this modification.
• evaluate single lane roundabout for Kimball Ave at Old Farm Road and at I/C Road. The
applicant provided such an evaluation. Based on a roundabout study provided by the applicant
and reviewed by the independent technical reviewer, the Board finds the roundabout
configuration is not the best alternative in these locations and standard intersections should be
pursued. Details of the design will be evaluated at final plat.
• delay installation of exclusive turn lanes until movements reach LOS E. The Board finds the
applicant must work with Staff to determine when installation of exclusive turn lanes shall be
required and to develop a program by which they will reserve funds with each lot to fund
construction of off-site improvements.
• locate shared use paths and sidewalks with consideration for bus stops. The Board finds the
applicant shall provide an analysis of this at the next stage of review.
• extend the shared use path on Old Farm Road from Hinesburg Road to Kimball Ave. The Boards
findings regarding this and other pedestrian connectivity are included elsewhere in this decision.
• provide only 1, instead of 3, RRFBs (pedestrian beacons) on Old Farm Road. The Board finds,
#SD-20-40
17
17 of 37
based on Staff’s recommendation that the guidance for installation for RRFBs is not as well
established as signal warrants, and therefore it is more difficult to determine whether they are
warranted, that all three RRFBs should be installed when project is constructed for perception &
convenience.
• combine figure 3 with figure 4 to get a comprehensive view of the pedestrian and bicycle
amenities as they relate to the projected parks and community center. The Board finds the
applicant must provide this at final plat.
The Board finds 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. To promote
consistency between local and state permits, the applicant may propose an alternative schedule at
final plat.
Off-site Improvements: The Board finds the applicant shall provide at final plat an executable plan for
evaluating when each planned off-site improvement is required and propose a program by which they
will reserve funds with each lot to fund construction of off-site improvements.
Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road: The applicant shall also provide an executable plan for when
the signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien Farm Road is required and demonstrate that the intersection
geometry can accommodate a future signal. Plans shall indicate the design of conduit and mast stand
locations. Conduit shall be installed when the intersection is constructed.
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 trips. The current traffic study reflects 126 homes, an
outdated number, and projects that they will add 127 trips. The Board finds the applicant must
update their projection based on the updated unit count, and demonstrate their development build-
out projections are consistent with the traffic overlay district and confirm the development remains
in compliance with the traffic overlay district at each subsequent phase of development. This
decision acknowledges that roadway network improvements have been made. should applicant
develop a program that generates more than 1675 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
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.
It appears as though wetland impacts are limited to the I/C road, though no wetland buffers are
shown on individual site plans therefore it is not possible to ascertain the extent of temporary buffer
impacts due to grading. The final plat submission shall show wetland and buffers on all sheets
where present, and enumerate permanent and temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts. The
criteria of article 12 will be reviewed at final plat.
#SD-20-40
18
18 of 37
Comments of the Natural Resources Conservation Committee are embedded in this document
where they are most relevant.
(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.
(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. For
Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources
identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City
of South Burlington.
As indicated on the provided “Open Space Plan,” (exhibit 31), the applicant is proposing 26.2 acres of
open spaces, though 5.9 acres are wetlands and buffers and 1.8 acres are dedicated for stormwater
management, leaving 18.4 acres of open spaces available for the enjoyment of residents. Some of
this acreage is contained in the perimeter of stormwater management features and in the densely
wooded area to the far east of the I/C zone.
Connectivity of natural areas has been discussed above under transitions and connectivity.
The Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed the project and provided comments on 12/21/2020.
The committee encourages the concept of the natural playground elements as they are
appealing to multiple ages and promote free play exploration
Recommendations for Dog Parks is a minimum of 1 acre (though additional space is always
appreciated) with rounded corner fencing and sections for both large and small dogs. There
should be both pedestrian connectivity and parking access at the dog park that is sufficient to
support the neighborhood population. If this is deemed to be an amenity of the city, larger
parking should be considered to welcome others from the greater community.
Green spaces are highly desirable and the variety of size and locations of the green spaces is
nicely laid out through the scattered design. Keeping this network of open spaces is encouraged
as the overall design is refined.
The project should consider a policy and management plan around invasive species throughout
the development; removal of buckthorn and other invasive species should occur as part of this
project development.
Connectivity of trails (both walking and biking) is crucial. While the Bike and Pedestrian
committee may have more critical points to review, the overall flow and connectivity of
pathways is pleasing and should add to the overall recreation potentials of the project. The
Recreation and Parks Committee is highly supportive of the concepts of fitness equipment or
stations installed along one of the circular walking trails and would be a unique element for
South Burlington.
The Committee would like to be involved with further discussions around the recreation assets of
the development if there is consideration to turn them over to the city or to allow for greater
community access. Additional parking at the dog park, trailhead and playground area may be
necessary for this to happen. The committee would highly encourage a staff level conversation
#SD-20-40
19
19 of 37
with Recreation and Parks and DPW to ensure there are human and financial resources to
support any notions of allowing and promoting broader South Burlington population access.
Regarding ownership of the recreational spaces, there is no established procedure for which shall be
public and which shall be private. The Board directs the applicant after discussion with City Staff to
make a proposal for ownership structure as part of the final plat application.
(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.
This criterion will be reviewed at final plat.
(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.
Roadway network:
The applicant is proposing a roadway network to serve the residential and commercial areas.
The applicant testified that they would like to obtain full approval for the roadways and
provided a detailed plan for the residential area and a conceptual plan for the commercial lots,
discussed above, in order to facilitate this. The applicant has not yet provided enough detail to
approve the roadway cross sections. The Board, however, approves the location of the right of
way for all proposed roads. The sidewalk or rec path location and widths are discussed herein.
Parking location and number is approved on roads within the R1 zoning district except the
southern segment of O’Brien Farm Road Extension. Pavement widths are discussed herein.
The applicant must provide complete roadway plans, including street trees, utilities, lane
markings, lighting, signage, etc. as part of their final plat submittal.
Street segments:
• Legacy Farm Extension and I/C Road shall extend to the property line as required by 15.12D.
Street widths:
Street widths along several of the typical cross-sections appear to be excessively wide, including
some lanes as wide as 15-20’. These roads shall be right-sized to the intended functional
use/class of the roadway, including but not limited to the following specific modifications.
• The typical cross-section of “I/C Road” shows 15’ Lane withs. The Board finds the applicant
shall work with Staff and the Bike/Ped Committee to determine whether to narrow the
#SD-20-40
20
20 of 37
curb-to-curb width or revised to show bicycle lanes as part of the final plat submission.
• The typical cross-section of relocated Old Farm Road STA 5+35 – 8+65 is shown as 14’. This
road shall be reduced to not more than 12’.
• The typical cross-section of relocated Old Farm Road STA 8+65 – 11+00 shown as 20’, for a
total of 40’. This road shall be no more than 3 lanes total.
• The typical cross-section of O’Brien Farm Road STA 1+80 – 3+00 is shown with 14’ lanes.
These lanes shall be reduced to 12’ maximum as part of the final plat.
• Legacy Farm Ave is proposed to be 20-ft wide with a short section at 28.5-feet with parking
on one side and sidewalks on one side for most of its length. At the north end, the applicant
is proposing sidewalks on both sides. The standard dimension for local roads is 28-feet with
parking, though the Board is authorized to allow modifications that are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Given the applicants concern about total lot coverage, the Board
recommends the applicant reduce the width at the parked section to 28-ft, and consider
removing the duplicate sidewalk on the north side, instead providing a crosswalk at the
location of the walking path to the C1-LR area.
• O’Brien Farm Road East is proposed to be generally 20-feet wide with a section at 28-feet
with on-street parallel parking. The western end of the road is, however, wider than 20
feet. The applicant shall reduce the width of the western end and demonstrate the use of
the pavement cross section through a pavement marking plan. The applicant has proposed
to end this road in a cul-de-sac with a small parking area with access to walking trails and a
dog park. Culs-de-sac are only allowed in residential districts. While the cul-de-sac is
technically proposed principally within a residential zoning district, it would serve a
commercial development. The applicant has requested a waiver of this restriction. Of note,
the minimum (and proposed) radius of 48-feet does not allow for a central planted island. If
the applicant wishes to provide a central planted island, the radius must be larger. 15.12
provides acceptable cul-de-sac geometry; any alternative proposal will need additional
review. The applicant shall revise the design of O’Brien Farm Road East for review at final
plat.
Curb cuts:
11. The plans show two nearly-adjacent curb cuts to serve lots 40 and 41. This shall be modified
to a single shared curb cut on the boundary of lots 40 and 41 within the I/C area, replacing
the proposed two adjacent curb-cuts.
12. The plans show two curb cuts serving Lot 38 within the I/C area. Without additional
justification, the Board finds the applicant shall eliminate one curb cut.
13. There shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between Kimball
Ave and O’Brien Farm Road.
14. 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.
Road construction:
• Roadway cross sections shall provide 2½” base layer and 1½” inch top layer.
Sidewalks and Recreation Paths
#SD-20-40
21
21 of 37
The Board reviewed the applicant’s sidewalk and recreation paths in the context of the following
policy documents supportive of multimodal strategies.
• VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan – November
2020
• O’Brien Eastview, LLC Development & Phase 2 of Hillside Development – Responses to
questions to Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee from the DRB 1/29/2021
• Memorandum “Bicycle/Pedestrian connection to Hinesburg Road from the O’Brien
Development,” prepared by the South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee, dated
May 24, 2021
• Comprehensive Plan – Objectives 17, 20 and 21
• Land Development Regulations – 15.18A(3), 15.12M(1), 10.05
• Act 34 – Complete Streets Law
Specific findings pertaining to sidewalks and recreation paths are as follows.
1. Plan Sheet C-2 indicates an undetermined type of connection between the Hillside PUD and
Eastview PUD. This must be revised to show a paved multi-use path as indicated in
applicant’s “Hillside Bike and Recreation Connectivity” plan. Multi-use path should be
navigable without stairs.
2. The City’s standard for multi-use / recreation paths is 10’ in width. Certain recreation path
segments are shown as only 8’ in width. The Board finds that paths shall be 10-ft wide,
though the applicant may discuss site-specific exceptions with the Board at final plat.
3. The mid-block connection between Old Farm Road and Legacy Farm Road at the south of lot
31 is shown on a portion of the plans but is subsumed by an alley at its western end. The
applicant must show a separated path connection for the entire length of lot 31 between
Old Farm Road and Legacy Farm Road. The proposed surface material shall be indicated at
final plat.
4. The applicant must provide 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 for the
following reasons:
a) Old Farm Road should act as the central feature of the proposed development.
b) The development will create at least 135 additional homes, and opportunity for outdoor
recreation including trails and fields which are likely to draw those from adjoining
neighborhoods. The increased traffic on this road will decrease safety for the growing
number of pedestrians without such a feature.
c) The entire character of Old Farm Road will be transformed as a result of this
neighborhood, and the absence of complementary infrastructure along the southern
portion will be more unexpected than its presence.
d) Non-vehicular access along the entire length will provide a benefit to the community
when the neighborhood is built out.
e) There is evidence of current use of Old Farm Road by pedestrians.
f) Off-site improvements are necessary to make the project compatible with its setting.
#SD-20-40
22
22 of 37
g) It is the position of the City staff, City committees, and the independent technical review
that a shared use path along the entire length of Old Farm Road is an important element
of the proposed project.
h) A shared use path is identified in VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use &
Transportation Plan as part of the network of proposed bicycle and pedestrian
improvements needed to meet the established goals of reducing reliance on motor
vehicles.
The design of these accommodations shall prioritize the following objectives, and will be
reviewed at final plat.
a) provide safe passage for pedestrians
b) create connectivity between homes and employers
c) create a cohesive appearance with the new neighborhood
d) maintain vegetated character
e) integrate the old neighborhood into the new
5. The plans must be revised to include a sidewalk on the east side of Hinesburg Road between
lots 31-1 and 32.
6. Plan sheet C-3 shows a portion of the paved multi-use path outside the Old Farm Road ROW
near the center of Meadow Loop. The Board directed the applicant to meander the path in
order to provide a variable-width green space between the sidewalk and the road. Based on
feedback of the Director of Public works regarding difficulties this change variable alignment
of the rec path would have with winter plowing at night, and in support of a unique street
presence along Old Farm Road, the Board finds the applicant shall provide landscaping along
the sidewalk to guide plows along the correct alignment.
7. The sidewalk along Legacy Farm Extension must be extended to the terminus of the ROW as
required by 15.12D as part of the final plat submission.
8. There shall be a walking path through Lot 45 which creates a viable loop connecting to the
open space on Lot 46. The Natural Resources Conservation Committee has noted that the
Lot 45 open space provides opportunity for wildlife connectivity. The design of the path
shall be sensitive to preservation of wildlife connectivity.
9. There must be a crosswalk across Legacy Farm Road at the pedestrian connection for Lot 45
as part of the final plat submission.
10. Throughout the plans, the Board finds the applicant must work with DPW staff to identify
locations to including bulb-outs at pedestrian crossings, both to promote a pedestrian-
oriented neighborhood and to provide physical and visual cues to drivers to maintain slow
speeds.
11. The applicant must revise plans throughout to ensure that sidewalks and recreation paths
are aligned with one another as they cross streets and driveways.
12. On-street parking shall comply with ADA design requirements.
13. The final plat plans shall identify the surface for the following pedestrian connections
a) between the Hillside PUD and the north end of Meadow Loop between lots 16-14 and
16-15
b) between the Hillside PUD and across Open Space Lot 19.
#SD-20-40
23
23 of 37
c) on Open Space lot 45
14. Meadow Loop
a) The southernmost segment of Meadow Loop shows a proposed sidewalk. This must be
revised to show a 10’ recreation path connecting to Old Farm Road as indicated in the
“Hillside Bike and Recreation Connectivity Plan.”
b) The plans indicate a sidewalk on the east side of Meadow Loop. The Board finds the
applicant shall relocate this sidewalk be relocated to the west side of Meadow Loop as
there are fewer curb cuts on the west side, the need for two mid-block street crossings
is eliminated, and the homes on the east side of Meadow Loop are already proposed to
be served by a recreation path along Old Farm Road. The Board supports this being
done by swapping the positions of the road and sidewalk without impacting the location
of the homes.
c) A mid-block sidewalk connection shall be provided between lots 20-14 and 20-15 to link
Meadow Loop and Old Farm Road. This location coincides with a proposed crossing of
Old Farm Road in this area.
15. The applicant has reached an agreement with the Tilley Drive PUD to construct a recreation
path from the southern terminus of I/C Road along the future roadway alignment within the
Tilley Drive PUD to Tilley Drive. This path shall be 10-ft wide.
With the above modifications, the Board finds the transportation plan for this project reflects a
multimodal approach, with the result of reducing the need for expanded roadways by reducing
the portion of trips occurring by motor vehicle as described in the applicant’s traffic study.
15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways:
With the exception of the proposed alley on Lot 31, the Board finds all proposed roadways are
required to be public. The applicant must submit a title report and draft irrevocable offer of
dedication for proposed public roadways as part of the final plat application.
Comments of the Director of Public Works:
Preliminary comments of the Director of Public Works were received on 2/2/2021. Many of these
comments are incorporated herein. Other specific comments are as follows.
1. One of the supplements showed a ‘special paving’ at the base of Old Farm at Kimball. Please
provide details.
2. The applicant should provide a pavement marking and signage plan. That’s where most of our
comments usually end up.
3. Street light plans should be provided at the next stage of review.
The Board finds the applicant shall address the comments of the Director of Public Works at final
plat.
The Board will review these criteria in more detail Final Plat.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
See above under 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
#SD-20-40
24
24 of 37
from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as
possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only
to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations.
See discussion of similar criterion under 14.07F above.
D) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Zoning district and dimensional standards pertain to the following elements of lot layout.
• Density
• Setbacks
• Heights
• Lot Size
This decision does not provide a detailed review of these elements. If the project meets the objectives and
considerations discussed elsewhere in this document, the Board considers these more specific criteria will
be met. Where minor modification of specific dimensional standards is needed to provide the well thought
out and activated neighborhood design discussed herein, the Board will grant the necessary waivers to do
so.
E) 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
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 146 units, all of which will be for-sale units. Therefore the
applicant must provide 14.6, rounded to 15, inclusionary units. 18.01E allows inclusionary units
with three or more bedrooms to count as 1.5 inclusionary units each, but they may not be used
as offset or bonus units.
The Affordable Housing Committee provided comments prior to the applicant submitting some
modifications to the proposed plan. Below is the motion from the 12/15/20 Affordable Housing
Committee meeting that the committee approved.
#SD-20-40
25
25 of 37
Mike moved and John seconded motion that committee commend the O’Brien Brothers for
their approach to incorporating inclusionary units in its permit application for the Eastview
component of its Hillside Master Plan and applaud the fact that homeownership constitutes
the entirety of the Eastview component; while simultaneously encouraging them to give
serious consideration to Planning and Zoning staff’s input regarding additional variety in
block layouts and housing types, and broader distribution of the inclusionary units.
During the hearing on 4/20/2021, members of the Affordable Housing Committee testified that
they remain satisfied with the proposal, and are encouraged that the applicant is considering
units with three or more bedrooms. They noted that amenities should be available to all the
units.
(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 some of the units on the north end of lot 16 (Units 16-15 through 16-20).
As noted above, LDR 18.01E(1)(c) allows credit for three inclusionary units for every two
three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. The applicant has indicated that the eight
units in triplexes will each have three bedrooms, thus accounting for 12 of the required
units. This means three additional inclusionary units are required. The applicant has
proposed to make some of units 16-15 to 16-20 (the “cottage” units on the north end of
Meadow Loop) inclusionary.
The Boards finds this criterion to be met.
(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 finds that this
criterion will be met.
(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 finds this criterion
met.
#SD-20-40
26
26 of 37
(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 is aware of this criterion. The Board finds the applicant must demonstrate
compliance with this criterion to the final plat stage of review.
(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 considers this criterion as restricting inclusionary units to buildings with no more
than four units and with the appearance of single family homes. The Board finds this criterion
met.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
At this time, with the proposed units, the Board finds this criterion met.
(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 stated that they do not believe compliance with this criterion will be an
issue because the preponderance of homes selected in Hillside have been two-bedroom. The
Board finds the applicant must demonstrate compliance with this criterion at final plat. If the
number of bedrooms in the available home types differs, thus preventing precise
documentation that this criterion will be met, the applicant shall develop a worst-case
scenario estimate for review at final plat.
(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.
All units are proposed to have unfinished basements. The applicant does not intend to
include egress from unfinished basements unless the buyer requests it.
(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
#SD-20-40
27
27 of 37
documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints,
approve a plan allowing non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
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.
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 finds the applicant must provide the required deed restrictions for continued
affordability prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
F) 13.16 EARTH PRODUCTS
The applicant is proposing a “gravel extraction area” and construction staging area on Lots 38 and 39.
This is currently the steepest portion of the Industrial/Commercial zone and is presently wooded. This
area 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 has
provided extensive discussion of why they believe this ledge blasting is advantageous beginning on Page
40 of their narrative, 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.” In
their cover letter for this 4/20 hearing, the applicant indicate they do not believe 13.16 applies because
the “gravel extraction” area is part of the larger PUD. Since no commercial development is proposed at
this time, the Board finds 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.
The comments of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee on the area of ledge removal are
included as Item #1 in their letter, and conclude this area contains “important brushy habitat” but “its
value as resident wildlife habitat suffers from lack of species diversity.” They go on to indicate “the tree
island borders the central wetland and provides vegetated buffer zones important for protecting the
wildlife corridor provided by the wetland drainage brook.” The full comment of the NRCC has been
reviewed by the Board. Ultimately, the Board finds that there is limited habitat value on Lots 38 and 39,
and that conservation efforts focused on the wetland and on Potash Brook are of greater value.
#SD-20-40
28
28 of 37
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 finds these standards apply.
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.
(2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material.
(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.
(6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical
damage on public ways.
(7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover.
The Board finds the applicant must submit this information as part of their final plat application.
In addition, the applicant must include the following information in their application.
a. specific impacts and durations (both overall and frequency of operations)
b. specific mitigation measures – visual, noise, dust, roadway impacts
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.
d. plan for site restoration in the event of work stoppage
C. Conditions of Approval. The Development Review Board, in granting its approval, may impose
conditions on the following:
(1) Duration of the permit for any length of time that the Development Review Board
deems appropriate.
(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.
(3) Hours of operation, routes of transportation, and amount of material to be removed.
#SD-20-40
29
29 of 37
(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.
Review of the proposed ledge removal will include findings on these criteria.
Appendix A Performance Standards
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.
The proposed blasting, by the applicant’s own testimony, will exceed these limits. The Board
considers this standard is not directly applicable because it was 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.
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 proposed blasting will violate this section of the LDR, and is not likely exempt as a temporary
action benefiting the public. The Board considers 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.
G) 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 1/5/2021. Excerpts from the comments of the Energy
Committee follow.
#SD-20-40
30
30 of 37
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.
• 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 finds 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
encourages the applicant to strive towards incorporating the comments of the SBEC and requests a
report on how they have done so at the final plat stage of review.
DECISION
Motion by Frank Kochman, seconded by Elissa Eiring, to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-40
of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.
2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the
South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. There shall be no use of herbicides, pesticides, and/or non-organic fertilizers within either the
wetlands or the associated buffers. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the
property, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has
been approved by the City Attorney.
4. There will be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands nor can the wetland buffers be turned into
lawn. Brush-hogging will be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. Prior to issuance of a
zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a
“Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney.
5. In addition to the application requirements in LDR Appendix E , the plans must be revised to show
the changes below prior to final plat submission.
#SD-20-40
31
31 of 37
a. The phasing plan shall be modified as described in Section A of this decision.
b. The homes on Lot 33 shall have the appearance of fronts from both Legacy Farm Ave and
from the sidewalk to the rear. The landscaping should encourage the homes on Lot 33 to
use Lot 32 as their neighborhood play area.
c. The design of homes at the north end of Meadow Loop shall be provided with a
thoughtfully designed central common space.
d. The architectural design of the homes at the north end of Meadow Loop shall be
compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
e. The applicant must provide a crosswalk from the cross-lot sidewalk south of the homes
at the north end of Meadow Loop to the sidewalk on Meadow Loop.
f. Single family home type SF-5 shall be modified to reduce the prominence of the garage
relative to the porch/home.
g. The C1/LR concept plan shall be modified in the following manner.
i. There are 2 large blocks proposed. The one to the east has a concept of a green
in the center. There should be a unifying element on the west block as well to
unify the design.
ii. Parking should not be a dominant feature
iii. The grade difference from north to south should be used to create active
spaces. it should not result in the neighborhood turning it’s back on other
areas. Examples of using the grade include partial stories, promenades or public
spaces, and artwork on walls built into the slope.
iv. Parking decks should be partially or completely underground
v. Buildings should have features that tie the lots together
vi. The project shall be designed to attract and facility a mix of uses promoting
evening as well as day-time and weekend uses, including office, commercial and
residential. Demonstration of how this mix will be promoted shall be provided at
final plat.
vii. the applicant shall propose a maximum frontage that shall be permitted to be
parking, regardless of whether the parking is in a garage or on the surface
h. Traffic calming measures to include at minimum a four-way stop and raised pedestrian
crossing shall be provided at the intersection of O’Brien Farm Road and Old Farm Road.
Additional measures including differentiated surface treatment are encouraged.
i. The plans shall demonstrate that the intersection geometry at Old Farm Road and O’Brien
Farm Road can accommodate a future signal. Plans shall indicate the design of conduit
and mast stand locations. Conduit shall be installed when the intersection is constructed.
j. A general concept of the design and use of the 20-ft wide landscape buffer on Kennedy
Drive and Kimball Ave.
k. Both I/C Road and Legacy Farm Extension shall extend to the property line.
l. The pedestrian connection between the R1 and I/C one shall be shall be made accessible
#SD-20-40
32
32 of 37
to non-pedestrian non-motor vehicle traffic including bicycles and strollers. It shall also
be modified to include a greater visual break so as to obviate and make the path
comfortable to use. Such a change will require a modest realignment of the homes on
Legacy Farm Ave.
m. The east-west easement between Lots 39 and 40 shall be widened to 60-ft and shall be
provided as a right of way.
n. There shall be an off-road footpath across Business Park North Lot 4.
o. Plans shall show wetland and buffers on all sheets where present, and enumerate
permanent and temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts.
p. Plan shall show protection for trees to remain at final plat. Such information can be
incorporated into the required erosion prevention and sediment control plans.
q. Drive lane widths shall be reduced to 10-ft in residential areas and 12-ft in commercial
areas or on collector roads, as discussed pertaining to street widths in PUD criteria
15.18A(8) and (9).
r. Lots 40 and 41 shall share a single curb cut
s. Lot 38 shall be served by a single curb cut.
t. Roadway cross sections shall provide 2½” base layer and 1½” inch top layer.
u. The non-vehicular connection between the Hillside PUD and Eastview PUD must be
revised to show a paved multi-use path as indicated in applicant’s “Hillside Bike and
Recreation Connectivity” plan. Multi-use path should be navigable without stairs.
v. There shall be a separated path connection for the entire length of lot 31 between Old
Farm Road and Legacy Farm Road. The proposed surface material shall be indicated at
final plat.
w. There shall be 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. The design
of this sidewalk shall prioritize the following objectives, and will be reviewed at final
plat.
i. provide safe passage for pedestrians
ii. create connectivity between homes and employers
iii. create a cohesive appearance with the new neighborhood
iv. maintain vegetated character
v. integrate the old neighborhood into the new
x. The plans must be revised to include a sidewalk on the east side of Hinesburg Road
between lots 31-1 and 32.
y. Provide landscaping along the meandering portion of the sidewalk on the Old Farm Road
ROW near the center of Meadow Loop.
z. The sidewalk along Legacy Farm Extension must be extended to the terminus of the ROW
aa. There shall be a walking path through Lot 45 which creates a viable loop connecting to
the open space on Lot 46. The Natural Resources Conservation Committee has noted
#SD-20-40
33
33 of 37
that the Lot 45 open space provides opportunity for wildlife connectivity. The design of
the path shall be sensitive to preservation of wildlife connectivity.
bb. There must be a crosswalk across Legacy Farm Road at the pedestrian connection for
Lot 45 as part of the final plat submission.
cc. Throughout the plans, the Board finds the applicant must work with DPW staff to
identify locations to including bulb-outs at pedestrian crossings, both to promote a
pedestrian-oriented neighborhood and to provide physical and visual cues to drivers to
maintain slow speeds.
dd. Sidewalks and recreation paths shall be aligned with one another as they cross streets
and driveways.
ee. On-street parking shall comply with ADA design requirements.
ff. The final plat plans shall identify the surface for the following pedestrian connections
i. between the Hillside PUD and the north end of Meadow Loop between lots 16-
14 and 16-15
ii. between the Hillside PUD and across Open Space Lot 19.
iii. on Open Space lot 45
gg. Relocate the sidewalk from the east side of Meadow Loop to the west side of Meadow
Loop. The Board supports this being done by swapping the positions of the road and
sidewalk without impacting the location of the homes.
hh. A mid-block sidewalk connection shall be provided between lots 20-14 and 20-15 to link
Meadow Loop and Old Farm Road. This location coincides with a proposed crossing of
Old Farm Road in this area.
6. In addition to the application requirements in LDR Appendix E, the final plat submission must
include the following information.
a. a pavement making plan
b. additional details on the proposed drop-off loop on Lot 28 (or it may be removed and
requested for approval at a later date)
c. modifications to the cul-de-sac to meet City standards
d. The applicant shall clarify their requested waiver #17, “Applicant requests a finding that
within the PUD all single family, duplex and triplex homes may convert their porches or
decks to covered porches or decks with only the issuance of a zoning permit and
without DRB review.”
e. address the comments of the City Stormwater Section
f. address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department
g. address the comments of the Director of Public Works
h. demonstrate receipt of preliminary water and wastewater allocation
i. update the traffic study in the following ways
i. reduce internal trip capture by half and reevaluate resulting traffic impacts
ii. with Staff, determine when installation of exclusive turn lanes shall be required
#SD-20-40
34
34 of 37
and develop a program by which they will reserve funds with each lot to fund
construction of off-site improvements
iii. combine figure 3 with figure 4 to get a comprehensive view of the pedestrian
and bicycle amenities as they relate to the projected parks and community
center
iv. provide an executable plan for evaluating when each planned off-site
improvement is required and propose a program by which they will reserve
funds with each lot to fund construction of off-site improvements
v. provide an executable plan for when the signal at Old Farm Road and O’Brien
Farm Road is required
vi. demonstrate development build-out projections are consistent with the traffic
overlay district
j. Documentation of any required off-site easements. Where the easement will be
conveyed to the City, the easement must be included in the irrevocable offer of
dedication for the street.
k. Certificate of Title showing the ownership of all property and easements to be dedicated
or acquired by the City, to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the
mylar. All proposed legal documents purporting to convey property or easements to
the City shall also accompany the final plat application, and be approved by the City
Attorney.
l. Proposed ownership for the recreational spaces based on discussion with City
Recreation and Parks Staff.
m. landscaping plans, including civic spaces and open spaces
n. demonstration that short-term bicycle parking meets the standards of 13.14B(2)
o. details of long-term bicycle parking including demonstration of how the required
minimum numbers will be provided
p. demonstration that inclusionary units meet minimum size and number of bedroom
requirements
7. The following waivers of Land Development Regulation standards are preliminarily granted
a. Setbacks on the lots within the C1-LR zoning district shall be permitted to be 0-12 ft
provided the applicant provides a very high-quality street presence for the proposed
buildings
b. required screening between residential and commercial lots may be located on either the
residential or commercial lots.
c. building heights on commercial lots may be more than one story higher than adjacent
residential buildings if the framework for the C1-LR zoning district is accepted at final plat
d. shared parking shall be allowed on an adjacent lot when no other development is
proposed on that lot under the following circumstances
i. Parking must be to the sides and rear of existing or proposed buildings.
#SD-20-40
35
35 of 37
ii. 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.
e. parking may be to the front of three-family buildings
8. Within the C1-LR zoning district, the following findings apply
a. Primary façade standards shall apply on Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road,
with secondary façade standards applicable on other roadways, and no façade
standards applicable on facades that are separated from a roadway by another
development lot.
b. There shall be a minimum of two stories for all street-facing facades, with a maximum of
four stories. The Board may allow for exceptions on a case by case basis. If the
applicant wishes to construct a fifth story, the fifth story should be stepped back at least
20-feet.
c. The applicant shall focus on prominence of key entrances at intersections, similar to
those within the Urban Design Overlay District along Shelburne and Williston Roads.
d. a minimum uninterrupted sidewalk width of 5-ft shall be required before benches, café
tables and bicycle parking is permitted. These elements may not interrupt the 5-ft
width.
e. For buildings with lower deck parking, parking may face the street if sufficiently broken
up with entrances, lobbies, upper story elements or other features
9. The following findings pertain to the inclusionary units.
a. Fifteen (15) inclusionary units are required unless the applicant demonstrates a higher
bedroom count in accordance with 18.01E.
b. Amenity areas shall be available to all units.
c. 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.
d. The applicant shall provide required deed restrictions for continued affordability prior to
issuance of a zoning permit for the inclusionary units.
10. The following findings pertain to ledge removal
a. Proposed ledge removal through blasting shall be reviewed under 13.16 pertaining to
resource extraction.
b. the applicant must submit the information required in 13.16B as part of their final plat
application.
c. The following additional information must also be included
i. specific impacts and durations (both overall and frequency of operations)
ii. specific mitigation measures – visual, noise, dust, roadway impacts
#SD-20-40
36
36 of 37
iii. 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.
iv. plan for site restoration in the event of work stoppage
11. The applicant is directed to prepare their landscaping plan to include the recommendations of the
NRCC.
12. Street tree maximum spacing shall 30-ft where not conflicting with driveways or other curb cuts.
13. Required minimum landscaping dollars may be used to create attractive “pause places” along bike
and pedestrian routes in appropriate locations.
14. Parking shall be to the sides or rear of buildings that are not single, two or three-family buildings.
15. The applicant shall confirm the development remains in compliance with the traffic overlay district
at each subsequent phase of development not currently designed (ie development within the C1-LR
zoning district and the I/C zoning district).
16. 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 the initial traffic study. Notwithstanding
development, an updated traffic study shall be prepared after 10 years. To promote consistency
between local and state permits, the applicant may propose an alternative schedule at final plat.
17. Recreation paths shall be 10-ft wide, though the applicant may discuss site-specific exceptions with
the Board at final plat.
18. There shall be a maximum of one curb cut on each side of Old Farm Road between Kimball Ave and
O’Brien Farm Road.
19. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Planning Commission for road names prior to final plat
submission.
20. 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.
21. The off-site path connecting to Tilley Drive shall be 10-ft wide.
22. The applicant must coordinate with the Fire Chief to assure emergency vehicle access prior to final
plat approval.
23. The applicant must demonstrate they have obtained their state wetland permit prior to issuance of
the first zoning permit for the Project.
24. With the exception of the proposed alley on Lot 31, all proposed roadways are required to be public.
25. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services,
and service modifications must be underground.
26. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the
standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
27. The final plat application must be submitted within 12 months from the date of this decision.
#SD-20-40
37
37 of 37
28. The applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Elissa Eiring Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
James Langan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0 – 0.
Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2021, by
_____________________________________
Dan Albrecht, Vice Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.