HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-23-12_1195 Shelburne Rd_Allenwood Inn LLC_SKCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-23-12_25 Bartlett Bay_Eric Farrell _MP SK_2023-10-03.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 27, 2023
Application received: August 31, 2023
1195 Shelburne Road/25 Bartlett Bay Road
MASTER PLAN SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-23-12
Meeting date: October 3, 2023
Owner
Allenwood Inn, LLC
5 Holmes Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
Eric Farrell
Farrell Properties
PO Box 1335
Burlington, VT 05402
Property Information
Tax Parcel IDs: 1540-01195, 0130-00025
105.38 acres
Residential 1-Lakeshore Zoning District
Designer
T. J. Boyle & Associates
301 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Location Map
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan sketch plan application #SD-23-12 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105 acre lot
developed with two single family homes and six unoccupied or accessory structures. The master plan
consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately 1 acre
to abutters, and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single family to twelve
units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road.
PROJECT CONTEXT
This is among the first applications being reviewed using the relatively new master plan and PUD
standards. Procedurally, this very first step is the sketch plan. Following this sketch plan will be a
neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant, and after that a full Master Plan application. The Master
Plan may be accompanied by a preliminary plat application for one or more phases of the project.
The applicant is proposing a Conservation PUD, which assigns Conservation and Development Areas.
Within some of the development area, the applicant is proposing an associated Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) PUD type.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marty Gillies and Marla Keene, herein after referred to as Staff, have
reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant on August 31, 2023 and offer the following comments.
1. Staff recommends the Board begin the meeting by asking the applicant to provide a robust
presentation on their vision for the project, starting at the big picture level of how the project
advances the purposes and characteristics of the selected PUD types, and how it fits into the
context of its surroundings, moving to the selection of the conservation and development areas,
the overall circulation patterns, and finally narrowing in on the objectives of the neighborhood
design.
The South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee reviewed the provided plans on September 13,
2023 and offered comments pertaining to connectivity directly on the project plans. These plans are
included in the packet for the Board and are paraphrased where applicable into the below report.
15.B Master Plan Review
2. Given the unique site condition and its relative inaccessibility, Staff recommends the Board direct
the applicant to schedule a warned site visit for the Board prior to the master plan hearing. Such
a site visit would be warned as a public hearing but would follow the Board’s established
procedure for site visits by only involving a review of the facts of the site and proposal.
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
C. Combined Review.
The applicant may combine master plan with preliminary plat or site plan review for either the
whole master plan area or for a phase of the proposed development. They may also proceed with
master plan review without combining it.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe whether they plan to seek concurrent
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
3
approval for all or part of the project at the same time as the master plan approval. The
applicant is reminded that they can obtain full final plat approval and still phase construction if
that is a configuration that works better for them.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
An application for master plan requires a specific set of submission requirements that have the effect of
describing the project and how it relates to the surrounding area, both in terms of natural features and
development. Specific requirements include the following, which will need to be submitted at the next
stage of review.
G. Buildout Analysis and Budget
This submission requirement provides totals of coverage, unit count, affordable units, civic spaces,
trip generation, and water/wastewater demand for the entire master plan and for each phase. The
buildout budget needs to fit within the allowable calculations for each subject area and sets the
stage for future subsequent reviews within the master plan area.
H. Design Standards
The master plan must include typicals for natural resource protection, streets, open spaces, building
and lot configurations, building architecture, and site details, among others.
4. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to include in their future submission a narrative
description of the characteristics that they are committing to carrying forward throughout the
master plan. Staff further recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s understanding of what
this means, as it has been both a very successful tool and a very confusing tool depending on the
applicant’s understanding of the request.
12. Phasing Plan
The applicant must either propose to obtain approval for the entire project or to obtain full approval
on a phase-by-phase basis. The applicant may omit a schedule for future phases if they are
“reserved” (see 15.B.04I(1) for more details). Each phase must consist of at least 20% of the total
buildout or project area, and temporary structures or infrastructure must be identified as necessary
to serve each phase.
5. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe their preliminary thoughts on what
the phases are envisioned to consist of and the timing thereof.
15.B.05 Review Standards
A. Findings
Approval of the master plan requires affirmative finding that the proposed Development Plan
demonstrates the efficient, coordinated, and integrated development and use of land which:
(a) Considers existing topography and physical site constraints;
(b) Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on
environmental resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Article 12, and as
incorporated into the overall design;
(c) Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that
is consistent with the zoning district or proposed type of planned unit development;
(d) Maintains street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or accessible
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
4
open space with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each phase of
development;
(e) Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjacent
properties and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along the
project perimeter; and
(f) Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to
include guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the
surrounding neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land uses.
There is an existing street network within the master plan area, consisting of narrow, low volume
roads. There is an access point off Holmes Road and an access point behind the existing Olde
Orchard Park neighborhood, which originates at Shelburne Road just south of the Larkin Terrace
building at 1195 Shelburne Road.
The applicant is proposing to access building lots 3 and 4 via this latter access, which requires
traversing the adjacent Larkin / Fayette Road PUD. The Board is reviewing the master plan for the
Larkin / Fayette Road PUD at their October 17, 2023 meeting. As the Board may recall, the area of
the access traverses the largest Civic Space for the Larkin / Fayette Road PUD, along which the
development is aligned to provide views of the lake and the Adirondacks beyond.
6. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what access roads they are proposing to
retain within the master plan area. The length of roads disrupting the conservation area should
be minimized, and notes that crossings of the conservation area are removed from the conserved
area calculation.
Staff further notes that construction equipment on building lots 2, 3, and 4 will not be allowed to
widen the roadways or otherwise clear for access, and the applicant should plan for construction
equipment and materials to be driven to the site rather than brought in on large trucks.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
B. Subsequent Regulatory Review
The master plan approval is required to specify the level of review required for subsequent phases.
Phases of the proposed project which are described in greater detail and are reviewed
comprehensively by the Board at the Master Plan level can be permitted with a simple site plan
review. Phases of the proposed project which are still relatively in flux at the Master Plan level will
need to be heard by the Board again, as preliminary subdivision applications, before they can be
permitted.
One goal of the Master Plan sketch plan is to identify phases of the proposed project that may need
extra attention in order to get to a point where the Board and applicant feel comfortable with the
level of detail included in the final Master Plan approval. In this way, the Board and the applicant
can work together towards the most efficient permitting path for each phase of the proposed
project.
With the Master Plan submission, the applicant should propose what levels of review they are
seeking for subsequent phases. In order of lowest to highest level of detail required at master plan,
potential levels of review are:
• Preliminary and final plat
• DRB Site plan
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
5
• Administrative Site plan
• Zoning permit.
D. Duration & E. Amendment
A master plan may only be approved for six (6) years, during which time the project is expected to be
completed. The first phase must receive final approval within two (2) years of the initial master plan
approval. Until its expiration, the things approved in the master plan are vested in the regulations
applicable at the time of the master plan approval. After initial approval, a master plan may be
extended for cause for a period of up to ten (10) total years from the initial date of approval.
Amendment is required when the limits of the master plan area change, when there are significant
alterations to the proposed pattern of development (including changes to open space locations or
development areas, or changes to those elements described in the “buildout budget,” 15.B.04G
above.
15.C Planned Unit Development Review
There are three PUD types available in South Burlington. In the case of a property in this zoning district
that is greater than 4 acres, a PUD is required. Both conservation and traditional neighborhood
development (“TND”) PUDs are permitted, and a TND is permitted to be nested within a conservation
PUD.
15.C.04C. Compliance with Regulations
(2)(a) Official Map.
The City’s official map designates a portion of the subject property as a “Proposed Park & Open
Space.” 15.A.11C(3) requires subdivisions to comply with the Official Map. The applicant has not
incorporated this Proposed Park & Open Space on their plan.
24 V.S.A. § 4421 lays out a procedure for development review that is proposed not in conformance
with the Official Map:
(5) Development review for properties with mapped public facilities. Any application for
subdivision or other development review that involves property on which the official map shows a
public facility shall demonstrate that the mapped public facility will be accommodated by the
proposed subdivision or development in accordance with the municipality’s bylaws. Failure to
accommodate the mapped public facility or obtain a minor change in the official map shall result
in the denial of the development or subdivision. The legislative body shall have 120 days from the
date of the denial of the permit to institute proceedings to acquire that land or interest in land,
and if these proceedings are not started within that time, the appropriate municipal panel shall
review the application without regard to the proposed public facilities.
In accordance with this statue, the Board must proceed with review of the master plan application.
Because the application does not provide for a park in the area designated on the official map, the
Board must ultimately deny it so that the City Council can decide whether to initiate proceedings to
acquire the land designated as a proposed park. If the Council decides not to proceed, the applicant
can request re-review of the master plan without regard to the proposed park.
The applicant Is fully aware of the process and the Board’s required actions if a mapped public
facility is not accommodated. Staff recommends that the Board proceed with its review of the
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
6
application through sketch and Master Plan.
15.C.05 Conservation Development
A conservation PUD is a type intended to “permanently conserve natural resource and other open
space areas identified by the City for protection in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and
supplemental open space plans and resource inventories; while also allowing for compatible, clustered
forms of land subdivision and development on a portion of the tract or parcel to be conserved.”
Emphasis is placed on contiguous areas of conservation.
E. Conservation PUD Sub-Zones.
1. Conservation Area
A minimum 70% of the PUD land must be conserved, and protected resources must be
prioritized for conservation, in addition to farmlands, scenic views, and historic sites and
structures. Conservation areas should be contiguous, incorporate natural resources identified
as “hazards” (unbuildable land), and prioritize inclusion of other natural resources, including
woodlands, scenic views, and historic sites.
The conserved lands must be encumbered by a conservation easement which includes a long-
term management plan to prevent encroachments on the protected areas. Physical and visual
separation between conserved areas and the development area is required.
7. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed conservation
PUD boundaries are compatible with clustered development and protection of contiguous
resource areas.
8. Staff also recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the proposed driveways to
remain on Lots 2, 3 and 4, and demonstrate that their proposed conservation plan will result in
adequate protection of the conserved lands, taking into consideration that the conserved lands
are proposed to be divided into four lots.
2. Development Area
Standards for location of development area include the following.
(a) Adjacency to existing infrastructure and existing and planned development
(b) Minimization of encroachments into protected natural resource areas
As noted above, the project area is a historic Inn property, and existing infrastructure includes a
number of paved driveways and culverts in addition to structures and former structure building
pads. Building lots 2, 3 and 4 need to be modified as discussed pertaining to Article 12 below.
Modification should be done in a manner that takes advantage of adjacency to existing
infrastructure; conservation PUDs are not intended to allow new dispersed development
patterns.
9. Building lots 2, 3 and 4 are proposed as 7 acres, 3.75 acres, and 4.5 acres, respectively. Each
building lot has an associated conservation area. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to describe the intent of these building lots, given that they are each only proposed for a single
family home.
10. Staff recommends, if not already discussed, the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate how the
proposed building lots 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with the siting requirements for development
areas.
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
7
3. Buffer Area
A buffer area is intended to separate incompatible uses or to avoid or minimize the impacts of
development on conserved resources and open space and is not part of the conservation area.
11. Staff recommends, in light of building lots 2, 3, and 4 being proposed as single house lots, the
Board discuss whether to direct the applicant to provide a buffer area on the non-conserved
portions of the lot to ensure success of the conservation management plan.
F. Residential Density and Unit (Yield) Calculations
Minimum density in a conservation PUD is calculated as 4 units per acre of development area.
Discussed below, the applicant is proposing to nest a Traditional Neighborhood Development within
the development area of the conservation PUD. Calculations demonstrating that both conservation
and TND minimum density requirements are met will be required at the next stage of review.
J. Conservation PUD Design Standards
There are design standards for the conservation area and the development area within a
conservation PUD. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with these standards
at later stages of review.
Development area design standards for the conservation PUD largely overlap those required for a
traditional neighborhood development PUD. The conservation PUD also requires civic space equal
to 10% of the development area. This can be combined with the civic space required for the
traditional neighborhood development, discussed below.
15.C.06 Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
A Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) is a PUD type intended to have a compact
neighborhood form with a discernable center, street oriented homes, and a variety of housing types.
15% of the total area is required to be provided as civic spaces. The applicant is proposing to nest a TND
within the development area on Lot 1 of the conservation PUD, as allowed within the Conservation PUD
standards.
15.C.04(D) Development Density & Land Use Allocation
Land use allocation within a conservation PUD is governed by 15.C.05E “Conservation PUD Sub-Zones,”
and is described above.
Land use allocation within a TND is governed by Table 15.C.06-1 and includes the following areas:
(a) Residential – min 65% of TND area. Residential sub-zones consist of Neighborhood Center,
Neighborhood Residential, and Neighborhood Edge
(b) Mixed use – min 5% of TND area. In this zoning district, non-residential uses include those
enabled by the underlying zoning district and those specifically allowed in the TND pursuant to
Appendix C, including an assortment of services, general and medical offices, and restaurants.
(c) Civic Space – min 15% of TND area. As noted above, the conservation PUD requires 10% civic
spaces for the entire development area. It appears the applicant is short of meeting both
requirements by approximately 0.6 acres of civic spaces. Given the other modifications which
will be required to address issues identified in this report, Staff considers the applicant should
be able to create the required additional civic space area, though considers it may be in a form
different from those proposed, perhaps a neighborhood park or greenway.
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
8
(d) Up to 15% may be unallocated, or the remaining percentages may be allocated to one of the
above uses.
The allowable development density is based on the buildable area, which is a calculation of lot
area not encumbered by protected resources, rights of way, or conserved areas. Development
density only applies to the residential portion of a PUD. There is both a minimum and a
maximum allowable development density. The minimum density is eight (8) units per buildable
acre for this TND because it is located within ½ mile of the transit overlay district. Buildable
acreage includes conserved lands not encumbered by protected natural resources. Maximum
density is a function of the building types proposed, and no single building type can exceed 50%
of the total.
The applicant is proposing an assortment of building types, from detached homes to medium
multiplexes. Certain building types require a more detailed level of Board review for within the
edge/transition zone.
12. Within the TND, the applicant has proposed 15% civic space, more than 65% residential, and lists
“live work” townhouses as the mixed use component of the project. Given the array of possible
mixed uses, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss their vision for the mixed-
use component of the project.
15.C.06G TND Design Standards
Within the TND portion of the master plan, there are a number of specific design standards. Staff
considers the Board should review the street layout & access section and the civic space section of the
design standards at this sketch plan level of review.
(5) TND Street and Path Network. The local street and path network must serve all users,
including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders and, to emphasize and ensure pedestrian access
and walkability.
(6) Vehicle Access and Parking. A TND must be designed to give pedestrian access and movement
priority over vehicle access within blocks, along fronting streets, and to principal buildings and
civic spaces.
Off-street walking and recreation paths are required as necessary to connect with existing or
planned facilities on adjoining properties; or to provide more direct, internal pedestrian and bicycle
connections that cannot be accommodated on local streets.
The TND is proposed to connect to Shelburne Road via Holmes Road and via a new connection to
Bartlett Bay Road. In 2007, the City and property owner completed a land swap to enable this
connection. Both Holmes and Bartlett Bay Roads are basic two-lane roads without multimodal
infrastructure (bike lanes and sidewalk or shared use path) and potentially have less than the
standard road base. Holmes Road is currently a public road from Shelburne Road to a point just
west of the railway, afterwards transitioning into a private road within the project limits, while
Bartlett Bay is public between Shelburne Road and a point west of the proposed connection.
13. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe what improvements are proposed for
Holmes Road and Barlett Bay Road. Improvements should be made commensurate to the
increase in trips that are proposed to be using those roads, understanding the City has a shared
responsibility for road maintenance.
There is a gap in the north to south recreation path infrastructure along this segment of Shelburne
Road, which could potentially be addressed by the addition of a bike route connection through this
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
9
development.
Comment of Bike-Ped committee support this recommendation:
There is potential for a connection from Inn Road to/from lakefront and park to/from Larkin
Terrace and Shelburne Road
There should be a continuous path connection through the entire TND from Holmes Road to
Bartlett Bay Road
14. In light of the objectives of connectivity between neighborhoods, both in this section and in the
standards applicable to all PUDs, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how
connectivity might be achieved in this area, including consideration for the planned project at
Fayette Road. The Director of Public Works notes that they are disinclined to accept a new public
railway crossing, but Staff considers this should not hinder the Board’s discussion at this stage
and instead connectivity should be evaluated without consideration of logistics.
15. Understanding that roads are not fully designed at this sketch plan stage of review, Staff further
recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will meet the requirement for the
local streets to serve all users, emphasizing pedestrian access and walkability. Staff considers
cyclist connectivity can either be addressed within the neighborhood or along the railroad, if
allowable within the GMP easement.
The project includes two roadways which appear to be alleys. Based on discussion with the Director
of Public Works and the Fire Marshal, the alleys should be clearly delineated as alleys and be distinct
from a road. The principal access for Emergency vehicles and larger delivery vehicles should be via
the roads, not the alleys, and alley design should reflect this.
(9) Civic Spaces
A TND must include a prominent neighborhood focal point bordered by neighborhood streets, as
well as smaller civic spaces that are located no more than ¼ mile from all neighborhood residences.
Other designated open spaces may meet the requirement for smaller civic spaces. The applicant has
proposed a large “Village Green” area, two pocket parks, and a playground on the periphery of the
development. Staff notes the project does not yet include stormwater, and therefore it can be
anticipated that these areas, and the homes, will be shifted to accommodate stormwater at a later
stage of review.
16. Given the provision for other designated open spaces to meet the civic space requirements, the
lack of a large neighborhood park serving residents of Shelburne Road (and this project’s
proposal to remove the park from the official map), the need for areas for stormwater
treatment, and the proximity to the lake, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant
the possibility of providing lake access as a civic space.
Comment of Bike-Ped committee:
Building lots 2, 3, and 4 take up a lot of the Proposed Park from the 2021 Official map and limit
public lakefront access. Can they be made smaller?
Discussion of making the building lots smaller is included under Article 12, Environmental Protection
Standards, below. The Bike-Ped committee raises an interesting question of public lakefront access.
The project proposal involves construction of 122 homes without lake access. The draft 2024 City
Plan (and the existing 2016 comprehensive Plan) recognizes the importance of improving access to
Lake Champlain through establishment of a shared use path and the public park on the current
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
10
Official Map as a compliment to Red Rocks Park. Action #161 specifies that the City should explore
opportunities for community access to undeveloped shoreline along Lake Champlain. As discussed
above, the applicant’s plans exclude the public park, and instead propose to place the area in a
conservation PUD. Allowed uses in conservation areas are those compatible with the resource
being conserved, including scenic views.
17. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they could provide access to Lake
Champlain for residents of the proposed TND and the adjoining neighborhood in a manner
compatible with the proposed conservation PUD.
Article 12: Environmental Protection Standards
This project involves a number of protected natural resources, including Habitat Blocks, Class II and Class
III wetlands, River Corridors, and Floodplain.
As alluded to above, the design of a conservation PUD must include natural resource areas identified as
“hazards” in the conservation area, and must prioritize conservation of other natural resource areas to
meet the minimum 70% conserved area. If, after conserving the hazards, habitat blocks, and habitat
connectors, 70% conservation is not yet met, priorities include additional buffer areas, farmland, natural
communities, wooded areas, scenic gateways, and historic sites.
HAZARDS
Table 12-01 identifies floodplain, river corridor, Class I and II wetlands and buffers, and very steep slopes
as hazards. These areas are required to be included in the conservation area of a conservation PUD,
except in specific limited circumstances. The applicant has not met this requirement and has excluded a
number of floodplain, very steep slope, class II wetland and wetland buffers areas from the conservation
area.
18. Most of the impacts to hazards are located within building lots 2, 3, and 4, which are each
proposed for a single family home. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe
how excluding the required hazard areas will impact the project. Since each buildable lot has an
associated conservation lot, it appears the required modification will not affect the land area
associated with each single family home but instead will simply ensure protection of areas the
City has determined have high natural resource value.
A small area of very steep slope impacts are proposed in buildable area 1, associated with the TND. This
is discussed below.
The applicant will be required to demonstrate adequate demarcation of conservation areas to prevent
encroachment, and ensure restoration in the case of already impacted hazards, at a later stage of
review.
12.08 Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
There are existing roadways and structures within the Floodplain Overlay District.
19. Aside from the requirement above to remove the floodplain from the building lots, Staff
recommends the Board confirm there are no proposed changes within the overlay at this time,
and otherwise, since the regulations of the Floodplain Overlay District are relatively technical
and supported by ANR and Army Corps of Engineers review, recommends the Board defer review
of the Floodplain Overlay District to a later stage of review.
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
11
12.03 Steep Slopes
Aside from the very steep slopes in building lots 2, 3 and 4, the applicant is proposing one area of
very steep slope impacts associated with the relocated east-west segment of Holmes Road. Very
steep slopes may be impacted only for restricted infrastructure encroachment, and only where
there is no feasible alternative. If the applicant, through more detailed design, confirms that this
area is in fact impacted very steep slopes and considers there is no feasible alternative, they must
make a formal request for this restricted infrastructure encroachment, with required supporting
information, at the stage of review that includes detailed design of the that segment of that road.
20. Steep slopes, defined as areas from 15 to 25% slope, are subject to different standards than very
steep slopes, defined as those exceeding 25%, and are not shown on the plan. Staff recommends
the Board direct the applicant to show areas of Steep Slopes on the plan, as they are required to
minimize impacts thereto.
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
The project includes Class II wetlands, which are subject to a 100 ft buffer. The project also includes
Class III wetlands over 5,000 sf in size which are subject to a 50 ft buffer. Class III wetlands under
5,000 sf in size are not subject to local regulation.
Development in Class II wetlands and buffers is prohibited except for restricted infrastructure
encroachment, which may include only the public utilities, public paths and roads, private road and
driveway crossings, and stormwater facilities under certain circumstances likely not applicable to
this project.
It appears the applicant has shown Class II wetland buffers as 50-ft, not the required 100-ft, on the
provided plans, and, as noted above, has designated a portion of building lots 2 and 4 within the
buffers. The plans must be modified to exclude these areas.
Development in Class III wetlands and buffers over 5,000 sf in size should be avoided but may be
considered by the Board under a request for modification. It appears to be the applicant’s intention
to request a modification. Modifications to Class III wetlands and buffers are required to meet the
following tests.
(a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
development;
(b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned
character of the area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the
project is located, or on public health and safety;
(c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the
property to adequately treat stormwater from the site; and,
(d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific
wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation.
21. Given the large area of impacted wetlands, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to
provide a professionally prepared wetland delineation and impact study. It is likely this is needed
as part of the master plan application, because without approval for the proposed Class III
wetland impacts, the project would look very different.
12.07 River Corridor Overlay District - RCO
It appears the applicant is proposing to improve the existing driveway to building lot 2 within the
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
12
River Corridor. If the applicant considers there is no feasible alternative, such an impact would
require review by the Agency of Natural Resources, in addition to standards described in 12.07I,
which include review as restricted infrastructure encroachment. The applicant must make a formal
request for restricted infrastructure encroachment, with required supporting information, at the
stage of review that includes detailed design of the that segment of that driveway.
22. Since hazard areas discussed above must be included in the conserved area, Staff recommends the
Board ask the applicant to describe how the required modifications will impact the project.
LEVEL I RESOURCES
12.04 Habitat Block Overlay District
The applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the habitat block. There is no discussion of their
methodology in the sketch plan application. However, their proposal appears to be potentially
allowable through a “Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange,” which is defined as a habitat block
exchange of greater than 2 acres or 10% of the project area, whichever is less.
12.04D(3) Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a portion
of a Habitat Block for the addition of an equal amount of contiguous land within the same
Habitat Block upon written request, and pursuant to the standards of this Section. The
exchange of land within the same Habitat Block may occur within one parcel or on separate
parcels.
A larger area habitat exchange requires a professionally prepared Habitat and Disturbance
Assessment. The required findings for a larger area habitat exchange include that the exchange
will not result in a reduction in the Block’s function as a Significant Wildlife Habitat, connectivity
will be retained, and that the land added to the Block be restored to at minimum transitional
forest within 10 years.
23. Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s intention to undertake a Larger Area
Habitat Block Exchange and, if so, consider whether they will invoke technical review of the
Habitat and Disturbance Assessment.
OTHER
13.05 Stormwater Management
Stormwater treatment is required for new impervious greater than ½ acre. The project will clearly
create more than ½ acre of new impervious, therefore stormwater treatment will be required. There
are known issues with the drainage patterns upstream of the culvert conveying the unnamed stream
and tributary wetlands under Bartlett Bay Road. The City is undertaking an effort to improve this
drainage as part of their Bartlett Bay Road wastewater treatment plant improvement project. Staff
recommends the applicant’s initiate an initial meeting with the City stormwater department prior to
commencing stormwater management design in order to ensure coordination with those efforts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
#SD-23-12 Allenwood Master Sketch Plan
13
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
August 17, 2023
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
South Burlington Planning & Zoning Department
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Allenwood Property – Sketch Plan Application
On behalf of Allenwood Inn, LLC and Farrell Properties, T.J. Boyle Associates (TJBA) is excited to submit the
attached application and associated materials for sketch plan review of the Allenwood Property off Holmes Road.
The Project is a planned unit development (PUD) on the Allenwood Inn Property, the site of the former historic
family summer camp. It will consist of Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD (TND) at the south end of the
property nested within a larger Conservation PUD that encompasses the entire property. The layout and design
of development within the TND focuses on pedestrian circulation and community building and will accommodate
a mix of 122 residential units including single-family homes (11 units), townhouses (27 u.), duplexes (12 u.), small
multiplexes (12 u.), medium multiplexes (60 u.), and civic spaces/amenities. The Conservation PUD will include
three larger single-family lots, including one existing residence, with the remainder of the tract conserved
equating to approximately 70 contiguous acres of wetland, forest, and meadow.
The project will introduce a mix of residential types and will help address the critical housing needs of the
area. We look forward to discussing this exciting new neighborhood with the development review board.
The following provides an outline of the various exhibits included with the application:
• Sketch Plan Application Form
- Attachment 1 – Breakdown of existing and proposed building heights and square footage
- Attachment 2 – List of current abutting property owners
• List of Plan Sheets
- Sheet No. L1 – Existing Conditions and Natural Resource Information – TJBA
- Sheet No. P1 – Existing Boundaries Plan “Allenwood Property” – Civil Engineering Associates
- Sheet No. P2 – Existing Boundaries Plan “Allenwood Property” – Civil Engineering Associates
- Sheet No. L2 – Overall Conservation PUD Sketch Plan
- Sheet No. L3 – Nested Traditional Neighborhood PUD Sketch Plan
- Sheet No. L4 – Nested Traditional Neighborhood PUD Lot Plan
- Sheet No. L5 – TND Illustrative Plan
Sincerely yours,
Michael J. Buscher, PLA, ASLA
SCALE: 1" = 200'L1 - EyISTIN' CONDITIONS AND NAThRAL RESOhRCE IN&ORMATIONALLENWOOD PROPERTYDATE: Ah'hST 1ϳ͕ 2023200'400'100'0LEGENDHAZARDSFEMA FLOOD RISK ZONESRIVER CORRIDORCLASS II WETLANDS & BUFFERSVERY STEEP SLOPES (>25%)LEVEL 1 RESOURCESHABITAT BLOCK OVERLAY DISTRICTLEVEL 2 RESOURCESCLASS III WETLANDS & BUFFERSZONINGZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARYFLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT2021 OFFICIAL TOWN MAPPROPOSED PARKPROPOSED REC PATH08-31-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS
To U.S. Rte. 7LAKEVIEW LN.Vol. 299 Pg. 105 (Lease)BARTLETT BAY RD.50' WIDE R.O.W.Vol. 13 Pp. 185, 208, 209Vol. 11 Pg. 326n/f J. DAVEYVol. 463 Pg. 244P.& A. MORWOODV. 336 P. 496E. LINDEV. 536 P. 666Vol. 515 Pg. 359T. & T. KINGVol. 752 Pg. 351M.D. SIROTKINBARTLETT BAY ROADVol. 299 Pg. 105 (Lease)Prvt. Rd.BURLINGTONCITY of SOUTHTRIANGULAREASEMENTSERVES "VELCO"Vol. 109 Pg. 521BURLINGTONVol. 203 Pg. 207CITY of SOUTHTo ShelburneE11.1"FARM X-ING"EASEMT.V. 142 P. 402E12GEORGEV. 1227 P. 76LIPSONV. 890 P. 191J.G. CONOLLYV. 1270 P. 279J. & K.V. 134 P. 285J. WHITING REV. TRUSTVol. 1102 Pg. 25J. & S.R. KRUKVol. 829 Pg. 527V.
1374
P
.
255
T
.
&
K
.
EAS
TON
Vo
l
.
7
99
Pg
.
213V. 1322 P. 81n/f HOLMES ROADn/f DBS Ltd. Partnershipn/f POMERLEAU FOUNDATION"Magic Hat Brewery"BARTLETT BAY RD. (Private)M.E. SHERMANn/f REEDn/f DS, LLCPROPERTIES, INC.J. BOISVERT &Vol. 803 Pg. 694101113143031343536373839404142434647484950515253545554AACCESSEASEMENT(Exist.)E-9City So. BurlingtonV. 778 Pg. 03R. A. & M. A.IRISHVol. 816 Pg. 749To U.S. Rte. 7WOLFF13A13B14B15' WATER LINEEASEMENT(Shaded)E1415' SEWER EASEMT.(Hatched)E1515' WATER LINEEASEMENTV. 372 P. 727(Shaded)E1320' WATER LINEEASEMENTV. 212 P. 449StreetExtensionE9.1E1115' SEWEREASEMENT(Hatched)E15STORM DRAINFROM HOLMES RD.E16See Notes Ref. Map AAANo Mrkr. Fnd.# 95D. TWITCHELL# 99A.T. GLASERA.E. SLUSKY#
10
1 # 115M.
WE
ISSMAN# 117#119# 121# 123LIVING TRUST# 125133 FORTVT, LLC# 127ALLENWOODINN, LLC54B54C54D54E54F54G# 2553B14ATotal Area105.41± Acres(to Elev. 95.5')EEEEEEEE
EEEEEEXIST.GATEEXIST. DRIVEEERR XING GATESEXIST. DRIVE12EXIST. BLDG.IRF(Off Line)IRF(Off Line)n/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/
f
n/f
n/fn/fVol. 89 Pg. 68, et al.Ref. Plat OALLENWOOD INN, LLCVol. 1483 Pgs. 184,186,188No existing bldgs.,WW systems or wellson subject property S. of Holmes Rd.,EXCEPT at #25 Bartlett Bay Rd.ALLENWOOD INN, LLCECACIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, VT 05403802-864-2323 web: www.cea-vt.comSHEETP1CEA1" = 100'06144BA _________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS No. 597To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat,consisting of two sheets, properly depicts the resultsof a survey conducted under my direct supervisionas described in notes above and is based on ouranalysis of physical and record evidence recovered.Boundaries shown are substantially in conformancewith the record unless otherwise shown. This plat isin substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403. Thisstatement valid only when accompanied by myoriginal seal and signature.- LEGEND -Existing Boundaries Plan - "Allenwood Property"AUG. 16, 2023- LOCATION MAP -NOT to SCALEBURLINGTONSO. BURLINGTONS I T E- REFERENCED MAPS or PLATS -E-39- SURVEY NOTES -1. Purpose of this plan is to depict lands conveyed to Allenwood Inn, LLC by three deed(s)of the David M. Farrell Trust u/t/a April 5, 1995, all dated September 16, 2019 and recordedin Volume 1483 at Pages 184, 186 and 188. Abutting land-owners and their deed citationsshown are as of late August, 2019. Other property lines shown MAY BE approximate andare shown for reference purposes only.2. Perimeter survey was conducted during 2007, utilizing an electronic total stationinstrument and RTK GPS. Bearings shown are from Grid North, Vermont CoordinateSystem of 1983, calculated from GPS observations on or adjoining the site.3. LAND AREAS (acreage) shown on this plan are calculated to elevation 95.5 feet (NGVD'29) at Lake Champlain, being the "Normal Mean Water Mark" of the lake per Rules of theVermont Water Resources Board, adopted November 14, 1972. The 95.5' contour waslocated and surveyed in the field circa 2007. Submerged lands (between high and lowwater marks) are subject to certain rights of the public by virtue of the "Public TrustDoctrine". (Areas shown in Reference Plat "AAA" were calculated to the 93 foot elevation,being the customary "Low Water Mark" per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) 4. Corners or Reference Markers shown "proposed" shall be/are typically marked by 5/8"reinforcing rod with aluminum caps embossed "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597".5. Any lake shore shown north or south of the subject property is as abstracted from orthophoto-maps, is approximate, and is shown for reference only.6. Any wetland area boundaries shown are from various sources (surveys, published maps)and are shown for general information only.1 of 2E-9. Non-exclusive access easement overprivate "Holmes Road Extension" servesexisting lots, per Ref. Plan G on Ref. PlatAAA. No width given.E-9.1. The surveyed property, the City, andland-owners on Holmes Road Extension arebenefited by and subject to an agreementbetween State, Railroad and City regardingthe extension of Holmes Road R.O.W.across Railroad R.O.W. Vol. 1205 Pg. 191and Reference Plat B.E-11. An easement (typically 150' wide)serving Vermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO)for transmission lines westerly of (andapproximately parallel with railroad) extendsinto subject property as shown per 1976Condemnation Order in Vol. 131 Pg. 63.E-11.1. Triangular VELCO easement fortransmission lines westerly of railroad tracksextends into subject property as shown perEasement Deed recorded Vol. 109 Pg. 521.E-12. "Lakeview Lane" is a private roadover a 60' wide strip of land conveyed toCity, subject to certain agreements andeasements of record.E-13. Water Line Easement (15' wide)centered on water line as-built. Vol. 372 Pg.727.E-14. Water Line Easement (15' wide)centered on water line as-built. Vol. 595Pg. 414 & Vol. 675 Pg. 65.E-15. Sewer Line Easement (15' wide)centered on sewer line as-built.E-16. 20' wide access easement entering thesoutheasterly part of the subject Farrell property(labeled "Farm X-ing") conveyed in Vol. 142 Pg.402 (1978). This easement MAY be null andvoid due to unmet conditions of the grant.Grid NorthSurvey Note 2SEE SHEET P2SEE SHEET 2TRC1195 Shelburne Road & 25 Bartlett Bay RoadSouth Burlington, Vermont53 (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. Flush)N83°52'48"E 60.92'54 (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. Flush)N83º52'48"E 59.09'54A (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. 0.5' AG)N83º54'04"E 259.10'54B (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. Flush)S02°55'08"W 195.74'54C (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. Flush)S82°48'07"W 39.87'54D (Unmarked Angle )25 Bartlett Bay Rd.54D (Unmarked Angle )N87°28'33"W 35.94'54E (Unmarked Angle )S85°46'37"W 234.00'54F (Unmarked Angle )S81°50'37"W 33.50'54G (5/8" I. Rod Fnd.)N07°52'57"W 115.04'53B (5/8" Rod Fnd. 0.2' AG)N07°52'32"W 67.24'53 (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. Flush)53A NOT USED (5/8" I. Rod Fnd. 08' AG)38 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S16º46'01"W 21.73'39 1" I. PIPE FND. 0.3' A.G. S11º15'48"W 95.04'40 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S08º56'05"W 59.95'41 1.25" I. PIPE FND. 0.2' A.G. S08º37'26"W 130.06'42 1/2" I. PIPE FND. 0.3' B.G. S09º45'43"W 94.99'43 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.4 B.G. S01º01'46"W 269.97'46 1/2" I. PIPE FND. 0.3' A.G. N83º27'56"E 68.33'47 3/4" I. PIPE FND. 0.4' A.G. N82º13'14"E 296.25'48 T-BAR FND. 1.5' A.G.30 LOW WATER MARK S84º13'07"W 98'±31 4" CON.MON. SET 0.3' A.G. S84º13'07"W 193.42'32 1/2" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S86º03'58"W 155.21'33 1/2" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S88º56'55"E 301.42'34 T-BAR FND. 1.9' A.G. N08º29'13"W 202.90'35 T-BAR FND. 0.4' A.G. N82º46'05"W 134.89'36 1/2" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S82º45'51"W 313.89'37 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S83º04'31"W 175.60'38 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH48 T-BAR FND. 1.5' A.G. S06º43'10"E 492.02'49 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.5' A.G. N82º47'32"E 220.86'50 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.2' A.G. S02º39'53"W 124.77'51 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.6' A.G S02º39'53"W 147.66'52 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.2' A.G. S02º45'29"W 33.07'53 5/8" I. ROD FND. 0.8' A.G. N83º52'48"E 60.92'54 5/8" I. ROD SET FLUSH N02º40'29"E 428.49'55 5/8" I. ROD SET FLUSH N82º46'38"E 511.24'10 5/8" I. ROD SET FLUSH10 5/8" I. ROD SET FLUSH N00º05'21"W 22.83'11 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N03º22'31"W 355.53'12 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N06º45'56"W 317.94'13 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N08º22'45"W 357.03'13A CONC. MON. S 81º37'15"W 30.00'13B CONC. MON. N08º22'45"W 60.00'14A CONC. MON. N 81º37'15"E 30.00'14B CONC. MON. N08º22'45"W 220.27'14 UNMARKED ANGLE POINTNos. 44, 45 Intentionally OmittedF
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
0
8
-
3
1
-
2
0
2
3 AAA. "Boundary Survey - Allenwood Property - David M. Farrell Trust"Sheets P1 & P2, dated September 4, 2019 by Civil Engineering Associates,Inc. (CEA). Map Slide 633 Pages 4 & 5, South Burlington Land Records.AA. "Boundary Line Adjustment Between Lands of TR & KH Easton and ofA Glaser & A Slusky" dated 9/2/20 by CEA. Not of record.A. "Subdivision Plat - Allenwood Inn Road Development" dated 3/30/16 byCEA. Map Slide 600 Page 5.B. "Plat of Survey - Extension of Holmes Road" last revised 7/17/14 byCEA. Map Slide 579 Page 6.C. "Boundary Adjustment Survey Between Lands of: D.M. Farrell & S.McConaughy and of Holmes Road Properties, Inc." last revised 4/16/2015by CEA. Map Slide 471.D."A Correct Map of Burlington Vermont from Actual Survey" circa1797, by John Johnson circa April 1818. Burlington (Town) Land Records.E."Location Plans of the Rutland Railroad - Volume 1", circa1845-1893. State of Vermont Public Records Division.F."Land of Queen City Park Association", amended 9/1/09. Slide 66-1.G."Plan of Property of E.P. Woodbury" dated 2/1937 by H.M. McIntosh.Vol. 11-1 Page 255.H."Southern Section of Queen City Park" dated 10/24/36 by HoagStone & Associates. UVM Special Collections.I."Central Section of Queen City Park (Revised Plan)" dated 6/30/47by A.W. Hoag. Hoag Proj. No. 500, UVM Special Collections.J. "Plan of Sewer Easement…(Force Main Across Farrell Property", dated10/1/70 by "W.J.S.", Slide 97-7.SEE REF. PLAT AAAFOR SELECTED TIE LINES- EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES -n/fBEARING - DISTANCE MONUMENT TABLE8.29.23TRCAdd Wells, etc. on Sheet 28.31.23TRCResidence at 25 Bartlett Bay Rd.
Vol. 299 Pg. 105 (Lease)AVENUEJ. & K.V. 134 P. 285J. WHITING REV. TRUSTVol. 1102 Pg. 25J. & S.R. KRUKVol. 829 Pg. 527V. 1374 P. 255T. & K. EASTONVol. 799 Pg. 213V. 1322 P. 81ELDREDV.188 P.184CHAMPLAIN WATER DIST.S. BEHAR TRUSTV.416 P.147V.665 P.55City ofFIRE DIST. 1KIRSCHNERV.486 P.01DB & CA WILBERV.142 P.41J.E. ENTISV.477 P.442n/f HOLMES ROADCENTRALMAPLE AVE."Hannaford""Lowes"n/f DS, LLCPROPERTIES, INC.n/f FARRELLDISTRIBUTINGCORPORATIONVol. 815 Pg. 72 S. BURLINGTON FIRE DISTRICT No. 1Vol. 287 Pg. 476J. BOISVERT &Vol. 803 Pg. 694131415161718192021222324252630313435363738394041S. BurlingtonAVENUECENTRAL272828A28BTrack WidthNot to ScaleTo BurlingtonTo BurlingtonW. LINE"VELCO"EASE.W. LINE "VELCO"EASEMENTE11ACCESSEASEMENT(Exist.)E-9E17FORCE MAIN20' EASE.E17DRAINOUTFALLE-8n/f Hodgsonn/f Shover GREEN MTN. POWER Corp."OLDE ORCHARD PARK" CONDOMINIUMRef. Plats N & O20' FORCE MAINEASEMENTLeased to VT Railway, Inc.By State of VTVol. 299 Pg. 105R.R. R.O.W.Variable WidthL. MICHAELS& G. GAIDACoppTrustTRUSTWJ & PASOUTHLAND ENTERPRISES, INC.TIES TO REF. MARKS28 CENTERLINE BROOKS83º00'E 25'±28A I. ROD TO BE SETS83º00'E 50.0'28B I. ROD TO BE SETTo U.S. Rte. 7INN, LLCALLENWOODTo QC Pky.WOLFFDD13A13B14BStreetExtensionE9.13
4"
IPFJohn Larkin, Inc.Vol. 1375 Pg. 321"Inn RoadDevelopment Lot 2"Reference Plat AEasements over Lot 2reserved byD.M. Farrell TrustEasement Note 10Larkin / MilotPartnershipIrrevocable Offer of DedicationVol. 374 Pg. 610andWarranty Deed of Easementto D.M. Farrell TrustVol. 1355 Pg. 159 (60' wide)15' SEWEREASEMENT(Hatched)DD"Low Water Mark"Elev. 93'STORMDRAINE-8J.P. LarkinIrrevocable Offer of DedicationV0l. 1355 Pg. 132John Larkin, Inc.Vol. 1375 Pg. 324"Inn RoadDevelopment Lot 1"Reference Plat AEasements over Lot 1reserved byD.M. Farrell Trust Easement Note 10E-10EXIST. GATEE11Constr. &Maint. Ease.E-1E-7E7.1"FarmX-ing"E-2# 95D. TWITCHELL# 99A.T. GLASERA.E. SLUSKY# 101 # 115M. WEISSMAN# 117#119# 12114ALot Areas Calculatedto Elev. 95.5'"Normal Mean Water"Survey Note 3E-10EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXIST.GATEEXIST. DRIVE 1195 Shelb. Rd.EXIST. DRIVEEXIST. DRIVESRR XING GATESRR XING GATESSWSFM EXIST. DRIVEFMFMEXIST. BLDGS.(TYPICAL)FORCE MAIN20' EASE.E17(Formerly)M.G
.
TURNER
V
.
35
7
P
.
5
8
2ALLENWOOD INN, LLCVol. 1483 Pgs. 184,186,188EXIST. BLDG.EXIST.EXIST.EXIST.EXIST. BARNIRF(Off Line)IRF(Off Line)EXIST. OVERHEAD 2161' ±
1
2
2
3
'
± 29 - 30 = 2161'±EXIST. DRIVE29n/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/f n/f n/f n/f n/f n/f Total Area105.41± Acres(to Elev. 95.5')E E EE E EEEEET
TTTOVRHD. EL.UG TEL.WW DisposalArea (Appx.)WW DisposalArea (Probable)ECACIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.10 Mansfield View Lane, South Burlington, VT 05403802-864-2323 web: www.cea-vt.comSHEETP2CEA1" = 150'06144BAAUG. 16, 2023E-1. Portion of construction & maintenanceeasement RETAINED by David M. Farrell Trust in2017 Quitclaim Deed to Larkin Milot Partnership, LLPrecorded in Vol. 1364 Pg. 139. (Ref. Vol. 334, Pg. 36.)E-2. Easement for farm purposes ("Farm Crossing")reserved in deed from Black to Perotta, recorded Vol.8, Pg. 414 to the extent necessary to preserve anyrights D.M. Farrell Trust has to cross railroad here.Reference Vol. 1364 Pg. 136.E-7. Easement serving David M. Farrell Trust andLarkin Lot 2 (Vol. 1355 Pg. 159) for ingress andegress across lands of Larkin and/or Milot, over 60'wide strip of land labeled (on Ref. Plat A) as anexisting IRREVOCABLE OFFER of DEDICATION for afuture street, until such time that the street isdedicated to the public. (Ref. Vol. 374 Pg. 610).E-8. 20' wide drainage easement for drain from "InnRoad" detention pond crossing Larkin Lot 2, FarrellDistributing, beneath RR, and discharging onsurveyed property. Recorded in Vol. 1364 Pg. 142,Vol. 1364 Pg. 147, Vol. 1365 Pg. 322.E-9. Non-exclusive access easement over private"Holmes Road Extension" serving existing lots. Nowidth given. See Reference Plan G.- EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES -2 of 220 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N08º05'32"W 529.44'21 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N20º13'59"W 136.31'22 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N14º59'55"E 75.61'23 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N13º38'48"W 304.99'24 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N11º14'03"W 323.16'25 I.ROD TO BE SET N82º34'40"W 328.34'26 1.5" I. PIPE, 1' ABOVE GRADE S06º04'46"W 336.36'27 1.5" I. PIPE, 1' ABOVE GRADE N08º05'32"W 529.44'28 ANGLE POINT (CENTER STREAM) 1223'± ALONG STREAM CENTERLINE S25º20'32"W 698.49' (TIE LINE)29 CENTER STREAM @ 95.5' 2161'± @ 95.5' ELEV. S06º43'52"E 2106.45' (TIE LINE)30 MEAN WATER LEVEL (95.5')13 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N08º22'45"W 357.03'13A CONC. MON. S 81º37'15"W 30.00'13B CONC. MON. N08º22'45"W 60.00'14A CONC. MON. N 81º37'15"E 30.00'14B CONC. MON. N08º22'45"W 220.27'14 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N11º29'13"W 202.90'15 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N08º22'45"W 202.60'16 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N07º03'36"W 304.08'17 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N07º51'44"W 483.73'18 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N08º52'31"W 619.21'19 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT N07º56'07"W 690.58'20 UNMARKED ANGLE POINT30 MEAN WATER LEVEL N84º13'07"E 59.3'±31 3/8" I.ROD FND. 0.2' A.G. N89º48'20"E 648.33'34 T-BAR FND. 1.9' A.G. N08º29'13"W 202.90'35 T-BAR FND. 0.4' A.G. N82º46'05"W 134.89'36 1/2" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S82º45'51"W 313.89'37 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S83º04'31"W 175.60'38 5/8" I. ROD FND. FLUSH S16º46'01"W 21.73'BEARING - DISTANCE - MONUMENT TABLE- LEGEND -E-39F
o
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
0
8
-
3
1
-
2
3 SEE SHEET P1SEE SHEET P1 for SURVEY NOTES _________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS No. 597To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat,consisting of two (2) sheets, properly depicts theresults of a survey conducted under my directsupervision as described in notes above and isbased on our analysis of physical and recordevidence recovered. Boundaries shown aresubstantially in conformance with the record unlessotherwise shown. This plat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403. This statement validonly when accompanied by my original seal andsignature.Grid NorthSurvey Note 2E-10. Easements RESERVED by David M. FarrellTrust over lands conveyed to E.F. Farrell, LLC by2017 deeds recorded in Volume 1364 Page 147(Lot 1) and Volume 1365 Page 322 (Lot 2)summarized as follows:a.) for buried utilities consistent with plans forLarkin Lot 2b.) for access over existing and future roadwaysand drives to Route 7, and, when feasible, toFayette Drivec.) for operation, maintenance repair andreplacement of pillars and gate known as"Allenwood Gate" until relocated.E-11. An easement (typically 150' wide) servingVermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO) fortransmission lines westerly of (and approximatelyparallel with railroad) extends into subject propertyas shown per Condemnation Order, datedDecember 30, 1976, recorded Vol. 131 Pg. 63.E-17. 20' wide easement for sewer force mainfrom Central Avenue to Railroad and "OldeOrchard Park" property. Per Ref. Plans K & L.ALLENWOOD INN, LLCExisting Boundaries Plan - "Allenwood Property"1195 Shelburne Road & 25 Bartlett Bay RoadSouth Burlington, VermontK. "Plan of Sewer Easement - Queen City Park", dated 11/3/70 by "W.J.S.", Map Slide 472.L. "Plan of Land of Maurice Boisvert", last revised 9/17/79 by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Slide 124-2.M. "Thomas A. Farrell Property - "East O' Lake Inn Parcel"", last revised 1/19/85 by G.E. Bedard, Inc. Slide 176-5.N. "Plan of Utility Easement Prepared for Maurice Boisvert (et al.)", dated Mar. 2004 by CEA. Slide 434-1.O. "Boundary Adjustment Between Lands of City ...... & Lands of D.M. Farrell Trust", dated 2/2/07 by CEA. Map Slide 495-5.P. "Inn Road Parcel - Exhibit of Easements", revised 8/6/16 by CEA. Slide 605 Pg. 4, SBLR.Q. "Waterline Survey, Holmes Road Extension", revised 11/5/87 by Pinkham Engineering Associates. Vol. 252 Pg. 23.R. "Sewer Easement Plan No. 4, Bartlett Bay Area", not dated, by "RJB". CEA private files.S. "Boundary Line Adjustment for Estate of Maurice Boisvert", dated June 2006, by Tyler Hart, LS. Map Slide 482.- REFERENCED MAPS or PLATS -SEE SHEET P1n/fTRC8.29.23TRCAdd 2 Wells, 2 WW Areas,Local Power Lines8.31.23TRCRevised Sheet 1 only
L2 - OVERALL CONSERVATION PUD SKETCH PLANALLENtOOD PROPERTzBUILDINGLOT 27 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 4A38.85 ACRESBUILDING LOT1 (PUD)13.99 ACRES(INCLUDES LAND TO BECONVEYED TO ADJACENTPROPERTY OWNERS)BUILDINGLOT 33.75 ACRESBUILDINGLOT 44.5 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 3A9.31 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 2A14.75 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 1A13.22 ACRESLEGENDHAZARDSFEMA FLOOD RISK ZONESRIVER CORRIDORCLASS II WETLANDS & BUFFERSVERY STEEP SLOPES (>25%)LEVEL 1 RESOURCESHABITAT BLOCK OVERLAY DISTRICTLEVEL 2 RESOURCESCLASS III WETLANDS & BUFFERSZONINGZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARYFLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT2021 OFFICIAL TOWN MAPPROPOSED PARKPROPOSED REC PATHSCALE͗ 1Η с 200ΖDATE͗ AUGUST 17, 20230ϴ-31-2023REVISED PER TOtN CODDENTS0100Ζϰ00Ζ200Ζ
SCALE: 1" = 40'L3 - NESTED TRADITIONAL NEI',OR,OOD S<ETC, PLANALLENWOOD PROPERTY40'80''20'0DATE: Ah'hST 1ϳ͕ 202308-31-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS
PUBLIC RD. ROW
(
T
Y
P
)SCALE: 1" = 40'L4 Ͳ NESTED TRAD/T/ONAL NE/',OR,OOD PhD LOT PLANALLENWOOD PROPERTYDATE: Ah'hST 1ϳ͕ 202ϯ40'80''20'0CONSERVATION
AREACONSERVATIONAREA CONSERVATIONAREACONSERVATIONAREA
L5 - TND Illustrative Plan
VILLAGE
GREEN
12 DU
CONSERVATION AREA
PLAY-
GROUND
ALLENWOOD TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
HOLMES RD. EXT.HOLMES RD. EXT.N
MEDIUM MULTIPLEX (TYP)
CONSERVATION AREA
CONSERVATION AREA
POCKET
PARK
POCKET
PARK
4 DU
4 DU
SMALL MULTIPLEX (TYP)
4 DU
DUPLEX (TYP)
2 DU
PRIVATE ALLEYTO BARTLETT BAY RD. >SMALL MULTIPLEX (TYP)
BIKE PATH
1 DU
SINGLE FAMILY (TYP)PRIVATE ALLEYDISSOLVE EXISTING
PROPERTY LINE
HOLMES RD. EXT. NEW
ALIGNMENT
TOWNHOUSE (TYP)
CONSERVATION AREA TRAIL
HOLMES RD. EXT.
Allenwood Property Sketch Plan Applica�on
Atachment 1 – Exis�ng and Proposed Building Dimensions
Prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC | August 17, 2023
Building type Footprint Finished SF # of Floors Height Unfinished Subtotal SF Planned Qty. Subtotal by Type Coverage
Nested TND (South Parcel)
Single Family 1,300 2,600 2 <35'1,300 3,900 11 42,900 14,300
Single Family Detached Garage 480 - 1 <25'480 480 11 5,280 5,280
Duplex 2,300 4,600 2 <35'2,300 6,900 6 41,400 13,800
Duplex 2-car garage 800 - 1 <25'880 880 6 5,280 4,800
Small Multiplex 3,500 7,000 2.5 <35'3,500 10,500 3 31,500 10,500
Medium Multiplex 7,400 19,980 2.5 <35'7,400 27,380 5 136,900 37,000
Townhouse 920 1,840 2.5 <35 500 2,340 13 30,420 11,960
Townhouse (end unit)1,080 2,160 2.5 <35'500 2,660 14 37,240 15,120
330,920 112,760
South Parcel
Existing
Single Family (Demo)1,330 1,330 1,330 1 1,330 1,330
1,330 1,330
North Parcel
Existing
Single Family Detached 7,800 7,800 1 ~12 5,800 13,600 1 13,600 7,800
Detached Garage/Storage 1,540 1,540 1 ~12 1,540 3,080 1 3,080 1,540
Lake Structure 800 800 1 Unknown 800 1,600 1 1,600 800
Boat House 1,125 2,250 2 ~15 1,330 5,830 1 5,830 1,125
Barn 4,270 8,540 2 ~20 4,270 21,350 1 21,350 4,270
Accessory Structure 1,850 3,700 2 ~15 1,850 9,250 1 9,250 1,850
54,710 17,385
Proposed
Single Family Detached 5,000 10,000 2 <35'5,000 25,000 2 50,000 10,000
50,000 10,000
TOTAL EXISTING 56,040 18,715.00
TOTAL PROPOSED
+ EXISTING 435,630 140,145.00
Other Impervious Surfaces
All existing Roads / driveways 136,079.34
Existing roads + Proposed New Roads, Sidewalks, Driveways 303,162.48
L2 - OVERALL CONSERVATION PUD SKETCH PLANALLENtOOD PROPERTzBUILDINGLOT 27 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 4A38.85 ACRESBUILDING LOT1 (PUD)13.99 ACRES(INCLUDES LAND TO BECONVEYED TO ADJACENTPROPERTY OWNERS)BUILDINGLOT 33.75 ACRESBUILDINGLOT 44.5 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 3A9.31 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 2A14.75 ACRESCONSERVATIONLOT 1A13.22 ACRESLEGENDHAZARDSFEMA FLOOD RISK ZONESRIVER CORRIDORCLASS II WETLANDS & BUFFERSVERY STEEP SLOPES (>25%)LEVEL 1 RESOURCESHABITAT BLOCK OVERLAY DISTRICTLEVEL 2 RESOURCESCLASS III WETLANDS & BUFFERSZONINGZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARYFLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT2021 OFFICIAL TOWN MAPPROPOSED PARKPROPOSED REC PATHSCALE͗ 1Η с 200ΖDATE͗ AUGUST 17, 20230ϴ-31-2023REVISED PER TOtN CODDENTS0100Ζϰ00Ζ200Ζ
L5 - TND Illustrative Plan
VILLAGE
GREEN
12 DU
CONSERVATION AREA
PLAY-
GROUND
ALLENWOOD TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
HOLMES RD. EXT.HOLMES RD. EXT.N
MEDIUM MULTIPLEX (TYP)
CONSERVATION AREA
CONSERVATION AREA
POCKET
PARK
POCKET
PARK
4 DU
4 DU
SMALL MULTIPLEX (TYP)
4 DU
DUPLEX (TYP)
2 DU
PRIVATE ALLEYTO BARTLETT BAY RD. >SMALL MULTIPLEX (TYP)
BIKE PATH
1 DU
SINGLE FAMILY (TYP)PRIVATE ALLEYDISSOLVE EXISTING
PROPERTY LINE
HOLMES RD. EXT. NEW
ALIGNMENT
TOWNHOUSE (TYP)
CONSERVATION AREA TRAIL
HOLMES RD. EXT.
1
Marla Keene
To:Betsy Brown
Subject:RE: 'EXTERNAL'Re: 33 Bartlett Bay Rd.
From: Scott Gardner <sgardner@buildingenergyus.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Betsy Brown <bbrown@southburlingtonvt.gov>; dpw <dpw@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: Re: 'EXTERNAL'Re: 33 Bartlett Bay Rd.
Hi Betsey,
Just left you a voicemail. Would be so kind as to forward a link to
information about the Farrell proposal for development of their parcel on
Holmes Rd. I would like to attend any public meetings and review the
engineering documents.
More specifically, I am concerned about the drainage in the areas that
impact Bartlett Bay Rd. The culvert by #25 is undersized and water often
backs up in the swale along the road. Water flowing south from the
Farrell property floods the yards along Lakeview and Bartlett Bay Road on
a routine basis.
I am wondering when the culvert under Bartlett Bay Road will be
replaced with a larger culvert. I also would like to raise the issue as part
of the Farrel planning process for it seems that town planners may not be
fully aware of the current drainage problems.
Please let me know who you think I should contact to work on this issue. I
have tried to contact David Wheeler but his phone line does not work.
(Perhaps you could forward his email address). Over 10 years ago I met
with the city manager and have discussed the matter twice with public
works.
2
By the way, the culvert that was approved by public works for installation
at 33 Bartlett Bay Rd last year has been totally submerged twice since it
was installed. So it is clearly too small unless other drainage work is
planned to improve the flow of water along the swale on Bartlett Bay Rd.
Thank you,
Scott
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 9:10 AM Betsy Brown <bbrown@southburlingtonvt.gov> wrote:
Hi Scott,
Hi Scott,
We directed the property owner to work with Public Works to obtain a right of way opening permit.
-Betsy
Betsy Brown
Planning & Zoning Assistant
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov