HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-23-12_1195 Shelburne Rd_Allenwood Inn LLC
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD-23-12 1195 Shelburne Road – Master Plan Sketch Plan Application
DATE: November 7, 2023 Development Review Board Meeting
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.
The Board reviewed the application on October 3, 2023 and is planned to have a site visit on November 2,
2023. They continued the hearing to November 7 to complete review of the Staff report.
On October 25 and 26, the applicant submitted four revised plan sheets to respond to some of the comments
provided by the Board on October 3 and to some of the public comments made on the same date. This report
was prepared prior to completion of the site visit.
Subject areas discussed by the Board on October 3 are listed below. The Board is welcome to provide
additional feedback to the applicant on any of the previously discussed topics. Additional feedback may be
based on information that has come to light due to the site visit or due to public comment.
SUMMARY OF AND UPDATES TO SUBJECT AREAS DISCUSSED ON OCTOBER 3:
Layout of the TND-PUD. The homes are organized with townhomes in the center, with most homes rear-loaded
and fronting or backing onto an open or civic space. the applicant has elected to present a wholly different
version of this, which is discussed more thoroughly under Public Comment below.
Official Map Public Park and Open Space. The applicant indicated it is their intention to deliver a final master
plan application that meets the minimums required for a hearing but does not anticipate submitting all details
so as to reduce expenditure prior to the City Council having the opportunity to move forward with acquisition
of the public park.
Phasing. The applicant is intending to apply for full final approval for the full development proposal as part of
the first phase, though they anticipate requesting construction phasing to break the project into a series of
zoning permits.
Existing Roads. The applicant is proposing to retain all existing roads. There was some confusion as to whether
roads in the conservation area would be maintained or simply not removed.
1. Staff considers the Board may want to provide additional feedback on this subject after the site visit.
#SD-23-12
2
Configuration of Development Area. The applicant stated they are meeting the required density minimums for
the lot, but did not offer much justification for the configuration of the single family home lots. The applicant
has not yet submitted a revised plan for this area responding to the limitations on development in natural
resource hazard areas.
2. Members indicated they wanted to discuss the configuration of three single family development lots
further after review of the remainder of the staff report.
Connectivity. The applicant said they intended to provide connectivity both within the neighborhood and to
adjoining neighborhoods.
3. The applicant’s revised plans now show a portion of the development as containing a recreation path.
Staff recommends the Board review.
Lake Access. The applicant stated that they do not intend to provide public lake access unless the City Council
takes action to acquire the planned public park and open space.
Public Comment. Public comment generally fell into four subject areas.
1. The relationship between the TND and the existing homes on Holmes Road.
Without direction from the Board and in response to neighbor feedback, the applicant has presented a
potential redesign. Both the previously submitted plan and the potential redesign are included in the
packet for the board. In the redesign, the homes nearest Holmes Road are proposed to be served from
the front by a new public street. Holmes road is proposed to remain unchanged, and the new homes
are located slightly nearer to the existing homes in the revised configuration. The remainder of the
development has also been reconfigured.
The Planning and Zoning Director reviewed the potential redesign on November 1, 2023 and offers the
following comments.
For this continued sketch plan meeting, the applicant has provided a substantially modified layout
of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) portion of the application.
This new design represents a significant step backward in meeting the intent and objectives of the
TND and the community’s goals of creating a strong sense of neighborhood and connecting people
that the updated Regulations articulate.
The previously-provided version of the TND was thoughtfully laid out to present equitable and
universal access to civic spaces; a hierarchy of streets, lanes, sidewalks, and shared use paths to
foster a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood; a clear orientation of homes towards a high-quality
public environment; and in general terms, a “front-yard” neighborhood – one where residents are
invited to spend time on front porches and interacting with neighbors. The original layout, further,
integrated existing and future neighborhoods together.
The proposed redesign layout moves away from all of these. The single family homes now have
front-facing garages, creating over a dozen drive cuts into a sidewalk that previously had none and
significant building facade space dedicated to garages. It creates inconsistent orientation of homes,
with garages facing front doors. Park space is put into fewer sites with less clear delineation of
public and private space. It groups the larger multi-family buildings into a single block with no
separation by park space or other uses. It eliminates the hierarchy of streets, as alleys will need to
meet fire department access where they are the only paved access. It isolates this neighborhood
from existing neighborhoods. And it creates a “back-yard” neighborhood – one where residents
spend the bulk of their time behind their homes and unconnected the larger neighborhood. This is
#SD-23-12
3
counter to the community feedback that led to the creation of these regulations and the draft 2024
City Plan.
The Purpose Statement (15.C.06A) and TND Characteristics (15.C.06B) provide a high-level guide to
the intent of a Traditional Neighborhood Development. These characteristics are then executed
thought dozens of individual standards, from building, street, and civic space types (Article 11) to
subdivision and overall PUD standards (Articles 15A and 15C), and the standards specific to the TND
PUD type (Article 15C). The applicant has demonstrated, through the concept outlined in the initial
application, that can be thoughtfully achieved.
The proposed redesign layout – at a broad level – appears to me to not meet these purposes and
characteristics. Moreover, this revised layout, will, I strongly sense, make later demonstration of
compliance with each of the individual standards very difficult as the applicant tries to justify these
design features. If this layout is approved at a Master Plan stage, meeting the more detailed
standards in the LDRs will be potentially difficult. The applicant will likely have to thread the needle
of conforming to the specific LDRs while arguing they must be allowed to conform to the overall
concept as previously approved. Resolutions to meeting these standards will be significantly
constrained. Examples of this are orientation of buildings, design and function of civic spaces,
distribution of housing, pedestrian orientation and safety, and more.
This project has the opportunity to build a neighborhood that the community will showcase. The
proposed redesign, with few exceptions (the added shared use path connecting through the project,
which can be accomplished in the original layout being an exception)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
PUD standards require development to be configured to maximize connections with adjoining parcels
and neighborhoods, and avoid creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development, except
where necessary to separate incompatible land uses.
Staff’s comments on the previously submitted plan were relatively limited and generally supportive
because of its conformance with the characteristics and requirements of the TND PUD type.
The potential redesign abandons the originally proposed street hierarchy with streets delineating
common and protected spaces is now lost. Though in the redesign, the townhomes ostensibly front on
a common space, the road to their rear must meet the requirements for public safety and delivery
access, therefore the applicant’s representation of an “alley” is inaccurate, and the alley will need to be
a full street. For similar reasons, in the potential redesign, the duplex homes also face on two streets.
Further, the potential redesign proliferates the existing substandard dead-end road, reducing rather
than improving neighborhood connectivity in a manner similar to Dorset Farms or the Orchards.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss the potential redesign and provide feedback to the applicant in
context of the above staff commentary.
Staff was not anticipating a major reconfiguration and therefore only planning and zoning staff have
provided feedback on the potential redesign. If the Board considers the redesign holds merit, Staff
recommends they continue the meeting to allow more thorough staff and departmental feedback.
2. The potential impacts to the environment, including Potash Brook
3. Capacity of municipal services
#SD-23-12
4
4. Traffic safety on Holmes Road
PORTIONS OF OCTOBER 3, 2023 STAFF REPORT NOT YET DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD
The remainder of the October 3 Staff report, which was not discussed explicitly by the Board on that date, is
copied below. Updates are indicated. Numbering of staff comments is unchanged.
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.
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
#SD-23-12
5
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.
UPDATE FOR 11/7: The applicant has modified their existing conditions map to show areas of steep
slope (in addition to areas of very steep slope). Steep slopes further restrict the potential development
on Lots 3 and 4. Since the applicant has not updated their proposed conservation PUD plans to reflect
the initial feedback from the Board, Staff considers no additional discussion to be needed at this time,
but notes the previous comments questioning the configuration of development lots 2, 3, and 4 still
apply.
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 River
#SD-23-12
6
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.
23. UPDATE 11/7: Now that the Board has reviewed and considered the impacts of the development lots 2, 3,
and 4, Staff recommends the Board provide a clear statement as to their expectation for modification of
those lots.
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.
24. 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
#SD-23-12
7
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPSCALE: 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 & BUFFERSSTEEP SLOPES (15%-25%)ZONINGZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARYFLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT2021 OFFICIAL TOWN MAPPROPOSED PARKPROPOSED REC PATH08-31-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS10-25-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS
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
SCALE: 1" = 40'L3 - NESTED TRADITIONAL NEI',OR,OOD S<ETC, PLANALLENWOOD PROPERTY40'80''20'0DATE: Ah'hST 1ϳ͕ 202308-31-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS10-25-2023REVISED PER TOWN COMMENTS
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.
L5 - TND Illustrative Plan
VILLAGE
GREEN
12 DU
CONSERVATION AREA
ALLENWOOD TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
HOLMES RD. EXT.HOLMES RD. EXT.N
MEDIUM MULTIPLEX (TYP)
CONSERVATION AREA
POCKET
PARK
4 DU
4 DU
COTTAGE COMMERCIAL (TYP)
1 DU
PRIVATE ALLEYTO BART
LETT
BAY
RD
.
>
SMALL MULTIPLEX (TYP)
1 DU
SINGLE FAMILY (TYP)PRIVATE ALLEYTOWNHOUSE (TYP)
BIKE
PATH
3 DU
3 DU
5 DU
5 DU
2 DU
DUPLEX (TYP)HOA VEGETATED BUFFER2 DU
DUPLEX (TYP)
PUBLIC RD. ROW (TYP)L4 - NESTED TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PUD LOT PLANALLENtOOD PROPERTzCONSERVATION
AREACONSERVATIONAREA CONSERVATIONAREAHOABUFFERAREASALE͗ 1Η с 40ΖDATE ̀AUGUST 17, 20230ϴ-31-2023REsISED PER TOtN ODDENTS10-2ϱ-2023REsISED PER TOtN ODDENTS020Ζϴ0ΖΖ40Ζ
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
3
From: Scott Gardner <sgardner@buildingenergyus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 5:14 PM
To: Betsy Brown <bbrown@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: 'EXTERNAL'Re: 33 Bartlett Bay Rd.
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Betsey,
I am concerned about the driveway culvert. It is currently undersized.
The neighborhood has flooded twice in recent memory with water
backing up along the drainage swale along Bartlett Bay Road. If the
project at 33 Bartlett Bay Rd calls for replacing the driveway culvert, are
you or someone from public works going to allow any input to make sure
that it is sized correctly?
Thank you,
Scott
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Betsy Brown <bbrown@southburlingtonvt.gov> wrote:
Hi Scott,
We are aware of the project and are in communication with the property owner.
-Betsy
Betsy Brown
Planning & Zoning Assistant
4
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gardner <sgardner@buildingenergyus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:38 PM
To: Betsy Brown <bbrown@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: 'EXTERNAL'33 Bartlett Bay Rd.
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Betsey this is Scott Gardner I live at 56 Bartlett Bay Rd and I’m writing about a construction project going on at 33
Bartlett Bay Rd. The owners are doing some fairly major drainage work there installing culverts and I have some
concerns about the lack of silt fencing as well as adding more stress to an already maxed out drainage swale. Is there
a permit for this ongoing work. I appreciate your response my cell phone is area 802-363-1085 and thank you
Sent from my iPhone
--
K. Scott Gardner
Building Energy www.BuildingEnergyUS.com
1570 South Brownell Road
Williston, Vermont 05495
802.652.1191 ext 11
Fax 802.658.3982
--
K. Scott Gardner
Building Energy www.BuildingEnergyUS.com
1570 South Brownell Road
Williston, Vermont 05495
802.652.1191 ext 11
Fax 802.658.3982
I, Adam Glaser, as a long-Ɵme resident and owner of a home on the currently
private, unpaved, 10mph speed limited, Holmes Rd with my 9 other neighbors,
wanted to briefly give my thoughts on the proposed development.
My family and I enjoy the beauty, the nature, the wildlife, and the serenity that
our neighborhood has provided for as long as it has existed. I understand the
need for addiƟonal housing, and think that thoughƞul, appropriately scaled
developments, designed to minimize the impact on the environment, wildlife, and
current residents should be the standard for what South Burlington aims in the
effort to add housing. This project as is proposed would eliminate our current
cohesive community and immerse it into a much larger dense development. The
current Holmes Rd. runs by my front yard feels more like a shared driveway with
my neighbors than a proper road. We occasionally put an end table at the end of
our driveway by the road with excess vegies from our garden and for neighbor to
stop and take for free. Just last week I saw a bobcat that had crossed the field
that is Site 1, and stood in the road staring at me before wandering across my
property south onto Farrell’s property. At night it is pitch black and quiet as there
is plenty of buffer from the noise of Shelburne Rd. I say this just to give you a
sense of how it currently and has always felt living in our neighborhood.
I understand the need for more housing, however the current scale of the PUD on
lot 1 seems to proposes that all 100+ units be served by a ring road running
directly in front of my house, and a through road pointed directly at my driveway.
I imagine there would be fast moving traffic, not just from the 100+ new residents,
but also from people test driving Audi’s from Shearer Audi, who already use
Holmes Rd for test drives only to realize it’s a private dirt road aŌer the railroad
tracks, and lastly with the entrance from Bartlet Bay on the South, this side road
will become a through road serving as a way to get around a small secƟon of
Shelburne Rd during the ever increasing 1 hour per day that Shelburne Rd gets
completely backed up.
The scale and placement of the proposed development would in effect destroy
our current neighborhood and move us into the neighborhood as proposed on lot
1. Understanding the need for housing, I feel that as a minimum, there is a
compromise that could be made to allow for a smaller development and for us to
maintain some semblance of our neighborhood. Of course, our neighborhood will
never be as quiet and serene as it is now and has been, but if our current Holmes
Rd was leŌ as is with a conƟnual forested buffer between it and the new
neighborhood then we would sƟll have our neighborhood. This would insulate us
somewhat from the noise, street lights, etc. and provide a physical barrier limiƟng
the inevitable trespasses of people in this new development looking for beach
access and finding it, but on private property. Without maintaining our current
Holmes Rd. there would also need to be 10 driveways cuƫng through a current
block of trees.
I realize this proposal of keeping Holmes Rd. as is and with a forested buffer, may
mean eliminaƟng some housing units in the field (Lot 1). Eric Ferrell explained to
us that the South Burlington development rules make it clear that a certain
quanƟty of housing is prescribed for this proposal due to the overall size of the
enƟre project. Even though he’s a developer who I’m sure would like to maximize
the return on investment, he has menƟoned that the ciƟes density rules actually
prevent him from puƫng in a significantly smaller new community even though
he wouldn’t necessarily object to one that is a smaller size. Should this minimum
density requirement become a concern or limiƟng factor prevenƟng the smaller
scale development that accommodates keeping Holmes Rd. and a reasonable
forested buffer between it and the new neighborhood, I would quesƟon the
appropriateness of this being considered as a single project both North and South
of Holmes Rd. These are two disparate pieces of land, the field South of Holmes
Rd. and the expansive property on the North side of Holmes Rd., they are
connected only by a narrow land bridge and common owner. This being
considered as a single project seems to allow for the bulk of the conservaƟon to
be North of Holmes Rd. and all but 2 of the new units crammed into the field
South of Holmes Rd. It seems as though the intent of the conservaƟon and
density regulaƟons are being mis-applied when this is considered as a single
project, and I invite you to consider this when you come and inevitably come to
visit the properƟes.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
ALLENWOOD PROJECT -DRB MEETING 2023-10-03
Notes by:
Greg Titcomb
115 Holmes Rd.
South Burlington,VT
05403
INTRO
●One of the first and primary points that the DRB’s own paperwork asks of this project is
“How it fits into the context of its surroundings”-it doesn’t.This isn’t ‘in-fill’or
improving any sort of existing neighborhood or building housing near existing
businesses/services.It’s manufacturing a completely new neighborhood in an isolated
location that will not integrate with any existing neighborhoods,infrastructure or
commerce in a positive way besides the most basic goal of “increased housing”.Many of
those reasons have to do with access.Holmes Rd is an industrial focused road that I
would say does a below adequate job of serving the 10 current residents on the road.
I’ve seen several numbers in various proposals all ranging from 109 up to 127 additional
housing units.Giving us a 10-12x multiplier on a road that is already quite stressed
seems like a bad idea.The capacity is just not there.
STREET ACCESS CONCERN
●One way access across railroad tracks -This is the north exit.Most things are north.
It’s going to be the primary entry/exit point no matter how much you might want people to
utilize a new road connecting to Bartlett Bay Rd.We already have many awkward
situations with only a handful of houses.This will become a terrible bottleneck for the
proposed neighborhood.Building here without increasing the railroad crossing to two
lanes makes absolutely no sense.A site visit (and traffic study)will likely indicate this
crossing will not be sufficient.
●Trucking facilities -Farrell Distributing and the UPS/T-Force shipping facility rely on
heavy amounts of tractor trailer traffic;massive trucks going up and down the road and
crossing into their respective parking lots all day every day.
●Shearer Acura/Audi visibility -the hill to the left when exiting the Shearer service road
is atrocious.There’s no visibility for left hand turns (towards Shelburne Rd).I basically
drive down the road with one hand inching towards the horn in my car every trip I take.
Adding 200 vehicles to this is crazy,especially at certain times of the day when people
are exiting East Lake businesses,which need to use this access as there’s no left turns
directly onto Shelburne Rd.
○The Farrell parking lots and Goss service road are also angled in ways that
encourage people to not look west for oncoming vehicles.
●Road condition -the road is battered as is from the current traffic and the
aforementioned tractor trailer trucks in front of Farrell and TForce.You pretty much have
to drive your car down the middle of the road.
●Traffic light at end of Holmes Rd where it meets Shelburne Rd -this light frequently
backs up now,especially with left turns to go north.If it backs up as much as you’d
expect with any entire drop-in neighborhood it will start blocking business access as well
as the fire dept driveway.
●Holmes Road is truly not capable of handling this traffic.Literally last night there was a
large piece of railroad machinery parked,nearly blocking the entrance to our
neighborhood,without lighting or reflectors on the front.Today when I went out for lunch
by car I needed to wait for several minutes for that same piece of machinery to be
moved off of the tracks.This is tolerable now because of the fact that we are 10 houses.
When this is increased by literally 10-12x it’s going to be messy.
●No matter how much you wish it,Holmes Rd is going to be the primary point of
entry/exit.People take the shortest route.We can hope they’ll take the long way around
and use the new road on Bartlett Bay equally,but if we’re being honest no one headed
north (the primary travel direction)is going to take a longer route to sit at an extra traffic
light on Shelburne Rd.They’re going to try and take the shortest route possible,which is
Holmes Rd.
CAR CENTRIC NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
●All of my previous concerns stem from the fact that this will 100%be a car centric
neighborhood as there’s nothing actually in the plans for pedestrians/bike transportation.
There has been mention of a wonderful sounding bike path,but it’s all accompanied by
“maybes”and “theoretically”and how it requires cutting across David Farrell’s land,
crossing railroad tracks,going under the powerline right of way,and is not pictured on
any map.This cannot be an empty promise and MUST be a fully planned out and
executed part of this project for it to integrate this neighborhood to any part of South
Burlington.I cannot stress this point enough.
●I am a big supporter of urban development that helps reduce reliance upon cars.I’m not
a total hypocrite,I do have a car,but put what I consider to be very low mileage on it and
try to use alternate transportation when possible.I walk to the businesses that are within
reasonable range of our house:to the gym and grocery store whenever I can,multiple
times a week.I make the 1 mile walk from our house to Hannaford carrying groceries
because I think it’s the right thing to do.
○I believe that by multiplying the traffic by such a magnitude on a Holmes Rd that
is currently not capable of carrying this new development’s needs that walking to
the store may no longer be a possibility and it most likely won’t be something
anyone in the new neighborhood ever considers.I don’t want to be forced or
encouraged to use a car while I’m capable of walking and the weather safely
permits it.
●Sidewalk to nowhere -there’s going to be a great sidewalk inside the new
neighborhood that goes around the green,but that’s it.Cool to get in your daily steps,try
to burn some calories,and I’ll surely walk my dog there to avoid the new 2 lane paved
road replacing our single lane private dirt road,but it doesn’t contribute to South
Burlington as a whole.No one will come into the neighborhood to use it,and residents of
the new neighborhood can’t use it to get out of the neighborhood;no foot access in or
out.It doesn’t make it easier for me or anyone who lives here to do anything without a
car.
●No walking access to Shelburne Rd -once you actually hit the railroad tracks and
make your way across the single lane crossing (already something you need to be
vigilant about,before considering our 200+new neighbors)you need to walk ¼mile up
the aforementioned busy industrial road dodging semi trucks,test drivers,mechanics,
and fire trucks.
○I don’t know if you’ve ever been nearly hit by someone test driving a technology
laden luxury SUV that they don’t know how to operate,but it happens to me on a
regular basis.That and mechanics taking their cars from 0 to way too fast while
trying to diagnose issues,my head is constantly on a swivel already.
○There’s also poorly designed driveways at Shearer,Goss,and Farrell.The traffic
coming from the Orchard Vet &the carwash are also notorious for not even
thinking about stopping.
○Once you make it up that far you’re faced with the choice of walking in the road
(which is insane)or walking down one of these service roads and through local
business parkings lots and driveways.Luckily they’ve never yelled at me,but if
we see any increase in foot traffic they might start taking notice.
○The movie theater,Bliss Bee,and a few other businesses are 1,600 feet away
from the railroad crossing in a straight line,but it’s so dangerous to get there from
the proposed building site that no families will ever walk there.It’s a
neighborhood that’s going to necessitate a car for even the shortest trips.Yet
more congestion and pollution from Shelburne Rd.
PRIVACY CONCERNS
●This one is definitely selfish,but there is nothing in this plan for these 200+new people
to access the lake that they’re so close to.Besides Mr Farrell none of the residents of
Holmes Rd have very large lots at all.It’s not like they could walk through a piece of
distant wooded land,they’d be literally walking across our driveways/lawns close enough
to look in windows/doors and appear on security cameras.
CLOSING
●We know that the place we live in is very special.It’s the reason my wife and I made the
decision to build a house here on the location of her childhood home when the
opportunity arose.Our two primary complaints about living here have been:
○Living off of Shelburne and the traffic that entails
○And the lack of walking options from our house
●This current development proposal does nothing to improve those things for existing
residents and will actively make both of them worse.
●I just want this council to ask themselves if this planned neighborhood is worth cutting
down the proposed amount of trees,removing wildlife habitat,and eliminating wildlife
corridors.Will the new development be a big enough benefit to the town?These are big
decisions to make because once that nature is gone,it’s gone forever.I want everyone
to be certain these huge sacrifices will make for the betterment of our potential new
neighbors and existing ones as well.
●If this council decides that the new development is worth it from an environmental
standpoint and that Holmes Rd can somehow handle this residential traffic (in addition to
all of the services vehicles needed for a project of this size)and that you think my
concerns about cars/pedestrians and almost everything else are unfounded -that’s fine.
I won’t stand in the way of progress.I know every house stands where trees,nature,and
silence once were,I get that,but please for the love of god,I beg of you,do not let
this development go forward with the single lane railroad crossing!!It’s going to be
a curse on the existing neighborhood as well as the new one by acting as a miserable
gateway into the neighborhood filled with unfriendly interactions with residents,visitors,
and service vehicles.
●Thank you
POST MEETING ADDITIONS
●Quin brought up a point during the meeting that this is the first “Conservation PUD”to
come before the board in South Burlington.Seeing as there’s no precedent for this and
the fact that this seems like one of the most complicated such projects South Burlington
will come across (100+acres,single owner,majority on the waterfront,etc)I want the
board to carefully consider whether this project is truly fulfilling the goal of conservation.
It’s definitely been phrased as primarily wanting to subdivide the one large lot into 3 and
“this is the only way we can make it work”,by adding 120+units in the south field,as far
away from the 3 main lots as possible.The field feels “over developed”in my opinion for
what feels like a somewhat trivial subdivision on one of the largest lots in the area that’s
already mostly developed with past structures and roads.We appreciate your questions,
comments,concerns,and due diligence on this project and know/trust whatever this
board and city council comes to in the end will be the right decision.
●Again,thank you for your time and we look forward to hearing more details in the coming
public meetings &site visits.
Greg Titcomb
115 Holmes Rd
South Burlington,VT
05403
Michael H. Lipson
125 Holmes Road Ext.
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Tel. (802) 863-0296
Email: mlip2@yahoo.com
October 7, 2023
Memorandum to: South Burlington Development Review Board [DRB]
Re: 1195 Shelburne Road/25 Bartlett Bay Road
MASTER PLAN SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-23-12
Dear Members of the DRB:
As I was recovering from a minor surgery on Tues. October 3, 2023, I was
unable to attend the meeting at which you discussed the Sketch Plan
Application above.
My spouse and I have been property owners and residents at 125 Holmes Road
Ext. for roughly 25 years. We raised our two children in our home. We have a
number of concerns and I am hopeful that you will accept these comments
from me at this time.
1. Overall Concern: The proposed122 unit development is simply too big
for the space and threatens both environmental and infrastructure
resources.
2. Concerns about access, roads, and impact. It is my understanding
that under Vermont law, our rights of way on Holmes Road Ext. may not
be altered in any fashion without the agreement of each homeowner.
Consequently, we want to be well-informed about the various possible
provisions in this plan.
a. Holmes Road Ext., a dirt and gravel road, serves our community. It is
owned by Mr. David Farrell or the Farrell Trust. Each of the
homeowners on the road has a deeded right of way for ingress and
egress on Holmes Road Ext. We have maintained this road over many
decades at our expense, both generally and in winters.
b. The road connects with a section of public road West of the RR
crossing from Holmes Road; the RR crossing is a one lane crossing.
c. We have established, as a community, a speed limit of 10 mph on the
road. There have been incidents, nevertheless, where drivers exceed
that speed limit, sometimes at significant speed.
d. The proposed development of 122 dwellings and/or commercial
buildings on the property to the south and east of our homes on the
road will have a dramatic impact on neighborhood traffic and will also
have a serious impact on the flow of traffic onto Shelburne Rd. It is
difficult to imagine the impact of that during high-use times.
e. Regarding proposed roads.
i. Many of the homeowners in our neighborhood would prefer not
to have a new, circular, wider, paved road around it. The
current Holmes Road Ext. serves our needs.
ii. The proposed development includes a circumferential road
around the exterior of the development, which would inevitably
become a “shortcut” around Shelburne Rd. traffic – at high
speed. This new road appears to eliminate the existing Holmes
Road Ext.
iii. The plan includes a N-S road connecting to Bartlett Bay Road,
thereby providing a second ingress and egress from the Holmes
Road Ext. area (Allenwood Property L3).
2. Concerns about the nature of the area and the impact on the
environment.
a. The current proposal is disproportionate to a significant degree with
our current neighborhood, as well as adjoining neighborhoods to the
north and south of us (Bartlett Bay Road and Queen City Park).
b. The proposed development is sited near Lake Champlain, a valuable
environmental and recreational resource to Vermont.
c. State environmental maps show wetlands in many parts of the plat
that is designated for the 122-unit development.
d. The property to the south of the road and west of the RR tracks, as
depicted on Allenwood Property L1 (Existing Conditions) shows few
areas of wetlands, mainly on the fringes of the woodlands and the
open field. A recent Google Maps printout appears to show other
wetlands areas that are more within the center of the field to be
developed. I have frequently seen substantial areas of standing water
in locations around the center of this area (over many years, not just
this summer’s extreme rainy periods.)
e. It is difficult to see how the addition of this many housing units will
not have adverse effect on lake quality through stormwater run-off
and other toxic waste.
f. The sketch plan drawings show considerable removal of forestland to
the east of the N-S span of the existing road. (Compare Allenwood
Property L1 with Allenwood Property L5.) This forestland includes
wildlife habitat and I believe it to be a wildlife corridor. We have
personally seen and been visited by deer and other wildlife (e.g.,red
fox) coming thru the woods and on our property.
g. In informal conversations, Eric Farrell has suggested that the some of
the remaining forestland I describe, which also creates a barrier to
sight and some protection from sounds to the east, including from
Shelburne Road traffic, would be given to Holmes Rd. homeowners to
retain as a barrier. He has also suggested that this might be
expanded in several areas.
h. There is also some forestland or rows of trees along the southern side
of Holmes Road Ext. It is insufficiently wide to provide much
separation from the proposed development. It should be widened with
considerable planting of new trees.
3. Miscellaneous Comments
a. Building units depicted on the drawings that have been submitted
represent some sort of commercial usage, at least in part. A serious
consideration of our neighborhood would show that it is not isolated from
developed South Burlington areas. There are many services and
businesses available to us within a short walk. These include a carwash,
banks, 2 childcare facilities, several places to eat or have a cup of coffee, a
women’s clothing store, a nail salon and a pilates studio. This is far from
an exhaustive list and suggests that there is no reason to encourage
additional traffic to the area by including commercial activities in this
development. Indeed, a change to include additional affordable housing
units is more desirable in my view.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. We
respectfully request notification of the site visit that was discussed at the
meeting.
cc: Eric Farrell
1
Marla Keene
From:Marty Gillies
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2023 8:27 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:FW: 'EXTERNAL'Farrell Property PUD
Re: brush pile potentially located within the proposed habitat block
Marty Gillies
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning Department
180 Market Street, South Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
From: Michael Turner <comittina@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 10:59 PM
To: Marty Gillies <mgillies@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Cc: MJ <mjr110@comcast.net>; Patricia Eldred <wpeldred@comcast.net>; sharon behar <sharon.behar@gmail.com>;
Gretchen Gaida <redgaida@gmail.com>
Subject: 'EXTERNAL'Farrell Property PUD
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Marty,
I, along with my wife MJ Reale, am an abutter in Queen City Park to the Farrell PUD at its northern end. We live at 110
Central Ave, last house on the left, beside Eldred and Behar. I was at the meeting when the PUD was first presented to
the public.
I write to make known and hopefully a part of the site visit, a large log dump at the northern end of the Farrell property
that is filling part of the riparian valley created by Potash Brook close to the lake.
The dump is across the brook from our home. We hear and see activity from dumping equipment and saws frequently
as the Farrell's manage the trees on the property and dispose of log, brush and stumpage into the valley formed by the
brook. Eventually, the dump will reach the brook.
I consider it a fire hazard in times of drought and an environmental hazard to the brook and lake.
I hope the DRB and City will, in the course of reviewing the applicants development proposals, include removal of the log
dump and restoration of the site to its original forested and sloped approach to Potash Brook.
2
I hope it will be included in the site visit walk.
I will pinpoint the location on the applicants maps if requested.
Thank you for considering this information in your decision making process.
Sincerely,
MichaelTurner
110 Central Ave
802-598-3669 c
1
Marla Keene
From:Jane Boisvert <janeboisvert@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:48 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:'EXTERNAL'Farrell project site visit
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Marla,
My husband and I are disappointed to see on the upcoming site visit this
week that you are not going to be going into the field where the biggest
part of the development is planned as well as the woods on the south and
west sides of the field and our own
neighborhood that would be severely impacted.
Also, to see the woods that provide the wildlife habitat corridor.
Hoping this will be added to the site visit. If so, then people should wear
boots.
Thank you.
Jane Boisvert & Dana Twitchell
1
Marla Keene
From:THOMAS R. and KATHLEEN H. EASTON <trekhe@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:10 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:'EXTERNAL'#SD-23-12 Site Visit Thurs. 11/02/2023 --- Neighborhood Concerns
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello, Marla,
On Fri. 10/17/2023 via USPS mail, abutting property owners received the notice bearing your
signature, along with a map, regarding the Thurs. 11/02/2023 scheduled site visit at 12:00 p.m.
(noon) to the Allenwood-Farrell Properties proposed project (#SD-23-12). Since receipt of that
information, neighborhood property owners have been expressing and sharing their concerns and
disappointment regarding the nature, extent and route of the proposed site plan visit.
Of the 5 STOPs indicated on the provided map, all are located north of the Holmes Road Extension
on acreage that is proposed to host three large residential parcels (Lots 2, 3, and 4). In contrast,
there appears to be no plan and/or no interest in visiting Lot 1, the environmentally important "South
Meadow", where the overwhelming portion of new development and disruption is proposed to
occur. Further, it appears that members of the DRB will not view that area near Bartlett Bay Road
which will be used as an additional point of entrance/egress for the proposed TND. Finally, and of
special import to our small, ten-home community, DRB members will not visit the quarter-mile section
of Holmes Road Extension on which our properties are located --- the very neighborhood which will
be most significantly impacted by the proposed development.
At the very least --- after the 5 STOPs on the scheduled tour, why couldn't the attendees' private
vehicles and/or provided passenger van make a drive in-and-out of our neighborhood to augment the
scheduled site visit? There is a generous turn-around at the end of our road that has been used
successfully by a wide-range of vehicles for many years. The addition of this "STOP 6" on the tour
would afford DRB members and Staff the opportunity to gain a better understanding of our
community. As an additional benefit, they could also conveniently exit their vehicles to experience a
first-hand, "boots on the ground" visit to the ecologically significant and rich natural environment
found in Lot 1.
In closing, the applicant's proposal would significantly and permanently reshape not only our small
community, but would also impact adjacent neighborhoods and infrastructure, as well as being a
change-agent where invaluable natural resources are concerned. Given the scope and scale of the
proposed project, I believe the above request is reasonable, equitable, and appropriate.
With best regards,
Kathy Easton
Thomas R. and Kathleen H. Easton
101 Holmes Road
2
South Burlington, VT 05403-7726
Home: (802) 497-0425
Kathy's Cell: (703) 475-0227
Tom's Cell: (703) 472-3236
Email: trekhe@comcast.net
1
Marla Keene
From:Marjorie Lipson <mylipson@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:41 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:'EXTERNAL'Allenwood site visit
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Ms. Keene,
We are writing to register our utter amazement and dismay that the planned DRB Board “site visit” to the
Allenllenwood Inn LLC -- Farrell Properties proposed development does not include visiting the proposed site
of 120+ housing units in a designated wetlands, that is wooded and provides a habitat for many species. The
stated purpose of the visit is “is to orient members of the Board to the site, given that many of them have
never been on the property…..”
With all due respect, I am quite confident that most board members have not walked the portion of the
property that will be the most impacted by the development plan. I simply cannot imagine that Board
members would not be especially concerned about the site that is being proposed for such a densely packed
development.
Please reconsider this visit to include "Lot 1" – but, bring your boots because the site is very wet!
Marjorie Lipson
Michael Lipson
--
Marjorie Y. Lipson, Ph.D.
802.310.8268
1
Marla Keene
From:Marc Sherman <duck@gearx.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:35 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:'EXTERNAL'Follow-up on tormorrow's scheded tour of the development off Holmes
Road
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Marla,
I am a resident on Holmes Road (123 Holmes) and spoke at the Sketch hearing on the farrell development project. I
have noticed that the tour tomorrow does no include the field that is actually being proposed for the development (if
you want to check it out, bring Muck boots - it is genuinely a wet land) nor the adjacent holmes road neighborhood.
Considering the impacts of this development on the neighborhood and the wetland field I would like to request that the
tour include a broader tour of the entire 105 acre property, inclusive of the field, as well as the adjacent woods,
neighborhood(s), and buffering woodland - home to fox, bobcat, deer, geese, and ducks, just to name a few of the
animals we regularly encounter there.
Marc
Marc Sherman
Visionary
he/him/his
Outdoor Gear Exchange / Gearx.com
37 Church St. Burlington, VT. 802-598-1185
1
Marla Keene
From:greg titcomb <greg.titcomb@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:50 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:'EXTERNAL'Nov 2nd Allenwood Site Visit Concerns
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Marla,
I am writing to express concerns I have with the planned walking route the DRB will be taking on Nov 2nd to view the
Allenwood project. This is a very large property, I believe over 100 acres, with virtually all new development taking place
in one corner on currently undeveloped land. The "walking tour" has 5 stops, only one of which even looks at the area of
building a proposed 120+ housing units. This isn't even an up close inspection, but looking out over the field at a
distance of hundreds of feet. Probably 400-500' or more from where most trees would be cut. Very limited visibility into
how this will impact the field, wetlands, animals, animal corridors, plantlife, etc.
There are 4 stops on David Farrell's current property which will utilize existing roadways, replace existing buildings, and
will only have 2 single family homes built upon it. This portion of the project will have virtually no impact on the general
concept of "conservation", yet it receives 80% or more of the board's time and attention during the visit, including the
only portion that will be inspected up close. It feels more like a walking tour of David Farrell's amazing property than a
chance to assess the impact of the proposed PUD that will take place in the field.
Meanwhile the area that is going to be paved over, removing existing trees, adding a whole new roadway, impacting
wildlife/wetlands, and dramatically impacting existing homes gets 20% of the time, from a distance. There are not even
plans to walk down the current Holmes Road, which is going to be wildly transformed from a one lane private dirt road
into a multi lane, paved city owned road with sidewalks and street parking, very close to the lake.
I don't know how the board will be able to properly assess the proposed project and make an informed decision based
on the current walking tour agenda. It feels like we're focusing on the wrong parts of this project and I have questions as
to who set up the walking route; is this what the board really wants to inspect or is it a suggestion from the Allenwood
project. The map we received in the mail is on TJ Boyle & Associates letterhead and feels quite deceptive. It definitely
seems to have a "don't look over there" feel to it. It doesn't address any of the areas of concern that were raised by the
community at the Oct 3rd DRB meeting, which had so much public interest that each person was limited to just 3
minutes of response.
I feel a simple solution would be altering the visit to include a walk down the current Holmes Rd as well as walk
across/around the field to view the impact of the proposed 120+ homes and not just focus on the two single family lots.
Thanks,
Greg Titcomb
115 Holmes Rd.
South Burlington, VT
05403