Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_Allenwood_addl pub comments11/6/2023 This is Adam Glaser, I currently own and live at 99 Holmes Rd. I was pleasantly surprised and relieved when I saw the sketch of the proposed redesign of the TND on Lot 1 of the Allenwood project. It seems the developer listened to the concerns of the ciƟzens of the Holmes Rd. neighborhood and came up with a proposal that aƩempted to minimize the disrupƟon to the exisƟng neighborhood. I was then surprised and disheartened when I read Paul Conner’s comments on the potenƟal redesign of the PUD. I would have hoped that the comments would begin with “the redesign does well to preserve in some sense a special and unique Holmes Rd. neighborhood.” My hope is that the board will take the proposed redesign as a new starƟng point and work with the developer. The proposed redesign largely minimizes the disrupƟon and uninvited change to the current Holmes Rd. neighborhood. I would think the board would want applicants to try to avoid harming and altering the abuƫng neighborhoods in ways that diminish the original neighborhood’s charm and characterisƟcs. I don’t like the idea of government telling an exisƟng neighborhood that they know what is best for us. Every person on Holmes Rd. wishes to maintain their current road and has expressed desire not to be subsumed into the new development, which would completely alter the neighborhood we all choose to live in. The developer has graciously come up with a new design that allows for the current neighborhood to maintain a semblance of its current state. However, the notes from Paul Conner seem to imply that the board knows what’s best for the current residents of Holmes Rd. thinking we are somehow disconnected and lack a sense of neighborhood. I would state that our neighborhood is unique and special and has such a strong sense of connecƟon that it needs to be preserved in order to not ruin what is an amazing place. There are typically a couple Ɵmes per year that the enƟre neighborhood is invited to somebody’s house. Our sense of community is not a funcƟon of the size of our community and I haven’t experienced this sense of community before… ever. The connecƟon to adjacent neighborhoods will be greatly improved by the proposed walking/bike path. That is appreciated and more than sufficient. We are also just a few hundred feet from Rt. 7 which makes us far from being isolated. I think when there are two TND’s adjacent to one another it may make sense to connect them but our current neighborhood and the proposed neighborhood are quite dissimilar and we’ve all expressed our desire to try to maintain as much of our current neighborhood feel as possible. We all expressed that desire when we bought our homes in the current unique neighborhood and not a larger subdivision. When it comes to making changes to the current unique Holmes Rd. neighborhood, I hope that the board can take our opinions as to what is best for us, and put those ahead of the more generic neighborhood guideline that have been established. We are not the ones asking for permission to develop, we are the ones asking the board to minimize the harm done to us by the proposed development. The developer has made this revision as an effort to take a step towards allowing us to maintain our neighborhood. I hope the board would be willing to work with the developer to allow for a few minor deviances from the TND in order to not destroy what is what most if not all residents of Holmes Rd believe is one of the best current neighborhoods, we have ever lived in. Lastly, I would ask the board to ensure that the water quality of the Lake and the un-named stream that enters the lake at 99 Holmes Rd. is not overlooked. The proposed development of Allenwood will add a large amount of impermeable surface to a wetland just a few hundred feet from the lake, that water stands on the field currently but with the proposed neighborhood that water will have to flow without being filtered by the land, more directly into the Lake. That combined with the considerable amount of impermeable surface on the Larkin project will certainly add to the stormwater that comes down the un- named stream that flows from there through Farrell’s property and eventually through my property, and to the lake. The added polluƟon to this stream needs to be addressed as it will likely be the recipient of water from both of these projects. Hopefully these proposed developments will be an opportunity to improve the quality of water that runs off into Lake Champlain instead of making the polluƟon worse. Thank You Adam Glaser p.s. as menƟoned on the site visit, for those board members that want to walk Holmes Rd. and/or lot 1 you are free to park on my driveway at 99 Holmes Rd. I don’t need any noƟce, it’s fairly large and has easy access to both the road and field. Michael H. Lipson 125 Holmes Road Ext. South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Tel. (802) 863-0296 Email: mlip2@yahoo.com November 5, 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: I live at 125 Holmes Road Extension, adjacent to the proposed Farrell/Allenwood development. I would appreciate it if the DRB members would consider these comments in connection with their November 7, 2023 meeting on this project. 1. Insufficient Notice. The memorandum regarding this meeting stated: "the applicant has elected to present a wholly different version of this [the development layout], which is discussed more thoroughly under Public Comment below." We wish to have the record show that this new version has only been made available to us as of this past weekend, making it very difficult to formulate views on it. This is hardly adequate notice. I understand that a request was made for Eric Farrell to send it at the site visit on Thursday, but that was not done. This being said, we think that the new layout is in certain ways preferable to what was submitted earlier, contrary to staff’s apparent view. (This does not mean we may not find significant problems with it.) 2. Status and Legal Consequences of this (11/7/23) Meeting. We would like to know whether this meeting is a “hearing” in which the master plan application meets the minimum required? If not, what is the legal implication of this meeting? a. Certain staff comments in the agenda refer to "Official Map Public Parkland Open Space.” These appear to relate to some issue concerning a public park shown on a City Map (it is not clear this is an official map at this time) sited on private property owned by the David Farrell Trust as well as a landowner on Holmes Road Ext. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no official notification to adjoining landowners that this issue is included in the present application under review by this board. At a minimum, we request clarification about why it has been included as part of the discussion of this project. We trust it will not result in a decision without input from the public on a formal record. b. Related to the foregoing comments, staff also stated that “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. Official Map Public Park and Open Space." If there is no master plan, or it is incomplete, how can we or other South Burlington citizens make meaningful comments on the proposed project? 3. Regarding the proposed plan for maintaining the current private road. We and others in our small neighborhood want to retain our current access to our homes. Comments from DRB staff seem to suggest that they do not want that to happen. "PUD standards require development to be configured to maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, and avoid creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development..." a. Ensuring that this new development is connected to its surrounds does not require that it be connected to us. We are not applying for a development permit. We exist. We here, in what is being called the “Lakefront neighborhood,” actively chose to live where we do. We are of different ages, backgrounds, and have very diverse houses. We also jointly maintain the private road, to which each of us has deeded rights to ingress and egress, and we coordinate things such as propane delivery. Some of us raised, or are raising, children here and participate in many aspects of South Burlington life. One of us was born here. b. The comment above is among various comments concerning neighborhood connectivity. We do NOT feel disconnected from the city. Indeed, we are about as connected as anyone could be in South Burlington given our access to Shelburne Rd. and our ability to walk to several adjoining neighborhoods and parks (which several of us do regularly). As our own children grew up, they had friends in far-flung parts of South Burlington. No matter how much you want to build intimacy within a neighborhood, I hope that you also want to encourage reaching out across our relatively sprawling small city to experience its diversity. c. There is a troubling sense that the DRB and/or its staff would like to control all aspects of residential life in South Burlington. Quote: “…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." There is a fine line between enhancing the quality of life and demanding that everyone have the same ideas about quality of life. Having a vision for future development should always be balanced with the ways in which diversity provides its own value. Maintaining our current access is not an act of “proliferation.” Rather it is a choice – one to which we are entitled as citizens. We would ask that the DRB reconsider its view that we cannot be left alone. I will add, quoting Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, although in a different context: “The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. *** They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States (1928). 4. Habitat Block Overlay. Since we are aware that the forested area to the South and East of Holmes Rd. Ext. is a wildlife habitat, and that apparently the applicant intends to eliminate the forest barrier to the east of us entirely, or to substantially reduce it, we have a concern about the staff’s comments concerning the availability of some sort of waiver or other exception to the requirements of LDR 12.04 et seq. regarding the Habitat Block Overlay District. In particular, we would request that the DRB identify the area designated as a Habitat Block in the acreage to the south and east of Holmes Rd. Ext., exactly how it will be treated in the plan, and explain the manner in which a swap of other property “contiguous” to this would be accomplished. I would note that the term “contiguous”, which is undefined in the LDR definitions, has a common and accepted meaning that includes “touching” or “in actual contact”. Thank you for your attention to these comments. 1 Marla Keene From:Marty Gillies Sent:Friday, November 3, 2023 12:25 PM To:Marla Keene; Marty Gillies Subject:11/7 DRB public comment Hi Marla, Flagging this for both of us – these are the comments from the NRCC on both the Larkin and Farrell sketch plans. Not sure the best way to distribute this to Board but happy to work on this on Monday! Best, Marty 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: Dave Wheeler <dwheeler@southburlingtonvt.gov> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:30 AM To: Marty Gillies <mgillies@southburlingtonvt.gov> Subject: NRCC Comments on Larkin and Farrell Properties Hi Marty, See comments below from the NRCC To: South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) From: Natural Resource and Conservation Committee (NRCC) Re: Development Proposals from the Larkin and Farrell Properties Date: November 3, 2023 At its recent meeting, the NRCC discussed two separate proposals for housing construction on two separate but close-by properties. The Committee reviewed the maps given to us from the City and we have several observations and questions. The Larkin Property: 2 Sidewalks, walkways, and bike paths. We see no way for residents to access public transportation or stores once they leave the proposed cluster of homes. As it now looks, walking or riding a bike would be very unsafe because one would need to be traveling in car traffic. Recommendation: A plan for sidewalks and a bike path to be extended from the property to the Hannaford’s shopping center and Rt.7. Enhanced Landscaping: We see no expanded plans for extended tree coverage in and around the area. The maps show a great deal of impervious cover with asphalt, and more shading with canopy trees would soften the landscape and make for a more livable environment. Recommendation: A commitment to plant more shade trees on the whole lot replacing brush and bushes surrounding buildings. The Farrell Property: Sidewalks, walkways and bike paths. We see residents trapped by the railroad tracks with no way to leave the area without driving their car. Residents need to be able to walk or bike to Rt 7 to access stores and public transportation without driving their car. Recommendation: Construct bike and walkways so residents can come and go without using their car. Class II Wetlands. It appears to us that a large portion of the proposed building area might be a Class II wetlands. Recommendation: Do a site visit to this location and have a person from the State make that assessment. Endanger Plants: We have been informed that there may be some endangered species of plants in this area where homes are proposed. Recommendation: Have a specialist make an assessment of this area. Wildlife Corridor: The map shows proposed homes cutting off an important wildlife corridor along the shoreline. Recommendation: Have an assessment done to be sure this proposal does on adversely impact wildlife in this unprotect area on the lake.