HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-02 - Supplemental - 0850 Hinesburg Road (12) #SD-24-02
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-02_850 Hinesburg Rd_WGM Assoc_SK_2024-01-17.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 10, 2024
Application received: December 28, 2023
850 Hinesburg Road – WGM Associates
Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-02
Meeting Date: January 17, 2024
Owner/Applicant
WGM Associates, c/o Keith Wright
P.O. Box 2352
South Burlington, VT 05407
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID: 0860-00896
Industrial & Open Space Zoning District
Parcel size: 10 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan sketch plan application #SD-24-02 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing
approximately 10.0 acre lot developed with three homes into seven single family home lots ranging
from 0.67 acres to 3.0 acres and one 1.0 acre open space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road.
#SD-24-02
CONTEXT
The applicant submitted sketch plan application #SD-23-15 for an 11-lot subdivision of the subject
property, which was reviewed by the Board in December 2023. The applicant has since determined it is
their desire to scale back the proposed subdivision. Since the current proposal differs substantially both
in configuration and number of lots, a new sketch plan is required. Some comments herein are similar to
those discussed by the Board in relation to #SD-23-15. Because this is a new application, Staff has retained
those comments as they may apply to the current proposal differently.
This property is located in the Industrial Open Space zoning district, which has an allowance for single
family homes. Minimum lot size in this zoning district is three acres. Lot coverage is limited to 50%, and
setbacks are relatively high at 50-ft front and rear and 35-ft side. These dimensional standards are set up
for industrial development.
This application proposes to take advantage of Act 47, which requires municipalities to allow lot sizes that
enable at least 5 units per acre in areas served by municipal water and sewer that allow for residential
use. Act 47 does not change coverage, setback, or other requirements.
This lot is currently developed with three single family homes.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following
comments.
As this is a Sketch Plan review, only criteria relevant for review at this stage are addressed. Numbered
items for the Board’s attention are in red.
The application is subject to zoning district and dimensional standards, subdivision standards, the general
regulations of Article 3 and the supplemental regulations of Article 13.
A) ACT 47
Act 47 took effect July 1, 2023 and, in the most basic terms, is intended to increase residential
development / opportunity. The Planning Commission is working on amendments to the LDR to
incorporate the requirements therein. Until those amendments are complete, the DRB and Zoning
Administrator are required to adhere to the language of Act 47 in situations where the LDRs conflict
with Act 47, making interpretations where necessary.
Act 47 has two subtly different designations. First, certain requirements apply to “any district that is
served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure that allows residential uses.” Second, different
requirements apply to “any area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure that allows
residential development.”
Staff considers it to be straightforward that the subject property is located in a district served by
municipal sewer and water. However, the second test is more nuanced. Unlike some municipalities, the
City of South Burlington does not at this time define a water service area. At this time Planning Staff is
not recommending the Planning Commission apply the requirements for sewer and water service areas
across all sewer- and water-served districts because it would result in permitting intense development in
parts of the City that are currently regulated as very-low density residential, conservation, or open space
and are impractical distances from current water and sewer lines. For instance, a very large lot may
have sewer and water access at the front, but the rear of the lot may be half a mile away, and it would
be inconsistent with City goals to allow development at these densities in the rear of the lot.
#SD-24-02
Act 47 defines an area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure:
(i) An area where residential connections and expansions are available to municipal water and
direct and indirect discharge wastewater systems and not prohibited by: (I) State regulations
or permits; (II) identified capacity constraints; or (III) municipally adopted service and capacity
agreements; or (ii) an area established by the municipality by ordinance or bylaw where
residential connections and expansions are available to municipal water and direct and
indirect discharge wastewater systems and which may exclude: [it then goes on to describe
natural resource protection areas and areas with capacity constraints, not applicable here] (V)
areas serving an industrial site or park.
The full text of Act 47 is found here. Draft Bill Template (vermont.gov)
(https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2024/Docs/ACTS/ACT047/ACT047%20As%20Enacted.pdf)
The definition of area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure begins at the end of page 6.
This property is 10 acres. There is a municipal water line in the front of the property, and a municipal
sewer line in the back. It would be expected that an industrial proposal for this lot would connect to
both water and sewer. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Board consider this entire parcel as being
“an area served by municipal sewer and water.”
1. The Board discussed this subject as part of #SD-23-15 last month and provided direction that the entire
property should be interpreted as “an area served by municipal water and sewer” and therefore
permitted to be developed under the provisions laid out for such properties in Act 47. Staff
recommends the Board affirm this interpretation.
Changes made by Act 47 to the City’s regulations affecting this project are as follows.
In districts served by water and sewer
o Max requirement for one parking space per dwelling unit
o Duplexes must be allowed with same dimensional standards as a single-unit dwelling
o Multiunit dwelling with 4 or fewer units are permitted
In areas served by water and sewer
o Dimensional standards must allow five or more dwelling units per acre
o Development meeting the state definition of affordable housing development may
exceed density limitations by an additional 40% and height by one floor
B) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The purpose of the Industrial-Open Space District is: “To provide suitable locations for high-quality,
large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to arterial routes and
Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high-
quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize
impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City
while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural
design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged.” The Regulations
do not provide any additional information as to the purpose or intent of allowing single family homes
(on a minimum of three-acre lots) as a permitted use.
Dimensional standards in the Industrial and Open Space Zoning District include a minimum lot size of 3
acres, 30% maximum building coverage, and 50% maximum overall coverage. These building and lot
coverages are higher than for the Residential 4 and similar zoning districts. As modified by Act 47, Staff
interprets there to be a minimum lot size of 0.2 acres, and coverage limits as appropriate to permit
#SD-24-02
single family homes or duplexes on each lot. The Board is not obligated to accept a higher coverage
than necessary to permit a single family home or duplex. Staff considers the Board may interpret this to
mean lot coverage is the minimum necessary to reasonably accommodate a single family home or
duplex.
The applicant has proposed development lots ranging in size from 0.67 acres to 3.0 acres, and has
shown conceptual homes that are well under the maximum allowable coverages.
For principal structures, front and rear setbacks are 50-ft, and side setbacks are 35-ft. For accessory
structures, rear and side setbacks are 5-ft.
C) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
Article 12 prohibits development within 50-ft of Class II wetlands in the I-O zoning district. As discussed
pertaining to #SD-23-15, there are potential wetlands on the adjacent parcel to the east, whose buffer
likely extends into the subject property. The Board directed the applicant to provide wetland
delineation within 50-ft of the subject property prior to the next stage of review. Staff considers this
direction still applies.
Staff is not aware of any other potential natural resource impacts to the subject property.
D) GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
This application will be considered a major subdivision because the lot to be subdivided is more than
two times the minimum lot area for the district. The applicant may apply for preliminary subdivision
review concurrently with the master plan application, but they may not combine preliminary and final
subdivision review with the master plan application.
15.A.11 General Standards
A. Development Suitability
(2) Buildable area
Buildable area excludes hazards and level 1 resources, including wetland buffers, and existing
and planned street rights of way. Buildable area dictates maximum density, though in this case
that is overruled by Act 27. It also dictates required civic space area, equal to 10% of the
buildable area. Delineation of adjacent wetlands is necessary for calculation of buildable area.
2. The applicant has provided a 1-acre civic space, which must be designed to meet one of the civic
space types in Article 11B. Staff recommends the Board confirm which open space type is proposed
with the applicant.
C. Development Context.
The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision conforms to the planned pattern of
subdivision and development in the area, as defined by district purpose statements and standards,
or as specified for a type of Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15.C.
As stated above, the purpose of the Industrial-Open Space District includes to provide suitable
locations for high-quality, large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with
access to arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. It also includes providing large
contiguous open spaces. In the context of an industrial development, open spaces between lots
would be contiguous, rather than fractured around individual buildings and parking lots.
Generally, Staff would consider the proposed subdivision to be incompatible with the planned
pattern of subdivision and development in the area. However, Act 47 requires the Board to allow lot
#SD-24-02
sizes that enable a residential density of 5 units per acre. Therefore, Staff considers the Board must
apply this standard to the extent feasible. Staff considers the location of the civic space to the east of
the property best achieves the objective of contiguous open space due to the presence of wetlands
on the property to the east and north.
D. Development Connectivity
The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision, to the extent physically feasible, is configured
and laid out to maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, and to avoid
creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development, except where necessary to separate
incompatible land uses, or to avoid undue adverse impacts to resources identified for protection
under Article 12. Accordingly, the applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision is laid out to
connect with and extend existing and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, transit routes,
and utility and greenway corridors located adjacent to or within ½-mile of the subdivision, or as
indicated on the City’s Official Map. Off-site improvements necessary to serve the proposed
subdivision must be provided in accordance with 15.A.18.
As the Board is aware, there are a number of sections of the LDR that require transportation and
utility connectivity with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, including this section which specifically
references the purpose of avoiding creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development. The
draft 2024 City Plan identifies the subject area as commercial/industrial with supporting uses.
The proposed project specifically eschews connections to adjoining parcels and neighborhoods.
Given that undeveloped portions of adjacent lots are subject to the same rules as the subject
property, Staff considers the potential for residential development exists on those lots and therefore
separation from incompatible land uses is not a driving factor in this design. Given this standard, and
other standards pertaining to the design of lots and blocks within a subdivision, Staff considers an
alternative design may be necessary. See discussion below.
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots
15.A.16C(4) requires civic space lots to have frontage on or pedestrian access from an abutting street.
The entrance to a civic space that does not front on an abutting street must be readily visible, apparent,
and accessible from the street.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how the proposed civic space lot (Lot #4)
will be accessed from an abutting street & how that access will be visible, apparent, and accessible
from the street. Staff considers access must be from Hinesburg Road since the property does not enjoy
any other frontage or easements.
15.A.16C(6) requires building lots to front on a public or private street, a designated civic space, or a
shared courtyard with pedestrian access to the abutting street. In the proposed configuration, Lot 1-3
does not front on a private street or on the proposed civic space. It is instead accessed by a shared
driveway across Lot 1-2. Relatedly, 15.A.16C(9) requires building lots to be generally rectangular in
shape. Flag lots and through lots are prohibited.
Additional issues with the proposed roadway/driveway configuration are discussed under 15.A.14
below. Staff considers the solution to both issues would be to extend the street to the front of Lot 1-4,
and then provide a right-of-way south along the boundary of the civic space for a future street to be
constructed at such time as development occurs on the adjoining lots. Such a street would be required
to include pedestrian accommodations, which would also address the issue of access to the proposed
civic space from the public right of way.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the applicant will adopt this, or another, solution to the
problem of building lots fronting on streets.
Also pertaining to 15.A.16C(9) requiring generally rectangular lots, the applicant has configured the
#SD-24-02
proposed lot lines so that the existing principal structures conform to required setbacks, but has also
jogged the proposed lot lines so that the setbacks on existing accessory structures are far in excess of
the required minimum 5-ft setback.
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they can reduce the setbacks on the
existing accessory structures to improve compliance with the requirement for generally rectangular
lots.
15.A.14 Street Network
This section requires demonstration that the proposed street network maximizes accessibility and
connectivity, creates interconnected walkable neighborhoods, minimizes direct access onto arterial and
collector streets. It requires right-of-way connection to adjoining properties, and requires the applicant
either construct said connection or contribute a proportionate share of the cost to complete
construction in addition to any required impact fees. It then goes on to allow future rights of way to be
included in future phases of a phased development, provided the right-of-way is clearly demarcated
indicating its existence and future use. Temporary turnarounds are required at subdivision boundaries
where connections are not provided, with temporary easements over the land of the turnaround to be
returned to the adjacent property owners when the street connection is made.
Permanent dead-end streets are prohibited except under certain limited circumstances. When a street
qualifies for an exception, the LDR specifically prohibits dead end streets greater than 200-ft in length
measured to the center of the turnaround. The applicant is proposing to request an exception to the
requirement to provide a right-of-way connection to the adjoining property. However, Staff considers
this to be infeasible due the creation of lots with no street frontage; see 15.A.16C(6) above.
6. In light of the requirements for connectivity and lot frontage, Staff recommends the Board direct the
applicant to modify the project to propose a private west to east roadway from Lot 1-1 to Lot 1-4, and
then, proceeding south, provide a future right-of-way for a roadway that connects to the adjacent
parcel to the south along the western side of the civic space. Such a planned future roadway would
enable the project to comply with the standards pertaining to Development Connectivity (15.A.11(D)),
Lots (15.A.16(C)(4 and (6)), Street Network (15.A.14(B)(4), and C (reference).
Alternatively, the applicant may request modification of standards to avoid construction of the
proposed driveway as a road. Staff considers such an alternative request would require review as a
PUD, with all the associated submission requirements, and demonstration that the modification results
in a project that better meets the PUD standards. Staff considers such an approach to be a high bar
for a project of this scale, and instead recommends modifying the roadway. Such a modification does
not represent a significant departure from what is currently proposed and involves significantly less
permitting effort.
Staff notes both the phase 1 section and the future phase section of the roadway must be designed to
public roadway standards and be offered to the City (15.A.14(C)(3), though the Board may include a
condition that the City not accept it until such time as a connection is made to the adjoining parcel
(15.A.14C(4). Staff further anticipates that future phase section, representing the connection to the
south, would not be required to be constructed until such time as the parcel to the south is developed,
potentially in a similar manner as proposed for this parcel.
7. The street must match an approved public street type. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to describe what street type, listed in article 11A, they anticipate proposing, and why, and the Board
to provide feedback on the response. The full required street cross section must be provided, including
sidewalks and greenbelts.
Staff reminds the applicant that 24 VSA 4416 b states “the application for site plan approval shall include
a letter from the Agency of Transportation confirming that the Agency has reviewed the proposed site
plan and determined whether a permit is required under 19 V.S.A. § 1111.“
#SD-24-02
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Recreation Paths
A. Purpose and Intent.
As necessary to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation throughout the subdivision,
and to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining neighborhoods, public parks,
transit stops, and other community focal points or destinations in the vicinity (e.g., schools, recreation
facilities, civic buildings, shopping and employment centers), the applicant must demonstrate that
subdivision layout and design, including the proposed street network, incorporates as applicable:
(6) Bicycle lanes, as incorporated by street type; and
(7) Existing and planned pedestrian trails and multiuse recreation paths, as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, or on the City’s Official Map.
Elsewhere along Hinesburg Road the Board has required either construction of a recreation path (see
CEA building at Mansfield View Lane or the Red Barn Deli at Tilley Drive) or space for a rec path. Staff
considers that this project must provide for a recreation path otherwise it is unlikely to ever materialize
in the future. At the December 5 hearing on sketch plan application #SD-23-15, Staff agreed to work
with the Deputy Director of Capital Projects to evaluate how a recreation path should be accommodated
along this property. Staff still proposes to do this prior to the preliminary plat stage of review for this
project.
15.A.17 Mix of Dwelling Unit Types
A. Mix of Dwelling Unit Types and Architectural Features. A mix of dwelling unit types (i.e. cottage,
single family, two-family, small multi-family, townhouse, etc. etc.) and mix of architectural features and
styles must be provided within neighborhoods and developments. These must be mixed within blocks,
along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-
identical unit types. An applicant for a subdivision shall submit a plan demonstrating how this mix will
be achieved for the Development Review Board’s consideration at the preliminary plat stage. Where a
Planned Unit Development approved under Article 15C establishes standards for a mix of dwelling unit
or building types, those standards shall supersede these herein.
The proposed subdivision is for three proposed homes. Staff advises the applicant they will be required
to demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the preliminary plat stage of review.
15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services
G. Renewable Energy Facilities.
The applicant must demonstrate that, to the extent physically feasible, reasonable, and as
appropriate to its development context, the subdivision has been designed to incorporate best
practices that maintain access to and use of renewable energy resources, e.g., to include one or more
of the following as indicated on subdivision plans and plats:
(1) Street and building lots that are oriented to maximize solar access and gain, for passive solar
construction or rooftop solar installations.
Staff advises the applicant they will be required to demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the
preliminary plat stage of review.
E) MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Master plan review is required for any major subdivision involving four (4) or more acres. This
application is classified as a major subdivision, therefore master plan review is required.
A master plan application requires a description of the overall vision and scope of the proposed
#SD-24-02
development, an analysis of project consistency with applicable regulations, an analysis of development
context, and details of the proposed buildout including characteristics of the proposed building designs.
The master plan must also designate phases of at least 20-percent of the project area (though
development in a single phase is also acceptable). A master plan may only be approved for a maximum
of 6 years, or fewer if the Board deems appropriate, and may be extended for cause up to a maximum of
10 years.
8. In light of the necessary roadway modifications, Staff assumes the applicant will propose a two-phase
project with the second phase to consist of connecting the roadway to the adjacent parcel to the south.
Staff recommends the Board discuss phasing with the applicant.
Master plan is intended to lock in certain characteristics of the proposed development. A full master
plan review is required if the applicant subsequently modifies the physical limits of the project,
significantly modifies the overall development plan (including streets, blocks and connectivity,
designated civic spaces, or allocation of development density), or significantly modifies site coverage or
trip ends. At the master plan stage of review, Staff recommends the Board include a condition
addressing the fact that the master plan represents the full planned development potential of the lot
over the duration of the master plan.
F) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
This application is not required to apply as a PUD, but is permitted to apply as a general PUD. A planned
unit development has the benefit of allowing the Board to permit alternative compliance to dimensional
or design standards provided the alternative results in a better project. If the applicant does not
propose a configuration that complies with street and lot standards discussed above, the applicant must
apply as a general PUD in order to permit the Board to grant alternative compliance.
Article 15.C describes the authority of the Board in granting PUD approval:
15.C.01A. Authority
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, and to
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD).
(2) The DRB also has the authority to modify the Land Development Regulations in association with
PUD review, subject to the standards and conditions for Planned Unit Development, as specified
by PUD type under this Article, in support of more efficient, compact, walkable, and well-
planned forms of residential neighborhood, mixed use, and infill development, and the
permanent conservation of resource lands and other open space.
(a) In addition to modifications or waivers intended to accommodate site constraints under
Section 15.A.01 of the subdivision regulations, this may include modifications of underlying
zoning and subdivision regulations pertaining to blocks, building lots, building types,
allowed densities of development, and the type and mix of allowed uses.
(b) This may also include DRB review and approval of alternative forms of compliance with
applicable PUD standards under Section 15.C.04.
Within a General PUD, 15.C.07A describes limitations on the Board’s authority to modify standards:
15.C.07A. Authority and Limitations.
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, to
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01.
#SD-24-02
(2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply.
(3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary:
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized
via use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning.
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as
applicable.
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each
zoning district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of
Transferrable Development Rights.
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within
that Article.
(e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as
authorized within that Section.
Within a General PUD, the Board has relatively broad authority to modify required dimensional standards
in order to accommodate a PUD that better meets the standards in 15.C.01A(2) above. However, as
discussed below, Staff considers the standards that may require modification do not fall under the heading
of “dimensional standards,” and therefore the Board’s authority is instead limited to that granted under
15.C.04(C)(3) Alternative Compliance.
15.C.04(C)(3) Alternative Compliance. One or more PUD dimensional and design standards under
this Article may be modified at applicant request for an alternative form of compliance, subject to
separate DRB review and approval, to provide the flexibility necessary to address unique site
conditions or constraints; to enable compatibility with existing or planned development in the
vicinity; or to allow for exceptional and innovative design. Note that alternative compliance does
not constitute an exemption from a PUD standard. Allowed modifications include proposed
functional or design alternatives that may be considered in place of a specific requirement under
this Article, only if the intent of the requirement is met or exceeded. In approving a request for
alternative compliance, the DRB must find that the proposed alternative:
(a) Conforms to the intent, description, and defining characteristics of the selected PUD type(s);
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified;
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and
quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity
of the planned development (e.g., regarding walkability, traffic, parking, drainage).
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as necessary to
ensure compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a proposed alternative.
3. If the applicant elects to seek PUD review, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide
a clear and specific narrative demonstrating that any requested modifications meet each of the four
tests (a) through (d) of 15.C.04(C)(3) and that the requested modifications accommodate a PUD that
better meets the standards in 15.C.01A(2).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
#SD-24-02
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner