Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/18/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 SEPTEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Vice Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr, (via phone), B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. O’Leary, M. Beaudin, B. Irish, M. Lyons, D. Marshall, T. O’Leary, B. Currier, J. & S. Jewett, S. Dopp, L. Demarone, J. Ehrling, K. Cubino, D. Penar, K. Forleo, L. & J. Nadeau, J. & B. Darling, B. Dousevicz, M. & B. Groves, J. Arsem 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: A member of the public asked how decisions are made. Mr. Wilking explained that the rules (Land Development Regulations) are set by the Planning Commission, and the DRB has to follow those rules. Mr. Sullivan added that the DRB has judicial power; it cannot legislate. Words such as “shall” and “must” in the rules leave no room for discretion. Mr. Cota noted that the DRB and Planning Commission do meet together and discuss issues that may have arisen. He stressed that the DRB cannot tell the Planning Commission what to do. 4. Announcements: Ms. Keene introduced Dalila Hall, the new Zoning Administrator. 5. Design Review Application #DR-18-08 of Town Square Association to obtain an Initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for one freestanding sign in green, black and white, 425 Dorset Street: Ms. Lyons noted the existing sign was new in 1969, and they want to update it and move it closer to the building. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Wilking moved to close DR-18-08. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Design Review Application #DR-18-09 of Allard Square, LP, to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP) for one wall mounted sign in silver, 146 Market Street: Ms. Forleo said the sign will go below the sculpture and is made of the same material. It will be attached to the building’s elevator tower. She showed a photo concept. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Wilking moved to close DR-18-09. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-18-10 of Marcel Beaudin to reconstruct an existing timber retaining wall and add a handrail, 36 Brigham Road: Mr. Beaudin explained that the wall was built to protect the foundation from the brook. The wall now needs to be repaired. The plan is to put a sheet piles wall against the existing wall. It will not look much different. Mr. Beaudin showed a concept of the east end with stairs and ramp leading to the Lake. He also showed a concept of the sheet piles and horizontal sheeting. Ms. Keene noted that staff received the plan to help with erosion. It has been sent to the city’s arborist for comment. Mr. Wilking moved to continue CU-18-10 to 2 October to provide time for review of the erosion plan. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Final Plat Application #SD-18-27 of JAM Golf, LLC, for re-approval of a subdivision of a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, 182 Golf Course Road: Mr. Marshall explained that they missed the deadline for filing legals and are back with the same application. A few things have been cleared up, and the character of the project is the same. Mr. Marshall referred to a letter from Mr. O’Leary regarding the proximity of the building envelope to his home. The developer has offered vegetative buffering and will continue to work with Mr. O’Leary, including possible improvements on his property. Mr. Marshall showed a landscape plan and indicated vegetation to be retained. He also showed a rock retaining wall built by a previous developer. Mr. O’Leary showed a picture of his property to members and noted there used to be trees on the back of his property. The retaining wall is 10 paces from his deck and doesn’t allow for a buffer. The only option is to do buffering on his property, which is not his favorite option. He felt the building envelope could be moved to allow a 20-foot setback at the southeast corner. Ms. Keene noted the building envelope meets setback requirements, but the Board could ask the developer to look at that again. They also shouldn’t get too close to existing trees because the trees could be damaged. Mr. Marshall said they did look at changing the building envelope, but the applicant wanted to keep it as it is. Mr. O’Leary asked if it is under the DRB’s purview to ask the Planning Commission to work with a developer. Ms. Keene explained that every subdivision goes through a sketch plan, preliminary and final approval phase. Sketch is where “good,” “bad,” etc., takes place. The DRB did not have that opportunity in this case because it was a Supreme Court case and ruling. Mr. Wilking noted that the Planning Commission and DRB have been asked by the city to have more density in certain areas. Mr. Behr noted this application pre‐dates him and that sketch plan review is when the DRB would consider Mr. O’Leary’s issues. The DRB was given the project as a Supreme Court decision with very few “wiggle areas.” Ms. Keene noted that the Supreme Court does allow the Board to make a determination on compatibility with surrounding developed properties. Ms. Keene said the Supreme Court ruled that the application was complete and had to be heard as submitted. Mr. Sullivan added that decisions of the Vermont Supreme Court are perpetual unless stated otherwise. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-18-27. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-18-28 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142units in Phase II and 291 overall, and conservation of 21.7 acres of land through the purchase of 26 Transfer of Development Rights. The 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in 2-family dwellings, and 30 single-family units on shared lots, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Sullivan recused himself as his law firm represents a party with a beneficial interest in this development. Mr. Cota noted he is a resident of Cider Mill. Members and the applicant did not feel this was a conflict of interest. Mr. O’Leary said they are currently approved for 109 units and they will be increasing that to 142 units. Changes since preliminary plat approval include a street plan and a little more landscaping. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: #1 – The applicant agreed to show that single and 2‐family lot coverages are met. #2 – The applicant noted that with regard to lots #18‐34, the Board had agreed they were fine. They are 3-6 feet above the existing grade to get flow to the pump station. The worst thing would be for someone to buy a house and have water draining toward the house. They have set grading so the house grading is 3-6 feet above the road. Putting in 6 feet of fill is not an economic thing for a developer to do. Mr. Wilking and Mr. Cota said they had no issue with this. Ms. Keene said the pre-construction grad is 3-4 feet higher than the center line of the road. Mr. O’Leary said they can say the pre-existing grade is no higher than 4 feet higher than the center line of the road. Ms. Keene said staff is concerned that homes will be different heights on opposite sides of the road. Mr. O’Leary explained why this won’t happen. He agreed to indicate the finished construction grade elevation on each lot. #3 – The applicant was OK with the conservation easement. #4 & #5 – The application was OK with water and wastewater permits and with amending of same where needed. #6 – The applicant has agreed to pay $1000 per unit toward the future extension of Cider Mill Drive ($142,000 total). Members felt this was a generous offer. #7 – The applicant was OK with Aurora not being for emergency use only. #8 – The applicant will update the open space management plan. #9 – Mr. O’Leary said the City Council has to approve “no parking” signs if violators are to be towed. Ms. Keene said the Council only approves retrofit signs and the Fire Chief wants the signs now so City Council doesn’t have to approve them later. The applicant will prepare a plan and have the Fire Chief and Public Works approve it. #10 – State permits will be amended. #11 – The applicant agreed to maintain the stormwater treatment system until the City takes it over. #12 – The applicant agreed to the revised grading request. #13 & 14 – The applicant agreed to both requests. #15 – The applicant noted they will not be grading on the Nadeau parcel. Any indication to the contrary will be corrected. #16 & #17 – The pre‐construction grade will be provided for each. #18 – The plant list will be revised. #19 – The applicant agreed to all the requirements with regard to wetland protection. #20 & #21– The applicant will confirm all delineation features and will add demarcation of side yards. #22 – Ms. Keene noted that staff is still looking for those committee records. #23 – Mr. O’Leary directed attention to sheet L‐6 which shows street trees on Nadeau Crest. #24 – Mr. O’Leary agreed to use whatever language staff wants. #25 – The applicant noted there are 2 culverts that drain from the Nadeau parcel. During a 25-year storm, water ponds back onto the Nadeau parcel. The applicant will look to resolve that. #26 – Regarding easements, Mr. O’Leary said he believes they’re already recorded. Ms. Keene said staff can’t find these in the Land Records. Mr. O’Leary agreed to get them recorded if they were not already. #27 – The applicant agreed to correlate lot numbers and addresses. Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Jewett was concerned with drainage onto the Jewett property. There also should be a right-of-way onto their property. Ms. Keene said the applicant will add the right-of-way. Mr. O’Leary noted there is a wetland between the two parcels. Ms. Keene added that the project is under state and local stormwater regulations and must meet existing flow rate at the property line. A resident was concerned with the increase in units over time. Mr. Wilking noted the applicant is filling in space that was allowed to be built. The density was already approved. The resident also noted the increased cost of city services and wildlife issues that were previously raised. Mr. Wilking noted that every one of the units pays taxes toward those services. Mr. Cota noted that when the road is built, there will not be guardrails to prevent wildlife crossings. Ms. Demaroney asked about an additional traffic study that Justin Rabideau had mentioned with regard to Cider Mill Drive. Ms. Keene showed a memo regarding the extension of the road. She knew of no additional study being planned. The Board confirmed that Ms. Demaroney should continue to coordinate with Justin Rabideau for information on a traffic study for the existing Cider Mill Drive. Ms. Cubino was concerned with the delay in getting the extension of Cider Mill Drive built and with the burden of traffic going onto neighborhood streets. She felt that the anticipated $700,000 cost was small relative to the total cost of the project, and encourages the Board to require the road to be built sooner rather than later. Mr. Darling didn’t feel that $142,000 was “a win” and waiting for the next developer would result in the road being built at an unknown time. He thinks the neighborhood in aggregate wants to see the road to be built, and is concerned that the fees paid by the developer will not actually be used by the road. Ms. Dopp cited 2 100‐year storms south of Vermont in the past 2 years and recommended “erring on the side of building more” protection. She was concerned about the applicant trivializing concerns about flooding. She also questioned whether there is checking after construction to see if there is compliance with all the requirements. Ms. Penar supported putting money aside for Cider Mill Drive but was concerned with cut-through traffic and cited the need for bump-outs on the existing segment. She was also concerned that the open space was mowed in summer just as things are budding and recommends that mowing happen just before winter. Mr. Groves did not want Cider Mill Road to be extended. He did not feel it was intended to mitigate Cider Mill II. He cited the abundance of wildlife there. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue SD-18-28 until 16 October. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Minutes: No minutes were available for review. 11. Other Business No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:13 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on October 2, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #DR‐18‐08  1    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    TOWN SQUARE ASSOCIATION – 425 DORSET ST  MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR‐18‐08  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Design Review application #DR‐18‐08 of Town Square Association to obtain an initial Master Signage  Permit (MSP) for one freestanding sign in green, black and white, 425 Dorset Street.     The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 18, 2018. The applicant was  represented by Martha Lyons.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development  Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:      FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The applicant, Martha Lyons, seeks to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP).     2. The permit includes one freestanding sign in green, black and white.    3.  The owners of record of the subject property is Town Square Association.    4. The application was received on August 28, 2018.  5. The applicant submitted a rendering of the proposed sign which consists of one (1) double sided  free‐standing sign with the words “Town Square,” the street number, and a logo.  The freestanding  sign is proposed to be located approximately 60 feet from the northeast property corner, near the  property line nearest to Dorset Street, facing so as to be legible from Dorset Street.  The free‐ standing sign is proposed to be located on 6”x6” pressure treated wood posts.    6. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.  SIGN ORDINANCE    Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part  that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards:     (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with  the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall  promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and  proportions.     (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces  #DR‐18‐08  2    and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high  aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation.     (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with  buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors  is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes.     (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high‐quality materials  complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related.     Only one sign is proposed, therefore consistency of design is not an issue.  The sign is proposed to be  constructed of Dibond aluminum and acrylic.  The sign is pedestrian scale and uses four colors: white,  black and two shades of green.  The Board finds these criteria have been met.    Section 8(d) reads in part that the board must consider the following:    (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of  parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces,  sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color  illustrations thereof.     (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating  a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and  installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of  the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.     (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic  elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually.    (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual  signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that  is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer.      The proposed sign plan proposes one free‐standing sign on the site and therefore consistency between  signage and over time is not an issue.  The sign is proposed to be a maximum of 25.5 sq. ft.  The  applicant is proposing to remove the existing free‐standing sign.  The Board finds these criteria have  been met.    Section 9(h) addresses standards specifically for free‐standing signs within the Dorset Street/City  Center Sign District:  (h) Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. Free‐standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in  a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right of Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge  of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do not provide for  a two (2) foot setback from the Right of Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted  to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside  the R.O.W. line. Free‐standing signs in the Dorset Street/City Center District may not exceed thirty‐two  #DR‐18‐08  3    (32) square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than twelve (12) feet, measured from the  average finished grade at the base of the sign to the highest point of any part of the sign structure.     The applicant has submitted a location plan showing the free‐standing sign will be located between two  and sixteen feet from the edge of the Right of Way.  The sign is proposed to be no greater than 25.5  square feet.  The applicant has indicated the sign post will be no greater than 12‐feet.  The Board finds  the overall sign may have a maximum height no greater than 12‐feet.    Section 21(e) pertains to lighting:  (e) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, internally illuminated signs shall utilize opaque  backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, so as to insure that the lettering, logos  and/or graphics are illuminated rather than the background.  Translucent backgrounds utilizing dark  colors may be used with white, clear or other light translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, provided  the Design Review Committee determines that the effect will be consistent with the intent of this  provision.  The applicant has indicated that the freestanding sign will not have lighting.  The Board finds this  criterion met.     DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve sign design review application #DR‐18‐08 of Town Square  Associates subject to the following conditions:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full  effect.    2. The sign colors permitted are white, black and two shades of green.    3. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific  standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to  any changes to signs on the property.    4. Any changes to the approved plan require approval by the South Burlington Development Review  Board or the Administrative Officer.     5. Pursuant  to  Section  20  of  the  Sign  Ordinance,  all  signs  must  be  of  substantial  and  sturdy  construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe,  and orderly appearance.              #DR‐18‐08  4    Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _.    Signed this ____ day of September, 2018 by        _____________________________________  Matt Cota, Vice Chair    Please note:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this  decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental  Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South  Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403.  See  V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐828‐1660 or  http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing  requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.    The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state  permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.    #DR‐18‐09  1    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    TOWN SQUARE ASSOCIATION – 425 DORSET ST  MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR‐18‐09  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Design Review application #DR‐18‐09 of Allard Square LP to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit  (MSP) for one wall mounted sign in silver, 146 Market Street.  The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 18, 2018. The applicant was  represented by Katie Forleo.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development  Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:      FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The applicant, Katie Forleo, seeks to obtain an initial Master Signage Permit (MSP).     2. The permit includes one freestanding sign in silver.    3.  The owners of record of the subject property is Snyder‐Braverman Development Co, LLC.    4. The application was received on September 5, 2018.  5. The applicant submitted a rendering of the proposed sign which consists of one (1) new wall  mounted sign with cut‐out letters.  The wall sign is proposed to be located beneath the honeycomb  artwork on the Market Street side of the building.    6. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.  SIGN ORDINANCE    Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part  that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards:     (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with  the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall  promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and  proportions.     (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces  and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high  aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation.     #DR‐18‐09  2    (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with  buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors  is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes.     (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high‐quality materials  complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related.     Only one sign is proposed in a color consistent with the approved wall‐mounted artwork.  The sign is  proposed to be constructed of hard plastic injection mold painted with a matt silver finish.  Each letter is  15‐inches tall.    Section 8(d) reads in part that the Board must consider the following:    (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of  parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces,  sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color  illustrations thereof.     (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating  a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and  installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of  the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District.     (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic  elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually.    (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual  signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that  is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer.      The proposed sign plan proposes one wall‐mounted sign and therefore consistency between signage  and over time is not an issue.  The sign is proposed to be consistent with the approved wall‐mounted  artwork.  The sign is proposed to be a maximum of 19.5 sq. ft. The Board finds these criteria have been  met.    Section 9(h) addresses standards specifically for free‐standing signs within the Dorset Street/City  Center Sign District and is not applicable to this application.     Section 21(e) pertains to lighting:  (e) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, internally illuminated signs shall utilize opaque  backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, so as to insure that the lettering, logos  and/or graphics are illuminated rather than the background.  Translucent backgrounds utilizing dark  colors may be used with white, clear or other light translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, provided  the Design Review Committee determines that the effect will be consistent with the intent of this  provision.  #DR‐18‐09  3    The applicant has indicated that the freestanding sign will be externally illuminated, therefore this  criterion is not applicable.   DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve sign design review application #DR‐18‐09 of Allard Square,  LP subject to the following conditions:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full  effect.    2. The sign color permitted is silver.    3. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific  standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to  any changes to signs on the property.    4. Any change to the approved plan require approval by the South Burlington Development Review  Board or the Administrative Officer.     5. Pursuant  to  Section  20  of  the  Sign  Ordinance,  all  signs  must  be  of  substantial  and  sturdy  construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe,  and orderly appearance.    Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _.    Signed this ____ day of September, 2018 by        _____________________________________  Matt Cota, Vice Chair    Please note:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this  decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental  Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South  Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403.  See  V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐828‐1660 or  #DR‐18‐09  4    http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing  requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.    The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state  permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.    FOOTPRINT : 10’W X 30’H MATERIAL : 304 STAINLESS STEEL CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  CU‐18‐10_36 Brigham Rd_Beaudin_2018‐09‐14.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: September 14, 2018  Application received:  August 10, 2018  36 Brigham Road  Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐10  Meeting date: September 18, 2018  Applicant  Marcel Beaudin, AIA  1233 Shelburne Road, 430  South Burlington, VT 05403  Owner  Bernice Bayer  36 Brigham Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Engineer  Engineers Construction, Inc  PO Box 2187  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel ID  0270‐00036  Lakeshore Neighborhood District           #CU-18-10 2  PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Conditional use application #CU‐18‐10 of Marcel Beaudin to reconstruct an existing timber retaining wall  and add a handrail, 36 Brigham Road.    CONTEXT    The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District.  The applicant is  proposing to reconstruct an existing structure within 150 feet horizontal distance of the high water  elevation of Lake Champlain (elevation 102), subjecting the Project to the requirements of Section  12.01D. The requirements of Article 14 pertaining to Conditional Use also apply.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner have reviewed the plans  submitted on August 10, 2018 and offer the following comments.  Numbered items for the Board’s  attention are in red.    ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  No changes are proposed to any of the dimensional requirements, therefore the Staff considers detailed  review unnecessary.      12.01 D.  PRE‐EXISTING STRUCTURES ALONG LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND WITHIN QUEEN CITY PARK    (1)   Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to preexisting structures within the  areas defined as follows:     (a)   All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water  elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two  (102) feet above mean sea level datum.    Elevation 102 is located at a point located approximately 16 feet east of the existing home, as  shown  on  the  provided  Existing  Conditions  plan  provided  by  the applicant.    Therefore  the  applicable area includes all portions of the subject property.    (2)   Expansion and Construction of pre‐existing structures. Within the areas defined in Section  (D)(1) above, the expansion and reconstruction of pre‐existing structures may be approved by the  DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the  following standards are met:     (a)   The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before  April 24, 2000. For purposes of these Regulations, expansion may include the construction of  detached accessory structures including garages and utility sheds.    The applicant has represented the retaining wall to be replaced has been in existence since prior  to April 24, 2000.    (b)   The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms  of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the  closest point of the existing structure.  #CU-18-10 3    No expansion in the direction of Lake Champlain is proposed.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (c)   The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be  more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April  24, 2000. For purposes of these regulations, reconstruction may include razing the existing  structure and/or foundation and constructing a new structure in accordance with the provisions  of the underlying zoning district regulations and this section.    The applicant is proposing to remove a jog in the existing retaining wall was originally constructed  to avoid a tree, which has since been removed.  The existing jog to be removed is roughly parallel  to the existing deck.  The proposed realignment does not expand the existing structure Staff  considers this criterion met.    (d)   An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing  controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated  surface water.    The existing retaining wall will remain in place.  The applicant will remove existing vegetation to  access the existing wall but will not disturb the underlying earth.      1. The applicant has not provided an erosion plan.  Staff recommends the Board require the  applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion.    (e)   A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees  and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a  visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.    2. The applicant has not provided a proposed landscaping plan.  Staff recommends the Board  require the applicant to provide a landscaping plan to demonstrate compliance with this  criterion.    14.10 E.  CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW    Pursuant to Section 12.01D(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Expansion and  construction of pre‐existing structures), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and  shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E):    14.10E General Review Standards  The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all  applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in  an undue adverse effect on any of the following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers finds this  criterion met.    (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning  district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the  #CU-18-10 4  municipal plan.     Staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore  Neighborhood (LN) district, which is in part “to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks  that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the  vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Holmes Road. The district is designed to promote the area's  historic development pattern of smaller lots and minimal setbacks. This district encourages the  conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences.” Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff  considers this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    Staff considers this criterion met.  See above for a discussion of compliance with surface water  and nonconforming structure standards.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.    Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.     Respectfully submitted,      ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  #SD‐17‐28  Findings of Fact and Decision  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    JAM GOLF, LLC  GOLF COURSE ROAD/LONG DRIVE SUBDIVISION  FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐17‐28  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Final plat application #SD‐18‐27 of JAM Golf, LLC for re‐approval of a subdivision of a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a  golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, 182 Golf Course Road.    The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 18, 2018.  The applicant was represented by David  Marshall of Civil Engineering Associates and Sandy Fead of Fead Construction Law, PLC.    Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained  in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT  1. The project consists of subdividing a 47.99 acre parcel into eleven lots, Golf Course Road.  2. The owner of record of the subject property is JAM Golf, LLC.    3. The application was deemed complete as of August 14, 2017.    4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant – Natural Resources Protection zoning district.     5. The plan submitted consists of a twenty two (22) page set of plans.  The first sheet is entitled “Vermont National Country  Club Long Drive Subdivision Overall Site Plan” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated June 2001 and most recently  updated December 12, 2017.  This plan set includes the following sheets.    O‐1  LONG DRIVE SUBDIVISION OVERALL SITE PLAN   P‐1  OVERALL PLAN LONG DRIVE SUBDIVISION  P‐2  SUBDIVISION PLAN LONG DRIVE SUBDIVISION  P‐3  EASEMENT PLAN LONG DRIVE SUBDIVISION  C‐1  GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN  C1.1  E911 ADDRESS PLAN  C‐2  SITE UTILITY PLAN  C‐3  EROSION CONTROL PLAN  C‐4  STREET & UTILITY PROFILES  C‐5  SITE SECTIONS & DETAILS  C‐5.1  SITE DETAILS  C‐6  UTILITY SECTIONS & DETAILS  C‐7  EROSION CONTROL DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS  C‐8  SPECIFICATIONS  C‐9  SPECIFICATIONS  L‐1  OVERALL SITE PLAN  L‐2  OVERALL SITE PLAN  L‐3  TREE PLAN LOTS 1, 2 & 3  #SD‐18‐27    2 of 7  L‐4  TREE PLAN LOTS 4, 5 & 6  L‐5  TREE PLAN LOTS 7 & 8  L‐6  TREE PLAN LOTS 9 & 10  L‐7  LANDSCAPING DETAILS  L‐8  OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE 1” = 20’      6. The Environmental Court granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision by V.R.C.P. 58 Judgment Order entered  on September 11, 2009 in Docket No. 69‐3‐02 Vtec (“Preliminary Approval”).    7. This final plat application falls under the category of further proceedings, and is subject to the same subdivision and  zoning regulations as the preliminary plat application, namely the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations with  amendments through January 4, 1999 and the South Burlington Zoning Regulations with amendments through April 16,  2001.    8.  The applicant previously obtained final plat approval from the DRB for the subdivision of these eleven (11) lots on  March 21, 2018 (#SD‐17‐28).  The applicant allowed the approval to become null and void due to not recording the final  plat within 180 days of approval.  The applicant has made updates to the plans to comply with the conditions of that  approval but otherwise has not made any changes to the application.      1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS    Note:  The  standards  applicable  to  the  Project  were  written  around the time that the DRB came into existence.   Accordingly, some references to Planning Commission review still exist in the applicable standards.  Legal counsel  advised that with the advent of the DRB, review for compliance with these standards is the responsibility of the DRB  regardless of which Appropriate Municipal Panel was referenced in the standards.     a) Will not result in undue water or air pollution.  In making this determination the Planning Commission shall at  least consider (1) the availability and capacity of municipal sewer facilities or the nature of soils and subsoils  and their ability to support waste disposal adequately, (2) the elevation of land above sea level and in relation  to the floodplains, (3) protection of ground and surface waters, and (4) all applicable regulations of the health  department and other State agencies.    The applicant is proposing three (3) sanitary sewer pump stations, one of which was not approved in the  preliminary plat application and one which is relocated.  It was unclear from the originally submitted plans  whether the applicant was proposing for the new and relocated pump stations to be public or privately owned.   The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on November 15, 2017 and requests the following.    1. If the pump stations are to remain private, the plans be revised to show the proposed access to each of the  pump stations.  2. If the pump stations are to become public,  a. Revise the plans to include a 20‐foot unencumbered easement with a curb drop down at the street.   Access needs to have structural support for the City’s vactor truck live and dead loads.  b. Revise the plans to include A way to turn around the vactor truck at the pump station location  c. Provide sufficient information to review the design of the pump station    The applicant opted to retain the pump stations as private and has revised the plans to show the proposed access  to each of the pump stations.  The Board finds this criterion met.  #SD‐18‐27    3 of 7    b) Will have sufficient water available for the reasonable foreseeable needs of the development.    No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since Preliminary Approval.   The Board finds this criterion to be met.    c) Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a  dangerous or unhealthy condition may result.    No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since Preliminary Approval.   The Board finds this criterion to be met.    d) Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways,  existing or proposed.    No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since Preliminary Approval.   The Board finds this criterion to be met.    e) Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide educational services and facilities    No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since Preliminary Approval.   The Board finds this criterion to be met.    f) Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services  and facilities    The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing 8‐inch water line in Golf Course Road.  Prior to submitting  the preliminary plat application, the applicant coordinated with the South Burlington Water Department to discuss  the layout of the water line.  At that time (June 2001), the Water Department noted that they would like to see  the water line looped.  The applicant has adjusted the final plat application to accommodate a future water line  connection to Park Road.  The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on 11/15/2017 and offered the following  comments.    1. The Long Drive Subdivision (10 units) can be built and served by a single water line coming off Golf  Course Road.  2. When the Lot 108 Area (18 units) is built the water line from the Long Drive Subdivision must be  connected into the Lot 108 Area’s water lines that will connect back up to Park Road.  3. When the Park Road Area (15 units) and Wheeler Parcel (32 units) are developed the existing water line  that circles Park Road and Golf Course Road must be extended west to connect to these projects and/or  the Dorset Street water line.  4. Completing the above will allow this entire area to be fully looped to ensure the highest water quality is  available to all the properties and to create the standard redundancy that we have built throughout the  city in our water infrastructure to ensure reliable, uninterrupted service.    The Board finds that the Director of Public Works’ recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval.    g) [invalidated by courts]    #SD‐18‐27    4 of 7  h) Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, is aesthetically compatible  with surrounding developed properties and site characteristics, and will protect rare and irreplaceable natural  areas and historic sites    This criterion was the subject of Environmental and Supreme Court appeals.  In deference to the sensitivity of this  criterion, the submitted plans provide extensive landscaping detail.  The Board notes that the landscaping plans  show an outdated layout for the terminal end of Short Drive and for some of the driveway configurations and thus  the proposed effect cannot be evaluated.  The Board further notes that some trees within the proposed building  footprints appear to be hatched with the shading identified in the legend as “Existing Tree to be Saved.”   Though  the Board appreciates that it appears the applicant is minimizing removal of existing trees, a clear landscape plan  is necessary to facilitate future inspections in compliance with Preliminary Approval condition #3a.    i) [invalidated by courts]    j) Will provide efficient layout and high‐quality installation, construction, and maintenance of streets and public  facilities and will conform with the City’s street and utilities plan.    See discussion under criteria a) and f) above as they pertain to conformance with the City’s utility plans.    k) Will provide for cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways, drainage facilities, and  utility lines.    As discussed under criterion (f) above, the Applicant has proposed a stub to allow for future water line connection.   No other changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since Preliminary  Approval.  The Board finds this criterion to be met.    l)  [invalidated by courts]    DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐27 of JAM Golf, LLC, subject to the following  stipulations:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.     2. This Project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, revised as required by this  Decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.     3. The following waivers of the standards of the South Burlington Zoning and/or Subdivision Regulations are granted:  a. The reduction of the frontage for proposed lot 3 to 42.5 feet.  b. The reduction of the width of the private road serving proposed lots 4, 5 and 6 to 18 feet, plus 2 feet of  mountable curb on each side of the private road.   c. The reduction of the width of the public road to 24 feet and the width of the first 200 feet of the public  road to 20 feet.  d. The reduction of the length of the sidewalk along the public road extending from Golf Course Road to the  driveway for proposed Lot 2.    4. The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit.    #SD‐18‐27    5 of 7  5. Pursuant to Section 407 of the Subdivision Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications  must be underground.    6. The Project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 412 of the South Burlington  Subdivision Regulations.  In addition, the Project grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 413 of  the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations.    7. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board.     8. The final plat plans (P‐1 Overall Plan Long Drive Subdivision, P‐2 Subdivision Plan Long Drive Subdivision and P‐3  Easement Plan Long Drive Subdivision) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null  and void.  The plans must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording.  Prior to recording the final plat  plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format.  The format of the digital information  requires approval by the South Burlington GIS Coordinator.    9. The mylars must be recorded before the Administrative Officer may issue any zoning permits for the Project.     10. Prior to recording the final plat plans, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of  dedication and warranty deed for the proposed public road, and utility, sewer, drainage, and water, etc.) shall be  submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records.    11. Prior to start of improvements described in Condition #10 above, the applicant must provide an estimate of the  construction  cost  for  the  Project,  broken  down  by  infrastructure  costs,  aggregate  cost  for  individual  parcel  development, and cost of street trees.  Upon the Administrative Officer’s review and approval of estimated costs, the  applicant must post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements plus 15% contingency, the amount of which  must be approved by the City Engineer.    12. With the consent of the two abutters, the applicant shall adjust the layout of the two abutters’ driveways, portions  of which will be removed and replaced with the proposed Long Drive roadway, such that each driveway is  compatible with the proposed roadway and is at least the quality as existed prior to construction.  All costs, fees and  expenses of preparing and submitting plans for, and constructing, these driveway adjustments are the sole  responsibility of the applicant and not the abutters, and shall be included in the infrastructure bond described in  Condition #12 above.    13. Prior to start of improvements described in #10 above, the applicant must post a landscaping bond with a value that  is based on and complies with Section 26.105(a) of the Zoning Regulations. This landscaping bond shall remain in full  effect for three (3) years to ensure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival.     14. Before the Administrative Officer may issue the first zoning permit for the Project, the Applicant must obtain City  Arborist approval for any changes to the proposed Plant List and submit a copy of the approval to the Administrative  Officer.    15. The document entitled “Tree Preservation Handbook Long Drive Subdivision at Vermont National Country Club  South Burlington, Vermont,” dated September 9, 2010, and its attachments, are incorporated as a condition of  approval.    16. The tree preservation plan referenced and described in Paragraph 2(d) of the Preliminary Approval is supplemented  for the areas outside of the individual lots by the following condition:                                                                                                      The Project is intended to remain densely wooded outside of the limits of clearing described in the Tree Preservation  #SD‐18‐27    6 of 7  Handbook.  Vegetation within the outer boundary as generally depicted on the detailed tree survey shown on Sheet  L‐2 of the landscaping plans must be managed to preserve the character of the area in accordance with best  management practices, which are acknowledged to evolve over time.  Trees subject to this condition shall not be  removed except to meet the goal of maintaining a healthy and densely wooded area overall, as determined by a  qualified consulting arborist.  Trees exempt from this condition include trees with a diameter of 4‐inches or less,  trees listed as invasive species, trees lacking structural integrity that pose an immediate danger to a home, dead  trees, and trees that are diseased in a manner that threatens their continued viability.  Determination of whether a  tree is subject to this condition must be made by a qualified consulting arborist in writing prior to tree removal.  The  applicant shall maintain records of such written determinations, which shall be available to the City upon request.   Removal of trees for the health of the surrounding golf turf shall be allowed with prior Site Plan approval of the  Administrative Officer after consultation with the City Arborist.  Trees that grow to a diameter breast height of 4‐ inches after this approval shall become subject to this condition.  Failure to adhere to this condition will require the  applicant to replace the tree(s) removed on a caliper by caliper basis with minimum 2” caliper trees of the same  genus or as recommended by the City Arborist.    17. Before the Administrative Officer may issue a zoning permit for either the first lot or utility or road construction,  whichever applicant first requests, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer documents for owners of the  lots and dwelling units which create an association for implementation of the Tree Preservation Handbook.    18. The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.     19. When the Lot 108 Area (18 dwelling units) is developed, the water line from the Project must be connected into the  Lot 108 Area’s water lines, that in turn will connect to Park Road.    20. When the Park Road Area (15 dwelling units) and the Wheeler Parcel (32 dwelling units) are developed, the existing  water line that circles Park Road and Golf Course Road must be extended west to connect to these projects and/or  the Dorset Street water line.    21. The sewer pump stations shall remain private.    22. Fire hydrants must be installed and tested before construction of the combustible portions of buildings commences  pursuant to NFPA 1 Chapter 18.     23. Minimum hydrant flow shall be based on NFA‐ NFF formula plus a safety margin of not less than 10%.    24. All roads shall comply with Fire Department apparatus turning radii (includes mutual aid apparatus).    25. Parking of construction vehicles shall be restricted to one side of all involved roads to maintain Fire Department  access during construction.      26. The Project must comply with NFPA 241 – Safe Guarding buildings under construction, alteration or demolition.     27. Beginning one (1) year from the date of the issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project, applicant annually must  provide  the  City  with  written  certification  from  a  qualified  consulting  arborist  as  to  compliance  with  the  tree  preservation plan and the landscape planting plan on each lot as well as on the Project property beyond the lots,  specifically listing any areas of noncompliance.    28. Prior to implementation of any field changes to the tree preservation  plan,  Applicant must  notify  the  City  Administrative Officer and obtain a determination regarding the need for further application and approval.  #SD‐18‐27    7 of 7    29. The lot owner(s) must abide by the terms of the tree preservation handbook for his/her/their lot.    30. All lights on the exterior of any building or on any of the lots shall be downcast and shielded fixtures.    31. No additional street lighting may be installed without amendment of the final plat approval.    32. Before the final plat plans may be recorded, Applicant shall record a Notice of Condition of #s 15, 16, and 27‐31,  above, approved by the City Attorney.     Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _       Signed this __ day of September 2018, by      _____________________________________  Matt Cota, Vice Chair    PLEASE NOTE:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice  of appeal and the required fee by certified mail with the Superior Court, Environmental Division.  See V.R.E.C.P.  5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning  Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the  Environmental Division at 802‐951‐1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental   for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.        The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this  project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.  LONG DRI V E ELONG DRIVEGENERAL NOTES:1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall maintain as-built plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project. 4. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities. 8. If the building is to be sprinklered, backflow prevention shall be provided in accordance with AWWA M14. The Site Contractor shall construct the water line to two feet above the finished floor. See mechanical plans for riser detail. 9. The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for all items and materials incorporated into the site work. Work shall not begin on any item until shop drawing approval is granted.10. In addition to the requirements set in these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards.11. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 feet.12. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be the Contractor's responsibility.13. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within Town Road R.O.W. with Town authorities.14. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companies requirements.15. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off- site location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw.16. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the item in question.P:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/15/2017 9:01:48 AM LONG D RI V E EStone WallStone WallWallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStoneWallStoneLONG DRIVEP:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/13/2017 12:01:23 PM LONG D RI V E LONG DRIVE45 LONG DRIVE81 LONG DRIVE87 LONG DRIVE135 LONG DRIVE155 LONG DRIVE159 LONG DRIVE94 LONG DRIVE80 LONG DRIVE42 LONG DRIVE84 LONG DRIVE15 LONG DRIVE18 LONG DRIVEP:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/14/2017 2:24:29 PM P:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/13/2017 6:50:34 AM EStone WallStone WallWallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStoneWallStoneP:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/12/2017 8:01:28 AM P:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 12/12/2017 8:02:32 AM AS SHOWN ON PLANSAS SHOWN ON PLANS8'-6"12-12-17DSMREVISED ACCESS ROAD DETAIL LUMINAIRE:METROSCAPEMODEL:35W32LED4K-R-LE3-PH8-TN3-PN1-BRTXPOLE: SHAKESPEAREMDL: A013-1S512-12-17DSMREVISED POLE LIGHT DETAIL 1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐28_1580 Dorset St & 1699 Hinesburg Rd_JJJ_Cider  Mill II_Final_2018‐09‐18.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: September 14, 2018  Plans received: August 23, 2017  1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road  Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐17‐29  Meeting date: September 18, 2018  Owner/Applicant  JJJ South Burlington, LLC  21 Carmichael St., Suite 201  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Engineer  O’Leary Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Dr.  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐R1580, 0860‐01731, 0860‐01625_R  SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,  SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection  65.49 acres      Location Map        2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Final plat application SD‐18‐28 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit  planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project  and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units in Phase II and 291  overall, and conservation of 21.7 acres of land through the purchase of 26 Transfer Development Rights.  The 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in two (2) family dwellings, and 30  single family units on shared lots, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road.      PERMIT HISTORY    Previously in 2007, the applicant obtained master plan approval for 109 dwelling units in Cider Mill II, with  the area zoned as Village Residential reserved for future development (MP‐07‐01).  In 2008 and 2015, the  applicant obtained final plat approval for this same development (SD‐08‐34 and SD‐15‐11), which was  subsequently amended in 2016 (SD‐16‐01) due to revised wetland boundaries.  In 2017, the applicant  came before the Board for sketch plan review of a revised layout which included 154 units, including a  loop road in the Village Residential zone (SD‐17‐20), which was subsequently revised at preliminary plat  to reduce to 142 units, replacement of the loop road with a cul‐de‐sac, consolidated open space areas,  and  improving  rec  path  connectivity.  On  March  6,  2018,  the  Development  Review  Board  issued  preliminary plat approval SD‐17‐29 for the Project.        COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as  Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.  Numbered  items for the Board’s attention are in red.    A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations stablishes the following general review  standards for all site plan applications located within the Southeast Quadrant.    The project is located in the SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR and SEQ‐NRP sub‐districts.  The dimensional standards  outlined in Table C‐2 of the Land Development Regulations were altered though the Master Plan approval  process for the subject property.  The approved waivers are outlined in the decision and findings of fact for  Master Plan #MP‐17‐02 and duplicated below.    a. Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft.  b. Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%.  c. Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%.  d. Two‐family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%.  e. Two‐family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%.  f. Two‐family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.  g. Two‐family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet.  h. Multi‐family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%.  i. Multi‐family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%.  j. Multi‐family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.  k. Multi‐family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet.  3    The applicant has indicated on the provided plans what the maximum building coverage will be on each  of the single family lots, and has shown a building setback line.  While the exact homes to be constructed  on each lot is not determined, the proposed single family homes all fall within the previously approved  waivers.  Side yard setbacks for the single family homes are met without reliance on waivers.  There are  no multi‐family homes currently proposed.      The Project involves a number of two family homes and single family homes on shared lots.  While it  appears the lot coverage requirements are met for the shared lots, Staff has not been able to locate  documentation of the proposed building and overall coverages for the shared lots.  Section 15.02A(4)(b)  requires that the applicant meet overall lot coverage and building coverage be met for each of the  included zoning districts.    1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate the single and two‐family lot  coverage maximums are met for each of the shared lots within each included zoning district as a  condition of approval.    The maximum allowed height is 28‐feet for pitched roofs in the applicable zoning districts.  The applicant  is proposing to address the issue of compliance with height criteria by raising the level of the street and  adjacent lots and obtaining Board approval for adjustment of preconstruction grade of the development  lots in accordance with Section 3.12.  Such an adjustment requires review as a PUD.  PUD criteria are  addressed later in this document.    The applicant has submitted a table of proposed preconstruction grades.  Staff notes that in the southwest  corner of the development, the proposed preconstruction grade is as much as 9 feet higher than existing  grade and as much as 6 feet higher than the existing grade for proposed homes across the street.  For  example, Lot #27 has an existing elevation of 403.  The home across the street, Lot #40, has an existing  grade around 405.  The applicant is proposing an adjusted preconstruction grade for Lot #27 of 411.  This  will result in a home which appears to be 6 feet higher than it’s neighbor across the street.  Staff considers  this configuration inconsistent with PUD Standard (A)(5) and Site Plan Review Standard (C)(2), below.  PUD  Standard (A)(5) pertains to scenic views and Site Plan Review Standard (C)(2) pertains to harmonious  relationships between elements of a development.    2. Staff considers it appears possible to lower Lots #18 to #34 by at least two to three feet without  affecting the roadway or their constructability, and recommends the Board require the applicant  to make this change to reduce the perception of these units being artificially higher than the  surrounding grade.  Staff further recommends the Board consider requiring the applicant to reduce  the proposed grade of the homes to the minimum required to obtain positive sewer drainage.      Staff notes the applicant must not exceed the maximum number of stories for each building.  Based on  the provided building elevations, the applicant is not proposing more than two stories for any of the  buildings.     B) MASTER PLAN    Pursuant to Section 15.07 D (3), the following applies:    4  Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that  deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new  application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended  master plan:  a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject  to the master plan;   b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;  c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property  subject to the master plan;  d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in  the approved master plan application; and/or  e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends  projected for total build‐out of the property subject to the master plan.    The property is presently subject to a Master Plan, most recently amended as #MP‐17‐02 on March 21,  2018.  The current master plan reflects the same layout, number of units, and approximate site coverage  as is included in this application.    C) DENSITY    The SEQ‐NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights  (TDRs) and the SEQ‐VR districts allows 1.2 units per acre or eight (8) units per acre with TDRs.  The acreage  involved in the entire Cider Mill Development (Cider Mill I and  II)  is  161.59  acres,  therefore  the  development has 193 units of inherent density and 646 units of maximum density.  Cider Mill I included  149 units, therefore 44 units of inherent density remain.  As part of the Master Plan approval, the  Applicant submitted the legal documents pertaining to the option to purchase development rights for  Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II for review by the City Attorney, up to a maximum of 326 units.  The Applicant  has secured 72 units of density from the Auclair Farm based on 60.8 acres at a rate of 1.2 units per acre  (Volume  848  Pg  262).    Therefore  the  Applicant  needs  to  secure  an  additional  26  units  of  density,  representing 21.67 acres of land.  The Applicant has provided a signed option agreement to purchase the  development rights from another 31.2 acres of land.  Staff assumes the applicant’s calculation of required  acreage was erroneous.    3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to record in the land records a conservation  easement for 26.7 acres prior to obtaining a zoning permit for the 116th dwelling unit in Cider Mill  II.    D) PHASING    The project will be constructed in four phases as shown on Plan Sheet P.  The proposed phases are  unchanged from the phasing approved in preliminary plat.      E) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply  with the following standards and conditions:    5  (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the  project.     According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public  utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the  proposed dwelling units.    According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or  developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by  the City and the State in any subdivision where off‐lot wastewater is proposed.      The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 109 units in July of 2015.  The Applicant is  currently proposing 142 units, therefore needs allocation for an additional 33 units.    The applicant has submitted approved preliminary allocation letters for water and wastewater dated  4/19/2018 and 3/27/2018, respectively.    4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit a State wastewater and potable  water supply permit and obtain final water and wastewater allocations for each building prior to  issuance of the first zoning permit for the building.    (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil  erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent  properties.    The Applicant has obtained a state construction general permit (permit no. 3144‐9020.2) for Cider Mill 2,  which expires May 29, 2020.  The permit addresses a 35.6 acre area encompassing 109 housing units.  The  applicant has indicated they have not yet confirmed with the State whether they will need to amend their  state permit to address the additional disturbance associated with housing units in the Village Residential  zone.  Staff notes that the state construction general permit prohibits discharge of visibly discolored  stormwater from the construction site.  The City has the authority to enforce violations of the stormwater &  sewer ordinance, specifically pertaining to illicit discharges, should the Project result in sediment migrating  beyond the limits of the construction site.    5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to confirm that 3114‐9020.2 will be amended to  reflect the proposed project prior to closing the hearing.    (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent  unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.    At preliminary plat, the Board deferred a determination on whether to require the applicant to extend Cider  Mill Drive to Sommerfield Avenue.  The preliminary plat decision was appealed to the Environmental Court  on this matter, and the Court issued a dismissal without prejudice, effectively returning the matter to the DRB  for decision.    The Board requested technical third‐party review of the question of whether Cider Mill Drive should be  extended  to  Sommerfield  Avenue  as a  requirement  of  final  plat  approval.  The technical review was  completed by BFJ Planning on April 9, 2018 and is included with this packet.  Though the BFJ memo states  6  that “none of [the projected] traffic flows are high enough to have a measurable impact on the quality of life  on  [Winesap  Lane,  Braeburn  Street,  and  Sommerfield  Avenue  north  of  Braeburn  Street]  under  either  scenario,” and “the external cut through traffic will not be influenced to any measurable degree by the  connection and is not expected to affect quality of life in the neighborhood,”, it nonetheless recommends the  Board require extension of Cider Mill Drive by 600‐feet to provide a more direct connection with six right‐ angle turns instead of eight turns between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street.  This recommendation is based  on the functional classification of Cider Mill Drive as a collector road, expectations of residents, and benefits  to bicyclists.  The BFJ memo concludes “the benefits of the connection outweigh the disadvantages and that  it is the fairest decision vis‐à‐vis the neighbors.”  Therefore Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a  plan which ultimate results in construction of this connection and which fairly allocates the cost of the  connection between benefitting parcels.    Staff estimates that the following properties will experience the benefits of the Cider Mill Drive extension  described in the BFJ memo.   The subject parcels;   Phase I of Cider Mill;   15‐acre parcel recently subdivided 1731 Hinesburg Road (#SD‐18‐15);   10‐acre parcel at 1625 Hinesburg Road;   45.5 acres at 1499 Hinesburg Road; and   2 acres of developable lands within the existing solar field at 1545 Hinesburg Road.    The 117 acre parcel that was also the subject of #SD‐18‐15 is excluded because it is planned for conservation,  not development.  Staff estimates the subject parcels represent approximately 43% of the development  potential which would benefit from the connection.  The properties comprising Phase I of Cider Mill are  excluded from this calculation because Staff considers the contribution towards the construction of Cider Mill  Drive has been made by dedication of the easement.  This calculation considers the development potential  of the subject properties, not the proposed number of units, since without specific proposals for all the  properties, this is the only equitable way to compare the properties.    The  applicant  estimates  that  the  Cider  Mill  Drive  extension  would  cost  approximately  $500,000,  not  considering pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, street trees, or permitting costs.  Staff estimates the cost of the  additional elements to be $200,000.  The applicant’s proportion of the extension should therefore be 43% of  $700,000, or $301,000.  The approximate road impact fee for the project is $146,000, leaving $155,000  additional fees that should be paid by the applicant for the extension of Cider Mill Drive.  Staff considers this  represents a fee of approximately $1,000 per unit.  The applicant has submitted a cover letter with this  application indicating their agreement with this fair share contribution to the Cider Mill Drive connector of  $1,000 per unit.      6. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposal to pay an $1,000 per unit impact fee  beyond the typical road impact fee in lieu of constructing the Cider Mill Drive extension.    7. Also included in the applicant’s cover letter is a suggestion to make the Aurora Road/Sommerfield  Avenue connection only available to emergency vehicles until the 50th unit is constructed.  This  connection, and the connection to Hinesburg Road, are proposed to be otherwise fully constructed in  Phase 1 of the Cider Mill II development.  Staff strongly recommends the Board deny the applicant’s  suggestion of an emergency only connection.  Based on experience within this project and elsewhere  7  in the City, the deferment of roadway construction results in stronger opposition to construction when  the pre‐determined threshold is triggered.    Additional comments on roadways and impacts to off‐site traffic are discussed under criterion (A)(9) below.     (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife  habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.    As discussed pertaining to Article 12 below, the Project design minimizes wetland impacts.  The Open Space  Strategy identifies a north to south wildlife corridor located south of the Project and oriented between Cider  Mill and Cider Mill II.  Cider Mill and the Master Plan pertaining to Cider Mill II were permitted before the  Open Space Strategy was developed and thus did not take it into consideration.  At the narrowest point, the  wildlife corridor is 188‐feet wide between the rear of an approved home on Sommerfield Ave. and the edge  of Stormwater Pond C.      At preliminary plat, the Board found that the stormwater pond should not be fenced to help preserve the  wildlife corridor.      At preliminary plat, the Board found that the area formerly occupied by neighborhood park E and currently  identified on the plans as Unmanaged Open Space must be retained as open space and remain unmanaged  (i.e. not mowed or otherwise developed).    The  applicant  has  submitted  an  open  space  management  plan  to  become part of the Home Owners  Association documents.  Staff considers the open space management plan shows the different types of open  space but does not specify how the different designations are to be maintained.  Instead, the open space  management  plan  references  the  Ledgewood  Estates  Homeowners  Association covenants.  Staff has  reviewed the provided covenant, which on Page 14 address maintenance of open spaces.  Staff considers the  open space  maintenance  is insufficiently descriptive  to  determine  whether  the open spaces are  to be  maintained as  lawn,  maintained  as  meadow  (ie  brush‐hogged  but  not mowed), allowed to revegetate  naturally, or some other scheme.      8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the open space management plan to  specify  how  each  open  space  type  is  to  be  maintained  in  addition  to  who  is  responsible  for  maintenance.    As part of preliminary plat approval, the Board required the applicant to incorporate the recommendations  of the Natural Resources Committee pertaining to the wetland crossing of Aurora Road connecting to  Sommerfield Avenue, provided by memorandum to the Development Review Board on November 12, 2017.     The height and grade of the embankment of the road should ensure the safe passage of wildlife.   The structure should be free of guardrails to allow wildlife to cross.    Signage depicting “wildlife crossing” should be placed at both ends of the connector.    Staff considers the recommendations of the Natural Resources Committee to have been addressed.     (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the  area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is  located.   8    Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ)  is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource  protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as planned residential  use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character  and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in  the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in  the judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this  area shall be encouraged.    The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as lower intensity principally residential and medium intensity  residential to mixed‐use.  Staff’s concerns pertaining to scenic views are addressed under Dimensional  Standards above.    (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for  creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.     The applicant has included fence or boulder demarcation at the boundaries of the open space areas to  prevent the open spaces from becoming extensions of the adjacent back yards only where open spaces are  immediately adjacent to back yards.  Demarcation is discussed further under Southeast Quadrant criterion   B(5) below. The project includes pedestrian access to neighborhood park D.   Staff considers this Criterion to  be met.    (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that  adequate fire protection can be provided.    The Deputy Fire Chief reviewed the plans on September 12, 2018 and offers the following comments.    1. Parking of construction vehicles shall be limited to one side of the road.  2. Hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of combustible elements of structures.  3. “No Parking” signs are needed where road widths do not accommodate parking.  Where road  widths accommodate parking on one side only, “No Parking” signs shall be added to one side of the  street.    9. Staff recommends the Board incorporate the Deputy Fire Chief’s comments as conditions of  approval.  Staff recommends the Board allow the applicant’s engineer to make a  recommendation as to which side of the street shall be no parking, with the goal of providing a  meaningful number of spaces where parking is allowed.    (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have  been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to  adjacent landowners.    Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are discussed under criterion (A)(9) below.     At preliminary plat, the Board found that the Applicant must provide a 12‐foot level area around the  entire perimeter of the stormwater ponds for maintenance access, and that 8 feet of that area must be  maintained clear of landscaping.  The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the revised access  9  and recommends the Board approve the proposed configuration.    On September 10, 2018, the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the remainder of the  application and offers the following comments.    1. The project has an operation permit (3144‐9015.2A), as well as a construction permit (3144‐ 9020.2), which was issued for the previously approved project. The applicant should confirm if  the 9020 permit needs to be revised to the current layout.   2. The City staff previously provided a recommendation to include fences around the stormwater  ponds. It was the decision of the applicant to keep the ponds unfenced based on discussions with  the DRB, Natural Resources Committee, and neighbors from Cider Mill Phase I.     3. The  applicant  should  confirm  that  the  stormwater  drainage  structures  are  designed,  at  a  minimum, to safely pass the twenty‐five year, twenty‐four hour (4.0 inch) rain event, in accordance  with §12.03.E(2).     4. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater  treatment and conveyance infrastructure.  The Applicant provided initial responses to these comments on September 11, 2018.  The Assistant  Stormwater Superintendent is working with the applicant to satisfy their concerns pertaining to  comments 1 and 3.    10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to confirm that the State will require 3114‐ 9020.2 to be amended prior to closing the hearing.    11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater  treatment and conveyance infrastructure.    Staff notes the presence of a retaining wall along the eastern project boundary from Lot 8 to Lot 12.   Retaining walls are considered structures and as such may not be located nearer than 5 feet from any  property line.  The applicant has included a note that states “the swale may be shifted to the west to  reduce or eliminate the need for a retaining wall.”      12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a revised grading plan  demonstrating at least a 5‐foot setback for the retaining wall prior to closing the hearing.    13. Staff notes the presence of swale grading beyond the applicant’s property along Lots 5 and 6.   Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to adjust the grading to remain within the  subject property, or provide a written agreement with the adjoining property owner allowing the  proposed impacts.    (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.    At preliminary plat, the Board found that the applicant’s Final Plat application must include a southbound  left‐turn lane at the intersection of Dorset Street and Cider Mill Drive.  The applicant has included a design for  10  this in their submission.  The Director of Public Works notes in an email dated 9/14/2018 that he considers  the southbound left‐turn lane design acceptable.    At preliminary plat, the Board found that Condition #33(ii) of Act 250 Permit #4C1128‐4, requiring that “prior  to the construction of the 26th  unit in  the  Project,  the Applicant  shall  prepare a  scoping study of  the  Cheesefactory Road/Vermont Route 116 Intersection, prepare a cost  estimate  for  any  improvements  necessary and pay a “fair share” impact fee to the City of South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3%,” is  incorporated as a condition of this approval.  The Board modified the wording of this condition for the purpose  of local approval to avoid confusion with City Traffic Impact Fees by changing the words “impact fee” to  “mitigation contribution.”    At preliminary plat, the Board found that condition #26 of the original approval (#SD‐08‐34) requiring the  applicant to reassess the northbound left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest  intersection prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 50th and 100th dwelling units is no longer  needed.    The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on September 14, 2018 and offers the following additional  comments.    1. Phase 1 of the Phasing Plan shows a road connection to existing Sommerfield Avenue from the  proposed Aurora Lane. Once that connection is made the road should be opened to travel at the  connection point.  2. Any mid‐block crosswalks shall be protected by RRFBs.  3. Crosswalk between units 94 and 87 does not have any proposed signs and is not stop controlled.  4. A crosswalk connecting the sidewalk in front of unit 38 to the ped trail easement that runs  between units 31 and 32 shall be included in the plans.  5. I cannot tell from the plan set (although I may have missed it) where ADA ramps are proposed.  They are shown in the details but not on any of the Site Plan ‘A‐G’ sheets. Perhaps the  assumption is that they are to be installed at all crossings, but that should be shown on the site  plan sheets.  6. Other than the street name, stop and crosswalk signs, are they any other proposed signage? I  suggest ample Speed Limit signs, we are often asked once a development like this is built to  install Speed Limit signs. I’d be willing to work with the developer on locating Speed Limit signs  on their plans. No parking signs should also be provided consistent with the proposed street  cross section.    7. On both the Site Plan sheets and the Roadway & Sidewalk Details, the crosswalks are shown to  have angled cross stripes. We use the standard 90 degree cross stripes. Please change the detail  to reflect this.  8. The luminaire proposed in SH PH1 does not appear to be on the City’s approved list of fixtures.  They should confirm that this 1) either does comply with our list or 2) is considered an approved  equal.    14. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to work with the Director of Public works on  the street signs and incorporate the remaining comments into the plans, including  recommendation #1 as a plan note.    (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected  district(s).  11    The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows.    Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas  within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.    Objective  61.  Maintain  opportunities  for  traditional  and  emerging  forms  of  agriculture  that  complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s  remaining agricultural lands.    Objective  62.  Enhance  Dorset  Street  as  the  SEQ’s  “main  street” with traffic calming techniques,  streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway  profile suited to its intended local traffic function.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes affecting  this criterion have been made.    F) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall  require site plan approval. The single family homes on individual lots are exempted from Site Plan  Review.  Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following  general review standards for all site plan applications:    (A) Relationship of the proposed development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.    Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit Development  Standard (A)(10) above.    (B)(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure  to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking  areas.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes affecting  this criterion have been made.      (B)(2) Parking:  a. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a  public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this  subsection.  b. The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or  more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The  Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.  (i) – (ii) N/A  (iii) The parking area will serve a single or two‐family home;    The Board found these criteria to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting these criteria have been made.  12    (B)(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of  each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.    The applicant is proposing buildings with a maximum height of 26‐feet when measured from the base of the  structure to the midpoint of the roof.  The Board finds that the heights are compatible with the adjoining  structures, but that the height standard is not met without the Board approving a revised pre‐existing grade  as discussed above under dimensional standards.  Height is further discussed under criterion (C)(2) below.      (B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or  building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.    Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines  shall be underground.  Plans submitted as part of this application show underground utility lines are  proposed.     15. Staff notes that a slope impact is shown on the Nadeau Parcel at the intersection of Hinesburg  Road and Nadeaucrest Drive.  The Board has no authority to approve anything off‐site without  that property owner’s approval.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to adjust the  grading to remain within the subject property, or provide a written agreement with the adjoining  property owner allowing the proposed impacts, prior to closing the hearing.    (C)(1) The Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural  characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions  between buildings of different architectural styles.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat with the incorporation of the provided  Design Guidelines document as a condition of approval.  Staff considers that no changes affecting this  criterion have been made, and recommends the Board adopt the Design Guidelines as a condition of this  approval.  This standard is discussed in greater detail as it pertains to SEQ‐NR Standard 9.07C (2) below.    (C)(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing  buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.    In order to avoid the need to install a sewer pump station and force main, the applicant is proposing to  raise a section of Lindamac Street by as much as five feet, and then grade the surrounding topography so  that it transitions smoothly to meet existing prior to the wetland buffer.  This has been discussed in  relation to district and dimensional standards above.    The applicant has requested that the Board grant  permission for alteration of an existing grade on Lindamac Street, and with that alteration, establish the  new grade as preconstruction grade under section 3.07 Height of Structures.  As discussed above under  dimensional standards, Staff considers the requested preconstruction grade for the homes on the south  side of Lindamac Street excessively high and recommends the Board require the applicant refine the  grading to minimize the impacts to terrain.    At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to revise the proposed grading for some of the single  family homes on shared lots to better addresses the standards for desirable transition from structure to  structure and for connectivity to natural areas and to create more functional backyards.    13  The applicant is requesting the Board establish a new preconstruction grade for all 76 homes on shared  lots, tabulated in the applicant’s cover letter.  Staff has reviewed a representative sample of proposed  preconstruction grade against the existing grades and considers the applicant’s proposed preconstruction  grades do not all appear necessary to meet the maximum height criteria given the proposed building  elevations.  Staff further questions whether the proposed preconstruction grades are calculated based on  the average proposed elevation of the underlying grade.  While not a specific requirement for assigning a  new  preconstruction  grade,  Staff  considers  this  approach  consistent  with  height  calculations  and  recommends the Board require it for this project to facilitate zoning permit compliance in the future.    16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise their request to include only the  buildings which actually need an alteration of preconstruction grade to allow the Board to better  understand the proposed impacts under this criterion, and further recommends the Board consider  whether to require the applicant to show their request graphically on the plans in order to provide  a visual way for the Board to evaluate the request.    17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to measure the new preconstruction grade for  each building as the average of the underlying grade at the base of the structure.      Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South  Burlington Land Development Regulations:    (A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties  whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to  provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in  the area.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes affecting  this criterion have been made.     (B) Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground.  Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to  neighboring properties and to the site.    See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.     (C) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or  other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that  trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).    No dumpsters are proposed as part of the Project.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements    Staff  considers  no  changes  to  the  proposed  landscaping  have  been  made  since  preliminary  approval.   Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall  be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review.  The total cost of the buildings subject  to site plan review (the two family buildings and the single family buildings on shared lots) is estimated at  $11,400,000 by the applicant.  The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $121,500.    14    Total Building Construction or  Building Improvement Cost  % of Total Construction/  Improvement Cost  Cost of proposed project  $0 ‐ $250,000  3%  $7,500  Next $250,000  2%  $5,000  Additional over $500,000  1%  $109,000   Minimum Landscaping $  $121,500   Proposed Landscaping  $122,560    The applicant has provided typical landscape plans, which describe that one small tree, five small and one  large evergreen shrub, and nine flowering shrubs will be planted for each two family unit, and two small  trees, six small and one large evergreen shrub, and 12 flowering shrubs will be planed for each single  family unit on a shared lot.    The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 8/27/2018 and offers the following comment.    They should find a substitute for White Fringetree, Chionanthus virginica, as it has recently been  found to be susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer.    18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plant list to comply with City  Arborist’s comment, and that the City Arborist approve the revised plan prior to zoning permit  approval.      The applicant has submitted an estimate of street tree cost by phase as follows.    Phase  Cost  1   $  62,650   2   $  25,200   3   $  66,150   4   $  32,550     G) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT    This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district.  Therefore it is subject to the  provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.    9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts  The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:    A. Height.  See Article 3.07.  Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the  maximum number of stories and the maximum height.  Waivers area not available for  structures with the SEQ zoning district.    The Project is located within the SEQ‐NR and SEQ‐VR districts.  The applicant has requested the Board  grant a revised preconstruction grade in order to comply with the height requirements of these  districts, as summarized in the zoning district and dimensional standards section above.  15    B. Open Space and Resource Protection.  (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for  creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting  this  criterion  have  been  made.  A  discussion  of  the  adequacy of the open space areas  designated as parks is included under SEQ standard 9.06D: Public Services and Facilities below.    (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at the  average densities provided in this bylaw.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.    (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall  be established by the applicant.     At preliminary plat, the Board required that the applicant submit an open space management plan  prior to final plat approval.  Staff’s observations on the open space management plan are discussed  under PUD criterion (A)(4) above.    19. Staff recommends the Board adopt a condition requiring the applicant to include in the  homeowner documents  the following conditions in order to protect the wetland and associated  buffer areas:  no pesticide nor herbicide application within wetlands and buffer areas; no  mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers; disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to  remediation activities; and no planting non‐native species in wetlands or their buffers save to  meet conditions of the projects Individual Wetland Permit issued on June 2, 2015 by the Vermont  Agency of Natural Resources.    (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after  construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on  the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board  may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction  issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.    See discussion under PUD Criteria (A)(2) above.    (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or  primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with  the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be  prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is  encouraged.    At preliminary plat, the Board worked with the applicant to arrive  at  a  combination  of  fencing,  landscaping and landscape boulders to demarcate the open space areas.    16  20. The overall open space management plan indicates boulders delineating the neighborhood park  land B and D, but those are not shown on the landscape plans.  Staff recommends the Board  require the applicant to confirm all delineation features are consistent between plans.    21. The applicant has not provided delineation at the side yards of Lot 34 or unit 109, or at the rear of  units abutting the mid‐site stormwater pond.  Staff recommends the Board consider whether to  require demarcation at these locations.    C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through  development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans  that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural  operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for  agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐supported agriculture.     The proposed project includes a proposed community garden area for residents and is slated to include  the use of 98 Transferable Development Rights, which will be drawn from approximately 81 acres of land  in the SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection District.    The land to the south and east of the project is farmland (though notably it is zoned residential).  Homes  in the southern and eastern portion of this project were previously approved by the Development Review  Board, as noted above.     In Section 14.20(c) of the provided HOA documents, the applicant has communicated the agricultural  nature of the adjacent lands and Vermont’s Right to Farm statues, as discussed during preliminary plat.      D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review  Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the  location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public  facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets,  park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.    (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs  of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a  City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater  Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    Wastewater and water capacity is discussed under PUD Standard (A)(1) above.      (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall  be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.    See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.    (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with  the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    17  See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.    (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire  protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,  minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions  where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of  hydrants.    See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.    E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies  sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for  pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between  neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a  traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or  consultants.    (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.    (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and  maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance  that has been approved by the City Council.    (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and  neighborhoods shall apply.    See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.    9.07 Regulating Plans  A. ...  B. General Provisions  (1) …  (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district  shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.    C. …  D. Parks Design and Development.   (1) General standards.  The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park  Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as  defined in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000  square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.   Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free  destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of  18  life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the  neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,  local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and  there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.     (2) Specific Standards.  The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐ NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts:   a. Distribution and Amount of Parks:   i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to  meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the  outdoors, and active recreation.     The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff  considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.      ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the  heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by  development.     The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff  considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.    iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per  1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.      22. The applicant met with the Recreation and Parks committee at their  December 2016 meeting.  Minutes from that meeting note that the  committee was going to provide a list of recommendations to the Board.   This meeting took place between two separate sketch plan applications for  the project and thus the committee recommendations were never reviewed  by the Board.  Staff is attempting to locate the committee recommendations  and will have an update for the Board at the hearing.      iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be  provided within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by  an existing City park or other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff  considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.    b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be  approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained  permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City  Attorney.      The provided homeowners association documents indicate that the homeowners  association will maintain the open spaces.  Staff considers this criterion met.    19  c. Design Guidelines  i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to  make them sociable, safe and attractive places.   ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle  connections.   iii. To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to  natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and  public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource  and not extended yard areas.     The Board found these criteria to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff  considers that no changes affecting these criteria have been made.    9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards    The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this  Section.    A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern    (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear  feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or  longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.    (2) Interconnection of Streets   (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.     See discussion immediately above.    (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow  for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed  200 feet in length.     The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.    (3) Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5  to 1:5 recommended    See discussion under 9.07 above.    B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards  (1) Street  dimensions  and  cross  sections.    Neighborhood  streets  (collector  and  local)  are  intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are  safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.  20    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.    (2) Sidewalks.   (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional  minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the  street.   (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.    (3)  Street Trees  (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet  wide.   (b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the  City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to  3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center.    23. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.  Staff notes the submitted landscape  plans indicate that they have been revised for the final plat submission, but is unable to  identify what has changed.  Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to identify what  has changed on the landscape plans in order to determine whether these criteria need to be  reevaluated.      (4) On‐street parking.  Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided on  all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts.  This  requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds  sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the  uses adjacent to the street.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR  district.    (5) Intersection  Design.    Intersections  shall  be  designed  to  reduce  pedestrian  crossing  distances and to slow traffic.    At preliminary plat, the Board found that the Applicant should adjust the mid‐block  pedestrian crossings to be 20‐feet wide except at the Senator Street at Nadeaucrest Drive  pedestrian crossing.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR district.  The applicant has  made this change.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be  provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall  illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development patterns and  character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot‐spots)  21  and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR  district.    C. Residential Design    (1) Building Orientation.  Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary  entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building  entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas.  (Special design guidelines apply to  arterial  streets;  see  Section  9.11).    A  minimum  of  thirty‐five percent  (35%)  of  translucent  windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, residential  buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible  within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.    At preliminary plat, the Board found that primary entries face the street, and building orientation  varies  through  the  development,  inhibiting  evaluation  of  the  translucence  standard.    The  applicant has included this criterion in the design guideline narratives, and suggested the design  guideline narratives be incorporated as a condition of final plat approval.    24. Staff recommends, specifically considering the use of the word “guideline” in the name of these  documents, that the Board require compliance with these documents as a condition of approval.       (2) Building Façades.  Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation  approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be  varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies  that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.     The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR district.    (3) Front Building Setbacks.  A close relationship between the building and the street is  critical to the ambiance of the street environment.   (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back of  sidewalk.   (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks.     The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.    (4) Placement of Garages and Parking.  For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front  lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum  of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.   (a)  For the purposes of this subsection:  (i)  The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,  shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary  22  entries,  in  which  case  the  building  width  of  each  dwelling  unit  in  the  duplex,  not  including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)   (ii)  The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line  may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.  This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR  district.    (b)  …   (c)  Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and townhouses.    The applicant is not proposing any alleys.    (5) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and  affordability  is  encouraged  within  neighborhoods  and  developments.  These  should  be  mixed  within  blocks,  along  the  street  and  within  neighborhoods rather  than  compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.     The applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that all of the single family homes  are grouped, all of the two‐family home are grouped, and all of the single family on a shared  lot homes are grouped.    The proposed design standards ensure that within each grouping of homes that the home  styles be mixed.  The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff  considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.  This comment also  applies to the SEQ‐VR district.    9.09 SEQ‐VR Sub‐District; Specific Standards  The SEQ‐VR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this  Section.  A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern  (1) Development blocks.  Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400  linear feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks  400  feet  or  longer  must  include  mid‐block  public  sidewalk  or  recreation  path  connections.     Aurora Road has a mid‐block recreation path at station 13+50.  This results in block lengths  of 350 feet and 725 feet.  The Board found this configuration acceptable at preliminary plat  and Staff considers that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.       (2) Interconnection of Streets   (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.     See discussion immediately above.    23  (b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer‐head) that are not constructed to  an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged.  Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.    Aurora Road has a cul‐de‐sac less than 200 feet long.  Staff considers this criterion  met.      (3) Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.    Lots in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot.  Staff considers finds this  criterion met.    B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards  (1) Street dimensions and cross sections.  Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the  VR sub‐district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use  that  discourage  through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.    Aurora Road has a meandering centerline, and is connected to adjoining streets at right  angles.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) Sidewalks  (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional  minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the  street.   (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a  pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may  in  its  discretion  require  supplemental  sidewalk  segments  to  achieve  this  purpose.     The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide recreation path along Aurora Road.   Staff considers these criteria met.    (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (4) On‐street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (5) Intersection  design.    Intersections  shall  be  designed  to  reduce  pedestrian  crossing  distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9‐6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be  provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.   24  Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development  patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather  than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.      See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    C. Residential Design  (1) Building Orientation.  Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary  entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary  building  entries  may  open  onto garages  and/or  parking  areas.    (Special  design  guidelines apply to arterial streets).    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no  changes affecting this criterion have been made.      (2) Building Façades.  Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation  approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades  should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches,  stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are  encouraged.     See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (3) Front  Building  Setbacks.    In  pedestrian  districts,  a  close  relationship  between  the  building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.     (a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers  that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.      (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front  setbacks.  Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be  enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers  that no changes affecting this criterion have been made.      (4) Placement of Garages and Parking.  See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7.    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.    (5) Mix of Housing Styles.  A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,  and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should  be  mixed  within  blocks,  along  the  street  and  within  neighborhoods  rather  than  compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.    See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.  25    H) SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS  Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.    (1)   Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas  is generally discouraged.  (2)   Encroachment  into  Class  II wetlands  is  permitted  by  the  City  only  in  conjunction  with  issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental  Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.  (3)   Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,  may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion  control,  stormwater  treatment  system,  provisions  for  stream  buffering,  and  landscaping  plan  achieve the following standards for wetland protection:    The  applicant  received  State  Wetland  Permit  #2210  in  2014.    They  are  proposing  two  wetland  crossings, one on Aurora Road and one on Russett Road.  They’re also encroaching onto the wetland  and wetland buffer at three other locations throughout the development.      (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store  flood waters adequately;    The applicant is proposing a two 24” culverts at the Aurora Road crossing and two 24” culverts  at the Russett Road Crossing.  The specific standard applicable to culvert design is as follows.      12.04E(2)   Drainage  Structures  To  Accommodate  Upstream  Development  –  Culverts  or  other  drainage  facilities  shall  be  of  sufficient  size  to  accommodate potential  runoff  from  the  entire  upstream drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or  the parcel subject to the application.  In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for  which drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system  assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas.  All drainage structures shall  be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty‐five year, twenty‐four hour (4.0 inch) rain  event.  The applicant’s engineer shall provide such information as the Stormwater Superintendent  or his designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage structures.     At preliminary plat, the applicant provided an analysis attempting to consider the maximum  potential development of the Nadeau parcel to the east.  The maximum potential development  would be 10 units without triggering a stormwater permit, thus the maximum uncontrolled  stormwater discharge would be that resulting from 10 residential units.  The applicant modeled  30,000 square feet of impervious surfaces based on the average impervious per unit in South  Burlington and the nature of the parcel, but failed to include the existing impervious in their  calculation. Even without the additional existing impervious, the analysis showed that ponding  would occur on the adjacent Nadeau parcel which is not controlled by the developer.      The Board found that in addition to sizing the culvert to not overtop the roadway, the culvert  should be sized to limit flooding on the Nadeau parcel unless the adjacent landowner agrees to  it.    26  The Board notes that the criteria of Article 12 are not yet satisfied and finds that final sizing of this  and downstream culverts may be addressed during final plat approval.  No update to the culvert  analysis was provided as part of the final plat application.    25. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the issue of flooding on the Nadeau  parcel prior to closing the hearing.    (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment  system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.    (c)  The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the  field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,  stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.    The Board found this criterion to be satisfied at preliminary plat.  Staff considers that no changes  affecting this criterion have been made.    Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐ half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.    Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit  Development Standards above.    I) OTHER    Easements    The final plat decision #SD‐08‐34 included a condition that the subdivision plat include a 50‐foot wide road  easement to the Jewett property to the south and 10’ and 20’ pedestrian path easements from  Sommerfield Drive to the Auclair property to the south.  These easements are shown on some of the  provided plans, but not on the provided plat plans.  This approval was issued to Dorset Street Associates as  the applicant.  Staff understands that Dorset Street Associates has entered into an agreement with or sold  the development rights to JJJ South Burlington, LLC.      26. Staff considers the transfer of applicant does not affect conditions previously required by the Board  for what is essentially the same project, therefore recommends the Board replicate these  requirements as a condition of this approval.  Staff considers the applicant must record these  easements and all other easements prior to issuance of the first zoning permit, as is typical of all  approvals.    E911 Addresses    The applicant has provided E911 addresses for the proposed homes on the civil plans.  Staff considers the  provided addresses cannot be reviewed because addresses are based on the driveway locations, and  driveway locations are not shown on the same plan as the addresses.    27    27. Staff considers that in addition to requiring review by the State addressing coordinator, the  addressing plan is an important document referenced by internal and external parties after the  project is approved, and recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a single plan sheet  for the purpose of correlating lot numbers and addresses, without extraneous information such as  contours, utilities, or lot coverages.  Staff considers the addresses must be approved prior to final  plat approval.    Energy Standards    Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:  Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.    Section 15.14 Required Public Facilities and Improvements  The applicant‐estimated cost of public facilities excluding street trees and the applicant’s estimate  of contingency is tabulated below by phase.  This figure has been confirmed by the Director of Public  Works in an email dated September 14, 2018.    Phase  Estimated Cost  Estimated Cost plus 15%  Contingency  1   $ 1,340,000    $ 1,541,000   2   $    600,000    $    690,000   3   $ 1,600,000    $ 1,840,000   4   $    550,000    $    632,500     Section 15.15 requires the applicant bond for 100% of the estimated cost of public facilities and  improvements, plus a 15% contingency.  Bonding for street trees and landscaping is discussed  elsewhere in this document.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the  issues herein.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner      MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH & JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Date: April 9, 2018 To: Marla Keene, PE, Development Review Planner Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP, Director of Planning & Zoning Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From: Georges Jacquemart Contact Information: T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494 E. G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Cider Mill Phase II Application: Review of Cider Mill Drive Connection The purpose of this memorandum is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of extending Cider Mill Drive from its current terminus east of Winesap Lane to Sommerfield Avenue within the Cider Mill I development. This connection and the eventual extension towards Hinesburg Road is foreseen as part of the development plans for this area. It should be noted that the proposed plan for Cider Mill Phase II does envision a connection between the two phases (from Aurora Road to Sommerfield Ave). That connection is not in question. The issue addressed in this memo is whether Cider Mill Drive should be extended by 600 feet to connect to Sommerfield Avenue, which would provide a more direct connection with 6 right-angle turns instead of 8 turns between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street. We have reviewed the traffic studies transmitted to us regarding the Cider Mill Phase II Development Application. They include the Cider Mill II Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), the Cider Mill II Traffic Addendum and the Cider Mill II Traffic Technical Memo, all prepared in December 2017 and the 2015 HRO supplemental traffic analysis letter. Cider Mill Phase I has a total of 149 single-family homes and Phase II is projected to have 142 dwelling units. Traffic Shifts from One Cider Mill Phase to the Other It is useful to explain the traffic shifts that may occur as the result of the connection of the two phases of the Cider Mill (CM) development: Shifts of CM I Traffic to CM II: • CM I vehicle trips to and from Hinesburg Road between Cheesefactory Road and Kennedy Drive • CM I traffic to and from Route 116 south of Cheesefactory Road (Hinesburg and beyond) Shifts of CM II Traffic to CM I: • CM II vehicle trips to and from Dorset Street between Cheesefactory Road and Kennedy Drive • CM II traffic to and from I-189 and Dorset Street north Kennedy Drive Of the above shifts the one that has the greatest impact is the traffic generated by CM II with origins or destinations on I-189 or Dorset north of Kennedy Drive. The CM II TIA predicts that in the PM peak hour 52 vehicle trips generated by CM II would traverse CM I. That represents about 37% of the total traffic generation of CM II. A similar percentage of CM II traffic would drive through CM I in the AM peak hour, although the number of vehicles is lower (40 vehicle trips). The great majority of these trips are vehicles traveling to and from the north on Dorset Street. The TIA estimates that 41% of CM II MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 2 traffic to and from the north would prefer the use of Dorset Street rather than Hinesburg Road (Route 116). This estimate may be on the high side, given that operating speeds along Hinesburg Road tend to be higher than on Dorset Street. Travel time comparisons to and from the South Burlington City Hall via Google Maps show competitive times via Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. Furthermore, some of the northbound vehicles have their destination in the center or northeast rather than the northwest. The attached figure shows the layout of the street system for both phases of CM. Without the Cider Mill Drive Extension traffic between the two phases will circulate via a section of Sommerfield Avenue, Braeburn Street, Winesap Lane and Cider Mill Drive. The CM II Traffic Addendum dated December 4, 2017 estimates that without the connection the traffic volume on Winesap Lane during the afternoon peak hour would be 108 vehicles, including 62 vehicles form the upstream CM I homes, plus 52 vehicles from CM II minus 6 vehicles from the upstream CM I homes that would decide to travel through CM II. The 108 vehicles in the PM peak hour on this residential street will not affect the quality of life on this street to any measurable way. Environmental capacity thresholds for residential streets where quality of life impacts could be measured are significantly higher (Source: Livable Streets, by Donald Appleyard). The volumes would have to be about 3 times higher to reach that threshold. With the Cider Mill Drive connection about 92 of these 108 vehicle trips would shift to Sommerfield Avenue north of Braeburn Street to then connect directly to Cider Mill Dr. About 16 “through” trips generated by the homes along the upper section of Braeburn Street would remain on Winesap Lane. The above analysis does not take into consideration the potential impact of the Cider Mill connection on outside cut-through traffic. Does this connection make the cut-through more attractive to the degree that more vehicles will use it? The typical delivery and service traffic will drive between the two CM phases independently of the connection. These vehicles include USPS, Fedex, UPS trucks, possibly garbage trucks, cable company and utility trucks and school buses. These trips are also included in the traffic generation estimates presented in the TIA. Residents living or working along Dorset Street (or any of its side streets such as Nowland Farm Road) between Cheesefactory and Kennedy Drive may use this cut through to reach a location along Hinesburg Road (or any of its side streets) between Cheesefactory and Kennedy Drive, and vice versa. These trips would be made independently of the connection and only by people who know that one can drive through the development. The number of these potential through trips is fairly limited. The concern may be that regional traffic circulating with the help of a GPS system may find this cut through as being more attractive with the connection between Sommerfield Avenue and Cider Mill Drive. It is not expected that the cut through will show as a preferred route in the GPS system during normal day-to-day traffic conditions since traffic conditions are still fairly good for through traffic along Route 116 and Dorset Street. If one of these streets were blocked due to a traffic crash some vehicles may be diverted through the Cider Mill development, but this would occur independently of the Cider Mill Dr. connection. The fact that the connection would be slightly more direct with the extension of Cider Mill Drive (6 right-angle turns instead of 8 right-angle turns with one fairly sharp turn, a travel time difference of less than 10 seconds) may affect the number of through trips to a small degree, but not to the degree where a measurable impact would occur. MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 3 Conclusions • Cut-through Traffic Regarding traffic between the two phases of CM we can conclude that without the Cider Mill Drive connection there may be about 108 “through” trips (i.e. trips not generated on that street) on Winesap Lane, affecting about 22 homes on Winesap Lane and Braeburn St, and with the connection we would have about 16 “through” trips on Winesap Lane and 92 “through” trips on the short segment of Sommerfield Avenue north of Braeburn Street, affecting about 9 homes. None of these traffic flows are high enough to have a measurable impact on the quality of life on those streets under either scenario. The external cut-through traffic will not be influenced to any measurable degree by the connection and is not expected to affect quality of life in the neighborhood. • Protections against Cut-Through Traffic There are traffic calming measures that the City could undertake to safeguard from excessive cut-through traffic (with and without the connection) or at least slow it down and thereby maintaining a high level of safety. These measures could include a pinch-point section with one lane for both directions of traffic for the segment of Aurora Road that crosses the wetlands area. Westbound traffic would have to stop at a STOP sign and could only proceed if there is no opposing traffic. Such pinchpoints can be effective in terms of drivers’ perceptions regarding through- traffic appeal, and as long as opposing drivers have good sight conditions this traffic calming feature is safe. In addition, the pinchpoint has beneficial impacts on wetlands protection. The current design for Aurora Road shows a narrowing to 18 feet for a length of about 100 feet over the wetlands area. We recommend that this section of Aurora Road be 12 feet wide. The cut-through traffic should be monitored. If that traffic exceeds 150 vehicles per hour, the shared-path crossing that currently exists on Cider Mill Drive west of Crispin Drive should be raised to turn this into a speed table. The raised crossing would control speeds along Cider Mill Drive. These measures can overcome the drivers’ perceptions that there may be an easy short-cut through this neighborhood. • Bicyclists and Pedestrians Bicyclists may be the users who could benefit the most from the connection of Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Avenue. The connection will make it easier for CM II residents as well as the persons living along Sommerfield Avenue to connect to the multi-use path along Dorset Street (about one third of a mile north of Cider Mill Drive). And vice-versa for the residents living in the northern portion of CM I close to Cider Mill Drive it will be easier to walk or bicycle to and from Hinesburg Road with the connection. MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Cider Mill Dr Connection April 9, 2018 Page 4 • Expectations of Residents The long-term plan has always been to connect Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Avenue. The current street configuration, in particular the easterly ending of Cider Mill Drive and the northerly ending of Sommerfield Avenue show this intent. The residents who bought homes in the easterly portion of CM I along Winesap Ln, Braeburn St or Sommerfield Ave should normally have realized that the street system was laid out for this connection, even if they have not seen plans that showed the future connection. Some residents may have bought a home on Winesap Lane with the understanding that in the long term Winesap Lane will not serve any through traffic, and the residents who bought a home on Sommerfield north of Braeburn Street should have been aware of the future connection. The connection should therefore not be a surprise or change of plans for the residents, whereas a decision not to connect would be a surprise and change of plans. • Functional Classification Cider Mill Drive is designed to be more of a collector road compared to the other streets in the neighborhood. It is therefore logical that these “through” trips be as much as possible on Cider Mill Drive. • Recommendation BFJ concludes that the benefits of the connection outweigh the disadvantages and that it is the fairest decision vis-à-vis the neighbors. The City should consider the feasibility of building a 12-foot wide pinch point over the wetlands on Aurora Road as part of the construction of Phase II. 16 DUs 9 DUs Cider Mill Drive Extension 34 DUs 18 DUs Cider Mill Dr. Wine Sap LaneBraeburn St. Nadeau Crest Dr . Aurora Rd. Sommerfield Ave. Cider Mill Dr. Wine Sap LaneBraeburn St. Nadeau Crest D r . Aurora Rd. Sommerfield Ave. Review of Cider Mill Dr. Connection. March 23, 2018 DECLARATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY FOR LEDGEWOOD ESTATES Dated as of _______________, 2018 DECLARATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY FOR LEDGEWOOD ESTATES This Declaration of Planned Community for Ledgewood Estates (the “Declaration”) is made by JJJ South Burlington, LLC, a Vermont limited liability company with a place of business in Essex, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont (the “Declarant”). Background 1.Declarant is the owner in fee simple of two (2) parcels of land, together with all easements, rights, appurtenances, and improvements thereto, described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the “Property”). Parcel 1 is a parcel of land containing 30 acres, more or less, in South Burlington, Vermont, depicted as Lot #1 on a plan of land entitled, “Portion of the Lands of Ernest N. Auclair, off Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT, Subdivision Plat”, prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated October 7, 2005, last revised January 19, 2006, and recorded in Map Slide 478 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Parcel 2 is a parcel of land containing 35.48 acres, more or less, in South Burlington, Vermont, known as Common C as originally depicted on a plan of land entitled, “The Cider Mill, South Burlington, Vermont, Overall Subdivision Plat”, Sheets 1 of 4 through 4 of 4, prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated April 23, 2003, last revised April 19, 2007, and recorded in Map Slide 496 at Pages 5-6 and Map Slide 497 at Pages 1-2 of the City of South Burlington Land Records, 2.Declarant intends to establish a common interest community on the Property in one or more phases, substantially as depicted on a two-sheet set of Site Plans entitled, “Cider Mill - Phase II, Site Plan (South)”, prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated October 5, 2013, last revised May 29, 2018, and recorded in Map Slide _____ at Page _____ of the City of South Burlington Land Records, and “Cider Mill - Phase II, Site Plan (North), prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated October 5, 2013, last revised May 29, 2018, and recorded in Map Slide _____ at Page _____ of said Land Records (collectively the “Site Plan”). 3.The Property has received permits and approvals for the subdivision and development of sixty-six (66) lots designated as Lots 1 through 66 on the Site Plan, which are designed for use and occupancy as single family homes (the “Lots”), seventy-six (76) condominium units designated as Units 67 through 142 on the Site Plan, which are designed for use and occupancy as single family homes (the “Condominium Units”), and open space parcels designated as Common Elements, Undeveloped Space and Neighborhood Park Land on the Site Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby makes and executes this Declaration of Planned Community for the purposes stated herein and upon the following terms and conditions. 1 ARTICLE 1 Submission; Defined Terms Section 1.1.Submission. Declarant hereby submits the Property to this Declaration and to the provisions of Title 27A V.S.A. §§ 1-101 et seq., known as the Vermont Common Interest Ownership Act (the “Act”), and hereby creates with respect to the Property a planned community to be known as “Ledgewood Estates” (the “Planned Community”) which shall be held, sold, transferred, conveyed, used, occupied, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered subject to the reservations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, assessments and liens hereinafter set forth which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of the Property, and which shall run with the title to the Property, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in or to the Property or any part thereof, and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each and every owner of all or any portion of the Property. Section 1.2.Definitions. Each capitalized term used herein without definition shall have the meaning specified in this Declaration or the Bylaws of Ledgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Bylaws”), or if not otherwise defined in this Declaration or the Bylaws then as defined in the Act. (a)“Act” means the Vermont Common Interest Ownership Act, 27A V.S.A. §§ 1-101 et seq. (b)“Allocated Interests” means the Common Expense Liability and the votes in the Association. (c)“Assessment” means the amount assessed against the Owner of each Lot and Condominium Unit from time to time by the Association described below in the manner provided herein. (d)“Association” means Ledgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., a Vermont non- profit corporation organized under § 3-101 of the Act. The ownership of each Lot and each Condominium Unit shall include one membership in the Association. (e)“Board of Directors” means the Board of Directors of the Association charged with the management and operation of each respective association, being the Executive Board as defined in the Act. (f)“Bylaws” means the Bylaws of the Association, as amended from time to time. (g)“Common Elements” means all portions of the Property that are owned or will be owned or leased by the Association and all appurtenances thereto, other than the Lots and Condominium Units. (h)“Common Expenses” means the expenditures made by or financial liabilities of the Association and any allocations to reserves. (i)“Common Expense Liability” means the liability for Common Expenses allocated to each Lot or Condominium Unit pursuant to § 2-107 of the Act. (j)“Condominium” means collectively both the Carriage Home Condominium consisting of thirty (30) units in thirty (30) carriage home buildings located on Condominium Units 67 through 82 2 and Units 87 through 100 as shown on the Site Plan, to be declared by separate Declaration of Condominium, and the Townhome Condominium consisting of forty-six (46) units in twenty-three (23) duplex buildings located on Condominium Units 83 through 86 and 101 through 142 as shown on the Site Plan, to be declared by separate Declaration of Condominium. (k)“Condominium Units” means collectively both the thirty (30) Carriage Home Condominium Units and the forty-six (46) Townhome Condominium Units. The ownership of each Condominium Unit shall include, and there shall pass with each Condominium Unit, as an appurtenance thereto, membership in the Association. (l)“Declarant” means JJJ South Burlington, LLC, and its successors and assigns. (m)“Declaration” means this Declaration of Planned Community for Ledgewood Estates, as it may be amended from time to time, and includes all of the Exhibits hereto. (n)“Development Rights” means any right or combination of rights reserved by Declarant in this Declaration to create Lots, Condominium Units, Common Elements or Limited Common Elements within the Planned Community, to subdivide Lots or convert Lots into Common Elements, or to add or withdraw real estate from the Planned Community. Declarant’s Development Rights include the Special Declarant Rights defined in the Act. (o)“Dwelling” means the single-family residential structure, including garage, which is located on a Lot. (p)“First Mortgagee” means the holder of any first mortgage lien or the beneficiary under any first deed of trust encumbering a Lot or Condominium Unit. The term “mortgage” includes both mortgages and deeds of trust. (q)“Institutional”, as used in conjunction with “Lender”, “Holder”, “Mortgagee” or “First Mortgagee”, means commercial and savings banks, savings and loan associations, trust companies and established mortgage companies, insurance companies, private mortgage insurance companies, pension funds, any corporation, including a corporation of or affiliated with the State of Vermont or United States government, including, without limitation, the Vermont Economic Development Authority and its affiliates, or any federal credit unions, and other entities or agencies chartered under federal or state laws. (r)“Limited Common Elements” means a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use or one or more, but less than all, of the Lots or Condominium Units. (s)“Lot” means a portion of the Property, other than the Common Elements and Condominium Units, intended for individual ownership and use for a single family home permitted in this Declaration, being the sixty-six (66) Lots depicted as Lots 1 through 66 on the Site Plan. Each Lot shall contain one (1) Dwelling only. The ownership of each Lot shall include, and there shall pass with each Lot as an appurtenance thereto, membership in the Association. Each Lot shall, for all purposes, constitute real property which may be owned in fee simple and which may be conveyed, transferred or encumbered in the same manner as any other real property. 3 (t)“Owner” means Declarant or an other person who owns a Lot or Condominium Unit, but does not include a person having an interest in a Lot or Condominium Unit solely as security for an obligation. Declaration is the Owner of any Lot or Condominium Unit created by this Declaration until sold or conveyed to a third party. (u)“Planned Community” means Ledgewood Estates, a common interest community in which portions of the real estate are designated for separate ownership by the Owners and the remainder of the real estate is designated for ownership by the Association. (v)“Property” means the real property, together with all appurtenant easements and any improvements located thereon, which is declared and subjected to this Declaration by incorporation in the description set forth in Exhibit “A”, as amended from time to time. (w)“Rules and Regulations” means the provisions and limitations promulgated from time to time by the Board of Directors governing the use of the Common Elements, Lots and Condominium Units. (x)“Site Plan” means the two-sheet set of Site Plans entitled, “Cider Mill - Phase II, Site Plan (South)”, prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated October 5, 2013, last revised May 29, 2018, and recorded in Map Slide _____ at Page _____ of the City of South Burlington Land Records, and “Cider Mill - Phase II, Site Plan (North), prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated October 5, 2013, last revised May 29, 2018, and recorded in Map Slide _____ at Page _____ of said Land Records. (y)“Unit” means a physical portion of the common interest community designated for separate ownership or occupancy. A Unit may either be a “Condominium Unit” or a “Lot” as defined herein. ARTICLE 2 Planned Community Property Section 2.1.Property. The Property consists of all and the same land and premises, together with improvements thereon, and all easements and rights appurtenant thereto, as described in Exhibit “A” and as depicted on the Site Plan. Section 2.2.Description of Planned Community. As of the date hereof, Declarant intends to develop the Property as a Planned Community consisting of sixty-six (66) single family Lots and seventy-six (76) Condominium Units, for a total of one hundred forty-two (142) Units substantially as depicted on the Site Plan. One Dwelling may be constructed on each Lot for use and occupancy as a residence. Section 2.3.Boundaries. The boundaries of the Lots shall be the Lot lines depicted on the Site Plan. The lower and upper boundary of each Lot shall be determined by common law principles for the fee simple ownership of real property. If any pipe, wire, conduit, bearing wall, bearing column, or any other fixture lies partially within and partially outside the designated boundaries of a Lot, any portion serving only that Lot is a Limited Common Element allocated solely to that Lot, and any portion of it serving more than one Lot or any portion of the Common Elements is a part of the Common 4 Elements. The boundaries of the Condominium Units are defined in each respective Declaration of Condominium. Each Lot and Condominium Unit shall have the burdens and the benefits of the easements set forth in Article 5 herein. ARTICLE 3 Common Elements Section 3.1.Limited Common Elements. (a)A “Limited Common Element” is a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one (1) or more than one (1), but fewer than all, of the Lots or Condominium Units. (b)All fixtures or improvements designated to serve, attached to, or adjacent to a Lot, but located outside the Lot’s boundaries, are Limited Common Elements allocated exclusively to that Lot to which they are appurtenant. Except as otherwise provided herein, any expense for maintenance, repair or replacement relating to the Limited Common Elements shall be treated as and paid for as part of the Common Expenses. Section 3.2.Common Elements. (a)The “Common Elements” include the Limited Common Elements and consist of all the Property and the improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on the Site Plan except the Lots and Condominium Units that will be owned by the Owners of the respective Condominium Units and will be maintained by the Condominium Associations as common elements of the Condominium. (b)Except as otherwise set forth herein as to the use of the Limited Common Elements, the Common Elements shall remain undivided and shall be devoted to the common use and enjoyment of all Owners. No Owner or any other person shall maintain any action for partition or division thereof, unless the Property has been removed from the provisions of this Declaration pursuant to the Act. (c)Each Owner may use the Common Elements in accordance with the purposes for which they were intended without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other Owners. Use of the Common Elements shall be subject to the limitations set forth herein for the use of the Limited Common Elements and to the Rules and Regulations regarding the use thereof as shall be established from time to time by the Board of Directors. (d)The Common Elements include, without limitation: (i)The open lands depicted as Western Undeveloped Space, Northeastern Future Development, Mid Site Open Space and Neighborhood Park Land on the Site Plan. (ii)All easements, restrictions and other encumbrances included with the Property as described in Exhibit “A” or depicted on the Site Plan. 5 (iii)Utility lines, equipment and other improvements serving the Property or serving more than one (1) Lot or Condominium Unit. (iv)All roads, water mains, water pump stations, sewer lines and force mains, sewer pump stations, the stormwater drainage system located on the Property, including drains, catch basins, closed lines and detention ponds, the recreation/bike paths, open lands, fences, trees, shrubs, landscaping and other site improvements located on the Property, until all or such portions of which are accepted by the City of South Burlington as public improvements. (e)The Common Elements do not include Condominium Units 67 through 82 and 87 through 100, which will be owned by the Owners of the Carriage Home Condominium Units as tenants in common and maintained, repaired and replaced by the Carriage Home Condominium Association, all as more particularly described in the Carriage Home Condominium Declaration, nor Condominium Units 83 through 86 and 101 through 142, which will be owned by the Owners of the Townhome Condominium Units as tenants in common and maintained, repaired and replaced by the Townhome Condominium Association, all as more particularly described in the Townhome Condominium Declaration. Section 3.3.Allocated Interests. Each Lot and each Condominium Unit will be assigned one (1) of the one hundred forty-two (142) memberships in the Association, one (1) for each Lot and Condominium Unit. Each Lot and Condominium Unit shall have a 1/142nd Allocated Interest in the Association. Except as otherwise set forth herein for the redetermination of the Allocated Interest by Declarant upon the filing of an amendment to this Declaration to exercise Development Rights and/or Special Declarant Rights, the Allocated Interest shall be of a permanent character and may not be changed without the consent of all Owners. A Lot’s and Condominium Unit’s Allocated Interest shall be determinative of all matters under the Act, this Declaration and the Bylaws which are properly determined by reference to the Allocated Interest, including, but not limited to the weight of each Owner’s vote for Association purposes and the allocation of Common Expenses. In the event Lots or Condominium Units are added to the Planned Community, the Allocated Interests shall be adjusted by a formula defined as a fraction, the numerator of which shall be one (1) and the denominator of which shall be the total number of Lots and Condominium Units in the Planned Community. ARTICLE 4 Occupancy and Use Restrictions Section 4.1.Use of Lots and Condominium Units. Lots and Condominium Units shall be used for residential purposes only, and no trade or business of any kind may be carried on therein, except home occupations allowed by municipal bylaws, leases for residential purposes provided such leases are for a minimum term of six (6) months, and as otherwise provided in the Declaration and Bylaws. The occupancy of each Lot and Condominium Unit is subject to and benefitted by all easements, restrictions and permits of record, as depicted on the Site Plan and as described in Exhibit “A”. Section 4.2.Alteration of Lots. An Owner may make improvements or alterations upon a Lot provided such improvements do not impair the Common Elements, Limited Common Elements, or infrastructure or utilities within any portion of the Planned Community, and provided prior written approval has been obtained from Declarant or the Board of Directors as provided herein. Other than the construction of Dwellings and related improvements on the Lots, no structural improvements may be 6 made to the Common Elements or any other portion of the Planned Community by any Owner without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors. No Lots may be further subdivided by Owners. The terms relating to the alteration of Condominium Units are described in the applicable Declaration of Condominium. The boundaries between adjoining Lots may be relocated only in accordance with the terms and requirements of § 2-112 of the Act. Section 4.3.Declarant’s Reservations. Declarant reserves the right to use or maintain any portion of the Property as a sales office, management office and model and for signs until such time as Declarant has conveyed title to all of the Lots and Condominium Units to third party Owners. The Owners and the Association shall not interfere with Declarant’s efforts to complete the improvements to the Property, including the construction of additional Dwellings, Lots and Condominium Units, or to market and sell Units, or with Declarant’s exercise of any Development Rights reserved herein. Section 4.4.State and Municipal Laws. Each Owner shall comply with all applicable permits, codes, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the State of Vermont and City of South Burlington affecting the use of the Lots, Condominium Units and Common Elements. Section 4.5.Interference With Others. No Lot or Condominium Unit shall be used or maintained in a manner which shall interfere with the comfort or convenience of occupants of other Lots or Condominium Units or contrary to the Bylaws or the Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE 5 Easements Section 5.1.Easement For Access. Each Owner is hereby granted an easement, in common with Declarant and every other Owner, in all Common Elements for ingress and egress, including all roadways shown on the Site Plan until the same are accepted by the City of South Burlington as public roadways, for utility service and the support, maintenance and repair of each Lot and Condominium Unit, subject to such reasonable Rules and Regulations of the Association. Each Lot and Condominium Unit is hereby benefitted by an easement in common with others for ingress and egress through and over all Common Elements by persons lawfully using or entitled to the same. Such easements and rights are subject to the limitations upon the use of the Limited Common Elements as otherwise set forth herein. Section 5.2.Easement For Completion; Utilities. Declarant, for itself and its successors and assigns, reserves the right to grant and reserve easements and rights of way: (a) through, under, over and across the Common Elements, Lots and Condominium Units owned by Declarant for the installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and inspection of lines and appurtenances for public or private sewer, water, drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, television and other utility services to the Lots and Condominium Units; (b) for the purpose of completing the construction of the Dwellings, Condominium Units and other improvements on the Property; (c) for the purpose of erecting, maintaining and removing signs advertising Lots and Condominium Units for sale or lease within the Property; and (d) through, under, over and across the Common Elements, Lots, and Condominium Units for the maintenance, repair, replacement and inspection of the stormwater, water and sewer systems for the Property, including the sewer pump station, which easements shall be for the benefit of the Association after the period of Declarant control described herein. 7 Section 5.3.Easement For Support. Each Lot, Condominium Unit and the Common Elements shall have an easement for lateral and subadjacent support from every other Lot, Condominium Unit and the Common Elements. Section 5.4.Additional Easements. The Board of Directors of the Association shall have the power (without submitting the same to the Owners for approval) to authorize the appropriate officers of the Association to execute any and all easements as it may deem desirable for the benefit of the Planned Community over, under, above or through any of the Common Elements for such purposes and upon such terms and the Board of Directors, in its sole judgment, deems desirable; provided, however, that all such easements shall be subordinate to the liens and rights of all mortgages and deeds of trust recorded prior in time thereto unless the mortgagee or trustee shall join therein. Section 5.5.Upkeep. Maintenance, repair and replacement of the Common Elements and of the Lots shall be provided for in this Declaration, the Bylaws of the Association and the Act. Maintenance, repair and replacement of the Condominium Units and the common elements within each Condominium are described in the applicable Declaration of Condominium. Each Owner shall afford to the Association and the other Owners, and to their agents or employees, access across his or her Lot or Condominium Unit reasonably necessary for those purposes. If damage is inflicted on the Common Elements or any Lot or Condominium Unit through which access is taken, the Owner responsible for the damage, or the Association if it is responsible, shall promptly repair such damage. ARTICLE 6 Damage or Destruction Section 6.1.Duty to Restore. Any portion of the Property for which insurance is required under 27A V.S.A. § 3-113, or for which insurance carried by the Association is in effect, whichever is more extensive, shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the Association unless: (a)The Planned Community is terminated, in which case § 2-118 of the Act shall apply; (b)Repair or replacement would be illegal under any state or local statute or ordinance governing health or safety; or (c)Eighty percent (80%) of the Owners vote not to rebuild. Section 6.2.Cost. The cost of repair or replacement in excess of insurance proceeds shall be a Common Expense. Section 6.3.Election Not to Rebuild. If the entire Planned Community is not repaired or replaced: (a)The insurance proceeds attributable to the damaged Common Elements shall be used to restore the damaged area to a condition compatible with the remainder of the Planned Community; and (b)Except to the extent that other persons will be distributees: (i) the insurance proceeds attributable to Limited Common Elements which are not rebuilt shall be distributed to the Owners of the Lots or Condominium Units to which those Limited Common Elements were allocated, or to lienholders, as their interests may appear, in proportion to the Common Expense Liability of all of the 8 Lots or Condominium Units; and (ii) the remainder of the proceeds shall be distributed to all of the Owners or lienholders, as their interests may appear, in proportion to the Common Expense Liability of those Lots and Condominium Units. ARTICLE 7 Termination; Condemnation Section 7.1.Requirements For Termination. The Planned Community may be terminated only by the recorded agreement of the Owners to which at least eighty percent (80%) of the votes in the Association are allocated and only in accordance with and subject to the provisions of § 2-118 of the Act. Section 7.2.Condemnation. If all or a part of the Planned Community is taken by any power having the authority of eminent domain, all compensation and damages arising from such taking shall be payable in accordance with § 1-107 of the Act. ARTICLE 8 Insurance Section 8.1.Casualty Insurance. In order to ensure that sufficient reconstruction or repair funds, or both, will be available to the Association if and when needed, the Board of Directors shall obtain insurance for the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements on the Property, in such amounts as it shall determine, to provide not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current replacement value (exclusive of foundations, land, excavations and other items that are normally excluded from such insurance coverage) in the event of damage or destruction from the casualty against which insurance is obtained. Such insurance shall protect against fire and all other hazards or perils customarily covered and the proceeds of such insurance shall be used only for the repair, replacement and reconstruction of the Common Elements unless determined otherwise in accordance with Article 6. The Board of Directors may elect such endorsements and deductible provisions as are, in its judgment, consistent with good business practices and the purpose for which the insurance is bought. Any such policy shall provide that it cannot be canceled or substantially changed, except upon at least ten (10) days written notice to the insured. The casualty insurance requirements for the Condominium Units are described in the applicable Declaration of Condominium. Section 8.2.Liability Insurance. The Board of Directors of the Association shall also purchase broad form comprehensive liability coverage in such amounts and in such forms as prudent management practices suggest. A policy shall provide that it cannot be canceled or substantially changed, except upon at least ten (10) days written notice to the insured. Section 8.3.Other Provisions. Insurance policies carried pursuant to this Section shall provide that: (a)Each Owner is an insured person under the policy to the extent of liability, if any, arising out of his or her interest in the Common Elements or membership in the Association. 9 (b) The insurer waives its rights to subrogation under the policy against any Owner or member of his or her household. (c)No act or omission by any Owner, unless acting within the scope of his or her authority on behalf of the Association, will void the policy or be a condition to recovery under the policy. (d)If, at the time of a loss under the policy, there is other insurance in the name of an Owner covering the same risk covered by the policy, the Association’s policy provides primary insurance. Section 8.4.Fidelity Coverage. The Association may obtain fidelity coverage against dishonest acts on the part of the Board of Directors, managers, employees and volunteers responsible for handling funds belonging to or administered by the Association in such amounts and in such forms as prudent management practices suggest. Any policy shall provide that it cannot be canceled or substantially changed, except upon at least ten (10) days written notice to the insured. Section 8.5.Premiums. Premiums and expenses for all insurance and fidelity coverage purchased by the Association shall be Common Expenses. Where insurance premiums are increased as a result of increased risk attributable to a particular Lot or Condominium Unit, the Owner of the Lot or Condominium Unit at issue shall be responsible for the increase, based upon the insurance carrier’s appraisal of risk inherent to said Lot or Condominium Unit. A levy made against a Lot or Condominium Unit for an increase in premiums may be enforced in the same manner as Common Expenses. Section 8.6.Separate Insurance. The Owner of each Lot shall be responsible for obtaining, at his or her own expense, separate casualty and liability insurance for his or her own Lot and the Dwelling constructed thereon. No insurance purchased by the Association shall in any way prejudice the right of each Owner of a Lot to obtain insurance for his or her own Lot and the Dwelling thereon for his or her own benefit, nor shall the insurance purchased by the Owner prejudice the Associations’ rights and protection under policies purchased by the Association under this Declaration. All such separate policies of insurance obtained by an Owner of a Lot shall contain a waiver of subrogation if available. Insurance requirements for the Owners of the Condominium Units are described in the applicable Declaration of Condominium. Section 8.7.Adjustment; Insurance Trustee. Any loss covered by the Property policy shall be adjusted with the Association, but the proceeds for that loss are payable to any insurance trustee designated in the policy for that purpose, or otherwise to the Association, in either case to be held in trust for the Association, each Owner and such Owner’s mortgagee, as their interests may appear. ARTICLE 9 The Association Section 9.1.Authority. The business affairs of the Planned Community shall be managed by the Association. The Association shall be governed by the Bylaws, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B”, as they may be amended from time to time. Section 9.2.Membership. (a)Each Owner shall be assigned one (1) appurtenant and indivisible membership in the Association which may not be assigned, hypothecated, pledged or transferred in any manner except as 10 an indivisible appurtenance to the Lot or Condominium Unit. Multiple or joint Owners of a single Lot or Condominium Unit shall be treated for all purposes as jointly owning and holding the one (1) membership appurtenant to that particular Lot or Condominium Unit. (b)A membership appurtenant to a Lot or Condominium Unit shall be initiated by either: (i) the recording of a deed in the City of South Burlington Land Records conveying a Lot or Condominium Unit to a purchaser; or (ii) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of South Burlington for a Dwelling constructed on a Lot or Condominium Unit, whichever sooner occurs. Once a membership is initiated, liability for Common Expenses shall automatically commence. Membership in the Association shall be owned and held by each Owner, including Declarant with respect to unsold Lots or Condominium Units. (c)The number of memberships in the Association shall automatically increase if additional Lots or Condominium Units are declared and subjected to this Declaration. No membership rights or liability for Common Expenses shall be allocated or attributed to a Lot or Condominium Unit until the Lot or Condominium Unit is either sold by Declarant to a third party or has been issued a certificate of occupancy. (d)Liability for Common Expenses shall be assessed among the Owners in accordance with their Allocated Interest, unless altered as hereinafter set forth in Section 9.6. Section 9.3.Voting Rights. Initially there shall be two (2) classes of membership in the Association: voting memberships and non-voting memberships. A voting membership shall be any membership owned and held by Declarant as an Owner. A non-voting membership shall be any membership owned and held by any Owner other than Declarant. All memberships in the Association shall automatically become voting memberships: (a) sixty (60) days after the sale by Declarant of seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed one hundred forty-two (142) Lots and Condominium Units in the Planned Community; (b) two (2) years after Declarant has ceased to offer Lots and Condominium Units for sale in the ordinary course of business; (c) two (2) years after the exercise of any Development Right to add new Lots or Condominium Units; or (d) upon Declarant amending the Bylaws to make all memberships voting memberships, whichever is the first to occur. Thereafter only one (1) class of voting membership shall exist. Notwithstanding the foregoing, non-voting memberships shall be entitled to vote on those matters identified in the Act upon which Owners may vote during the period of Declarant control. When a membership is a voting membership, each Owner, or one (1) of the Owners if record title in a Lot or Condominium Unit is held by more than one (1) person, shall be entitled to vote in any meeting of the membership. Section 9.4.Board of Directors. The initial Board of Directors of the Association shall be three (3) in number and shall be appointed by Declarant acting in its sole discretion and shall serve at the pleasure of Declarant so long as Declarant retains control of the Association. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Board of Directors shall be elected by Owners who are not Declarant within sixty (60) days after twenty-five percent (25%) of the Lots and Condominium Units are conveyed to Owners (other than Declarant). At lease thirty-three percent (33%) of the members of the Board of Directors shall be elected by Owners who are not Declarant within sixty (60) days after fifty percent (50%) of the Lots and Condominium Units are conveyed to Owners (other than Declarant). After the period of Declarant control (described below), at least one (1) member of the 11 Board of Directors shall be an Owner of a Condominium Unit and at least one (1) member of the Board of Directors shall be an Owner of a Lot. Section 9.5.Declarant Control. Declarant will convey to the Association marketable title to the Common Elements by standard Warranty Deed(s) and/or Easement Deed(s) for One Dollar ($1.00), and the Association will accept said title. Said conveyances of title (and the transfer of control of the Association which may or may not be made at the same time) shall be made: (a) sixty (60) days after the sale by Declarant of seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed one hundred forty-two (142) Lots and Condominium Units in the Planned Community; (b) two (2) years after Declarant has ceased to offer Lots or Condominium Units for sale in the ordinary course of business; (c) two (2) years after the exercise of any Development Right to add new Lots or Condominium Units; or (d) upon the voluntary relinquishment by Declarant, whichever is the first to occur. As long as Declarant retains control of the Association, no person may record any declaration or amendment to this Declaration or similar instrument affecting any portion of the Planned Community without Declarant’s written consent thereto, and any attempted recording without compliance herewith shall result in such or similar instrument being void and of no force and effect unless subsequently approved by recorded consent signed by Declarant. Section 9.6.Miscellaneous. In addition to any other powers and authority given to the Association or its Board of Directors in the Bylaws or in this Declaration: (a)Common Expenses of the Association shall be borne among the Owners of the Lots and Condominium Units in accordance with their Allocated Interest, except that the Board of Directors may allocate expenses among the Lots and Condominium Units on a different basis if the basis is reasonably related to the benefits of the services provided. In addition, allocation of expenses to Lots and Condominium Units constructed and owned by Declarant, but not occupied, may be less than Assessments allocated to Lots and Condominium Units which have been conveyed to persons other than Declarant. (b)The Board of Directors may enter into a management agreement to operate the affairs of the Association until such time as all memberships in the Association become voting memberships. At the time all memberships become voting memberships, any management agreement entered into by Declarant may be terminated by the Association without cause upon giving ninety (90) days notice. (c)The Association shall maintain current copies of this Declaration, the Bylaws and any Rules and Regulations concerning the Planned Community, as well as its own books, records and financial statements. These will be available for inspection by Owners or First Mortgagees. ARTICLE 10 Assessment and Collection of Common Expenses Section 10.1.Definition of Common Expenses. Common Expenses shall include: (a)Expenses of administration, maintenance and repair or replacement of the Common Elements; (b)Expenses declared to be Common Expenses by the Board of Directors or by the Act; 12 (c)Expenses agreed upon as Common Expenses by the Association; and (d)Such reserves as may be established by the Association, whether held in trust or by the Association, for repair, replacement or addition to the Common Elements or any other real or personal property acquired or held by the Association. Section 10.2.Assessment and Apportionment of Common Expenses. Except as otherwise provided herein, all Common Expenses shall be assessed against all Lots and Condominium Units in accordance with their Allocated Interest in the Common Expenses as set forth in this Declaration. If the Common Expense Liability is modified due to a redetermination of the Allocated Interests, any Assessments for Common Expenses not yet due shall be recalculated in accordance with the modified Common Expense Liability. Section 10.3.Common Expenses Attributable to Fewer Than All Owners. The following expenses may be assessed against less than all of the Owners: (a)Any Common Expense for services provided by the Association to an individual Owner at the request of the Owner shall be assessed against the Lot or Condominium Unit which benefits from such service; (b)Any insurance premium increase attributable to a particular Lot or Condominium Unit by virtue of activities or construction of the Lot or Condominium Unit shall be assessed against that Lot or Condominium Unit; (c)Assessments to pay a judgment against the Association may be made only against the Lots or Condominium Units in the Common Interest Community at the time the judgment was rendered, in proportion to their Common Expense Liabilities; (d)Any Common Expense arising from the misconduct of an Owner; (e)Fees, charges, late charges, fines and interest charged against an Owner pursuant to the Declaration, the Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations of the Association and the Act are enforceable as Common Expense Assessments; (f)Any expense incurred by the Board of Directors and/or the Association on behalf of an Owner or as a result of an Owner’s failure to perform any of the obligations under Section 11.2(c) hereof is a Common Expense. Section 10.4.Lien. The Association shall have a statutory lien on a Lot or Condominium Unit in accordance with § 3-116 of the Act for any Assessment imposed against an Owner. Section 10.5.Budget Adoption and Ratification. Within thirty (30) days after the adoption of any proposed budget for the Planned Community, the Board of Directors of the Association shall provide a summary of the budget to all of the Owners. The Board of Directors shall set a date, not less than fourteen (14) or more than thirty (30) days after the date the budget summary is sent to the Owners, for a meeting of the Owners to ratify the budget. The budget shall be ratified, unless a majority of the Owners rejects the budget, whether or not a quorum is present. If the budget is rejected, the budget last ratified by the Owners shall be in effect until the Owners ratify a budget proposed by the Board of 13 Directors. If the Board of Directors votes to levy a Common Expense Assessment not included in the current budget, in an amount greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the current annual operating budget, the Board of Directors shall submit such Common Expense to the Owners for notice and ratification in the same manner as a budget under this Section. Section 10.6.Certificate of Payment of Common Expense Assessments. The Association, upon written request, shall furnish to an Owner a statement in recordable form setting forth the amount of unpaid Assessments against the Lot or Condominium Unit and any other matters required by § 4-109 of the Act. The statement shall be furnished within ten (10) days after the receipt of the request and is binding on the Association, the Board of Directors and every Owner. Section 10.7.Payment of Common Expenses. All Common Expenses assessed under Sections 10.2 and 10.3 shall be due and payable as determined by the Board of Directors. Any past due payments shall accrue interest at the legal rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. ARTICLE 11 Maintenance Section 11.1.Maintenance of Common Elements. The Association shall maintain and keep in good repair at all times the Common Elements, including, without limitation, the open space areas and neighborhood park depicted on the plan of land entitled “Cider Mill - Phase II, Open Space Management Plan”, prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated October 5, 2013, last revised May 29, 2018, and recorded in Map Slide _____ at Page _____ of the City of South Burlington Land Records (the “Open Space Management Plan”), as Western Undeveloped Space, Mid Site Undeveloped Space, Northeastern Undeveloped Space, Northwestern Undeveloped Space, Stormwater Ponds, Unmanaged Open Space, and Neighborhood Park Land, all roadways, water lines, sewer lines, sewer force mains, sewer pumps, the stormwater drainage system, including stormwater basins, lighting, landscaping, utility lines and facilities, and including the Limited Common Elements (other than those facilities and improvements located within an accepted public right of way), except for such maintenance of the Limited Common Elements as the Board of Directors shall, from time to time, delegate to the Owners appurtenant thereto and until such time as the City of South Burlington shall accept responsibility for all or a portion of such improvements. The maintenance shall be performed in a professional manner customary to the respective trade. In addition, the Association shall have the right, but not the obligation, to maintain property not owned by the Association where the Board of Directors has determined that such maintenance would benefit the Owners, and the Association shall have the obligation to maintain such property not owned by the Association as required by any permit or approval of the Planned Community by any governmental agency. Section 11.2.Open Space Management Plan. The Common Elements are subject to an Open Space Management Plan for the areas as depicted Open Space Management Plan, specifically: (a)The areas depicted as Neighborhood Park Land on the Open Space Management Plan shall be maintained by the Association. (b)The areas surrounding the Condominiums shall be Limited Common Elements as to the Condominiums and shall be maintained by the Association. 14 (c)The areas depicted on the Open Space Management Plan as Northwestern Undeveloped Space, Northeastern Undeveloped Space, Mid Site Undeveloped Space and Western Undeveloped Space, including all wetlands, wetland buffers and adjoining areas shall be left to vegetate naturally and shall remain open in perpetuity. (d)The areas depicted on the Open Space Management Plan as Stormwater Ponds shall be maintained by the Association until such time as they are accepted by the City of South Burlington. (e)The area depicted on the Open Space Management Plan as Undeveloped Space For Possible Future Connection to Nadeau Parcel shall be maintained by the Association. However, Declarant reserves a Development Right to use the space for any future development of the Nadeau Parcel. Section 11.3.Maintenance of Lots. (a)Each Owner shall maintain, repair and replace, at his or her own expense, all portions of his or her Lot and the Dwelling thereon in good repair. Such maintenance shall be consistent with this Declaration. In addition, each Owner shall be responsible for paying the real estate taxes assessed against the Lot, for insuring the Lot and all improvements thereon, and for maintaining all private electricity, telephone, cable television and water or sewer pipes, lines, ducts, conduits or other apparatus which serve only the Lot. However, the Board of Directors may, by rule, decide to maintain any portion of the Lots. (b)In addition, each Owner shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing any driveway, walkway, pipes or utilities located outside a Lot which serve only the Owner’s Lot. (c)In the event that an Owner should fail to perform any obligation required in Subsections (a) and (b) hereof as may be determined by the Board of Directors, then the Board of Directors may provide for the performance of any such neglected obligation by whatever reasonable means it may determine in its sole discretion. In case of emergency as determined by the Board of Directors, it may act immediately, and in all other cases the Board of Directors may act hereunder following thirty (30) days written notice to the Owner. All expenses incurred by the Association as a result of taking action under this Section shall be chargeable to the Owner as provided for herein. (d)Terms and conditions for the maintenance of the Condominium Units are described in the applicable Declaration of Condominium. ARTICLE 12 Compliance and Default Section 12.1.Compliance. Each Owner shall be governed by and with all of the provisions of this Declaration, the Bylaws, any Rules and Regulations established by the Board of Directors of the Association, as the same may be amended from time to time, and the Act. In addition to the remedies provided by the Act, the Declaration or the Bylaws, the failure of an Owner to comply with any of said requirements shall entitle the Association, acting through its Board of Directors or through its agent or an aggrieved Owner, to the following relief after appropriate notice to the defaulting Owner: 15 (a)Liability. An Owner shall be liable for the expenses of any maintenance, repair or replacement rendered by the Owner’s act, neglect or carelessness or by that of any employees, agents, lessees or other invitees of the Owner. No Owner shall conduct any activity which may result in an increase in insurance rates occasioned by the use, misuse, occupancy or abandonment of a Lot or Condominium Unit or its appurtenances, or of the Common Elements. (b)Fines. The Board of Directors of the Association shall have the right to impose upon a defaulting Owner a reasonable fine commensurate with the severity of the violation of any of the provisions of the above-referenced documents, which fine shall become a continuing lien against the Lot or Condominium Unit of the defaulting Owner, enforceable in the manner provided by the Act and the Bylaws. (c)Injunctions. The Board of Directors of the Association or any aggrieved Owner shall have the right or remedy by appropriate legal proceedings, either at law or in equity, to abate or enjoin the continuance of any violation of the provisions of the above-referenced documents, including, without limitation, an action to recover any sums due for money damages, injunctive relief, foreclosure of a lien for payment of all Assessments, or any combination thereof, and any other relief afforded by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such remedies shall be deemed cumulative and shall not constitute an election of remedies. The failure of the Association or its Board of Directors to enforce any rights, covenants or conditions of the Planned Community shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce such rights, covenants or conditions in the future. There shall be and there hereby is created and declared to be a conclusive presumption that any violation or breach, or any attempted violation or breach, of any of the covenants and restrictions of the Declaration or the Bylaws shall so damage the Planned Community and its property values that it cannot be adequately remedied by action at law or exclusively by recovery of damages. (d)Costs and Attorney Fees. In any proceeding of an alleged failure of an Owner to comply with the terms of this Declaration, the Bylaws or the Rules and Regulations of the Association, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding and reasonable attorney fees. Section 12.2.Rights of Owners. Each Owner shall have a right of action against the Association for failure of the Association to comply with the provisions of this Declaration, the Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations of the Association or the decisions made by the Association. Section 12.3.Waiver. No provision of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been waived by reason of any failure to enforce regardless of the occurrence of violations or breaches from time to time. ARTICLE 13 Declarant’s Reserved Development Rights Section 13.1.Easement For Completion. For so long as Declarant owns any interest in the Property, including reserved Development Rights, Declarant hereby reserves for itself, and its successors and assigns, easements, rights of way and licenses, and the right to grant easements, rights of way and licenses to others, over, under, across and through all of the Property (other than Lots or Condominium Units which have been sold by Declarant to Owners) for the purpose of: 16 (a)Completing the improvements to the Property described in this Declaration, including Dwellings, Condominium buildings, roads, driveways, sewer, water and other utility lines, stormwater drainage systems, sidewalks, fences, trees, shrubs, landscaping, equipment and improvements, and for the purpose of sales activities such as erecting signs advertising the Planned Community or the sale of Lots or Condominium Units within the Planned Community; (b)Providing utility service to the Property; (c)Compliance with permits, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and other governmental requirements; or (d)Exercising Development Rights reserved herein. Section 13.2.Alteration of Lots and Condominium Units. Declarant reserves the right to alter the layout and arrangement of the Lots and Condominium Units, said right to last as long as Declarant controls the Association or owns any of the Lots or Condominium Units so altered. If Declarant shall make any such alterations, they shall be reflected in an amendment to this Declaration. Declarant may make any structural alterations within or affecting any Lot or Condominium Unit, as long as Declarant owns said Lot or Condominium Unit, without the prior written consent of the Board of Directors. Declarant specifically reserves the right to develop the Condominium Units in phases. Declarant specifically reserves the right to change any of the Condominium Units to footprint Units. Section 13.3.Amendment to Enlarge Planned Community. For as long as Declarant owns any interest in the Property, including reserved Development Rights, Declarant reserves for itself, and its successors and assigns, the absolute right, which may be exercised at any time or from time to time in Declarant’s sole discretion, to develop and improve all of the Property. The location and configuration of the Lots and Condominium Units proposed for the Property on the Site Plan may be modified by Declarant in its sole discretion. Declarant also reserves the right, in its sole discretion, at any time or from time to time to amend this Declaration to complete the Planned Community or to subject additional property to this Declaration, including, without limitation, the lands identified as Future Development on the Site Plan which are being excluded from the Planned Community at this time, individually or in conjunction with the additional adjacent lands depicted on the Site Plan, and to develop the Future Development parcel and adjacent lands for the maximum density allowed under the City of South Burlington zoning and subdivision regulations and to subject such lands and corresponding lots and units to this Declaration. Declarant’s reserved Development Rights shall be exercised within twenty (20) years after the transfer of Declarant Control as described herein. Section 13.4.Easement For Further Development. For as long as Declarant owns any interest in the Property, including reserved Development Rights, Declarant hereby reserves for itself, and its successors and assigns, without restriction or limitation, perpetual non-exclusive easements, rights of way and licenses, and the right to grant easements, rights of way and licenses, over, under, across and through all of the Property (other than Lots and Condominium Units which have been sold by Declarant to Owners) for the purpose of storing building materials, supplies and equipment used in improving the Property; construction, maintenance, repair and replacement of Dwellings, Condominium buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, fences, trees, shrubs, landscaping, utility lines, equipment and other improvements included as part of or necessary to serve the portion of the Property being Developed by Declarant and any Dwellings and Condominium buildings located thereon; making future connections, hookups and tie-ins to utility lines, equipment and other improvements constructed to serve 17 the Property, Dwellings, Condominium buildings or other improvements located thereon and for the future use and connection by the adjacent lands depicted as Future Development for ingress and egress and all manner of utilities for the maximum number of homes or units allowed on such lands under the City of South Burlington zoning and subdivision regulations, including reserved easements over all roadways until accepted as public streets by the City of South Burlington. The easements, rights of way and licenses reserved here under shall be sufficient in scope to permit development, use and occupancy on the Property of as many Dwellings, Lots and Condominium Units as Declarant, in its sole discretion, shall determine; provided, however, that Declarant will not build more than two hundred fifty (250) Lots and/or Condominium Units on the Property. Section 13.5.Permits and Approvals For Further Development. Each Owner acknowledges, by acceptance of a Warranty Deed, that Declarant has the present right to develop one hundred forty-two (142) Lots and Condominium Units on the Property, and that Declarant may also, in the future, seek to develop the Property in a different manner, subject to the specific limitations set forth in this Declaration, including the right to construct additional lots and units on the Future Development parcel and adjacent lands depicted on the Site Plan for the maximum number of units allowed under the City of South Burlington zoning and subdivision regulations. In such event, neither the Association nor any Owner may take any action or adopt any Rules that will interfere with or diminish any Development Rights or Special Declarant Rights without the prior written consent of Declarant, nor shall the Association or any Owner oppose, either directly or indirectly, such development and shall cooperate or cause the Association to cooperate with such development by executing permit applications if necessary. Section 13.6.Amendments Under This Article. Any amendments to this Declaration permitted by this Article need to be signed and acknowledged only by Declarant, and it shall be deemed that the Association, Owners, lienholders or mortgage holders have voted for such amendment or amendments. In addition, prior to the sale of any Lots or Condominium Units, Declarant may make whatever amendments it deems advisable, in its sole discretion, without the consent of any person. Section 13.7.Transfer of Declarant’s Development Rights. Declarant’s reserved Development Rights may be transferred in accordance with § 3-104 of the Act. No amendment to this Declaration may be made to diminish or alter Declarant’s reserved Development Rights and/or Special Declarant Rights without the written consent of Declarant. Section 13.8.Specific Reservation. Declarant specifically reserves the right to use the area depicted on the Open Space Management Plan as Undeveloped Space For Possible Future Connection To Nadeau Parcel as access to the Nadeau Parcel or any other lands adjacent to the Property. ARTICLE 14 Covenants and Environmental Restrictions Section 14.1.Use of Property Subject to Permits. The Property may be used and conveyed only in accordance with the conditions of the Vermont Land Use Permit for the development of the Property and the permits and approvals referenced therein; the terms and conditions of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board approval; all protective covenants and easements and rights of way for utilities of record; and as all of the foregoing may be amended from time to time as set forth on Exhibit “A”. 18 Section 14.2.Promulgation of Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, without the consent of the members, promulgate, modify or delete use restrictions and Rules and Regulations applicable to the Lots, Condominium Units and Common Elements. Such Rules and Regulations and use restrictions shall be binding upon all Owners and occupants until and unless overruled, canceled or modified in a regular or special meeting by the vote of the members holding a majority of the total votes in the Association. Such Rules and Regulations and use restrictions may impose stricter standards than those contained in this Section. The Association, acting through its Board of Directors, shall having standing and the power to enforce such standards. Section 14.3.Use. Only one (1) single family Dwelling, and improvements appurtenant thereto, shall be erected or maintained on each Lot. Section 14.4.Animals. No animals shall be permitted on the Property other than dogs and other domestic pets. All dogs and other domestic pets shall be in the control of the Owner at all times while on the Property. Owners are responsible for immediate cleanup of any waste in the public thoroughfares and/or damage to Common Elements. Owners are also responsible for all impoundment costs incurred in the control of dogs or other domestic animals while on the Common Elements. In addition, Owners are subject to the animal control ordinances of the City of South Burlington. Section 14.5.Subdivision. No Lot shall be further subdivided by an Owner for sale purposes or otherwise. Section 14.6.Signs. No signs, signboards or advertising structures of any kind shall be erected or placed on the Property at any time except for signs advertising the Lot or Condominium Unit for sale. Section 14.7.Rubbish. There shall be no disposal of trash, rubbish or garbage or the burning of same on any portion of the Property. Section 14.8.Grading and Drainage. The grading and/or drainage pattern of any Lot or Common Element in the Planned Community shall not be altered for any reason due to each Lot’s necessary conformance with the plans submitted and approved by the City of South Burlington and the District No. 4 Environmental Commission. Section 14.9.Architectural Control. Except for Dwellings or improvements constructed or installed by Declarant, no building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected, maintained or placed on a Lot, nor shall any addition or external alteration be made, until the design and location or alterations have been approved in writing by Declarant or, upon the transfer of Declarant’s control of the Association, by the Board of Directors. No approval shall be required for the design and location of any Dwelling or improvement constructed by Declarant on the Property or for Dwellings or Condominium Units or buildings constructed by an approved affiliate or assignee of Declarant. Section 14.10.Satellite Dishes. No antennas shall be installed on a Lot or on the exterior of any Dwelling erected thereon. One (1) dish type receiver no greater than eighteen inches (18") in diameter or length, may be installed on the side or rear exterior wall of any Dwelling or in the rear or side yard of the Lot except where a side yard has frontage on a public street. Section 14.11.Vehicles and Garage Use. Garages are restricted to use by the Lots and Condominium Units for which they belong as a parking space for vehicles. Garages may not be 19 converted to living space. No unregistered motor vehicle, or any boat, boat trailer, snowmobile, snowmobile trailer, camper, truck (other than pick-up trucks) or recreational vehicle may be parked, stored or maintained on any portion of the Property. The parking of motor vehicles along the roadway or in other spaces which have not been designated for parking shall be strictly prohibited. Section 14.12.Trees. Except for trees removed by Declarant, no tree six inches (6") or larger on the stump shall be cut on the Property until approved in writing by Declarant or, after Declarant transfers control to the Association, by the Board of Directors. All Owners shall comply with the City of South Burlington zoning regulations for tree planting. Section 14.13.Lighting. Except for seasonal decorative lights, all exterior lights must be installed and used in a manner which will not unduly disturb surrounding Owners and does not violate any permit conditions and must be pre-approved by the Board of Directors. Section 14.14.On-Site Fuel Storage. No on-site storage of gasoline or heating or other fuels shall be permitted on any part of the Property, except for propane, and not more than ten (10) gallons of other fuel stored on each Lot for emergency purposes and operation of generators, snow blowers, lawn mowers and similar tools or equipment. Section 14.15.Outbuildings. No structures of a temporary character, tents, shacks, barns, trailers, garages, unfinished basements or other outbuildings shall be occupied as living quarters on the Property. Section 14.16.Occupants Bound. All provisions of the Declaration and any Rules and Regulations or use restrictions promulgated pursuant thereto which govern the conduct of Owners and which provide for sanctions against Owners shall also apply to all occupants of the Property. Section 14.17.Leasing. Lots and Condominium Units may be leased for residential purposes. All leases shall have a minimum term of six (6) months. All leases shall require, without limitation, that the tenant acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the Declaration, Bylaws, use restrictions and Rules and Regulations of the Association. The lease shall also obligate the tenant to comply with the foregoing and shall provide that in the event of noncompliance the Board of Directors, in addition to any other remedies available to it, may, in the event the Owner shall fail to initiate and reasonably maintain an action to evict the tenant after written request to do so by the Association, evict the tenant on behalf of the Owner and specifically assess all costs associated therewith against the Owner and the Owner’s property. Section 14.18.Energy Conservation Measures. (a)Without the prior written consent of the Vermont District No. 4 Environmental Commission, or its successor, no alteration may be made to any Dwelling on a Lot or Condominium Unit which would reduce the effect of the water conserving plumbing fixtures or insulation, including low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads and aerator or flow-restricted faucets. All leases shall require maintenance of same and prohibit replacement with non-water conserving fixtures. (b)All heated structures shall be constructed to meet the Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES) in effect at the time of construction. The installation and/or use of electric resistance space heating is specifically prohibited. 20 Section 14.19.Landscaping. The Association shall continually maintain all Common Elements, facilities and landscaping substantially as approved by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board and the District No. 4 Environmental Commission. All dead or diseased landscape plantings shall be replaced as soon as reasonably possible. Section 14.20.Special Covenants. The following special covenants shall apply: (a)The Class Two wetlands and associated fifty foot (50') buffer zones shown on the Site Plan will remain in a natural undisturbed manner with the exception of the proposed impacts as shown on the Site Plan. There shall be no draining, dredging, tilling, grading, dumping of yard waste or other debris and refuse, alterations of the water flow, cutting, mowing, clearing or removal of vegetation within the wetland or buffer zone with the exception of the proposed impact areas as approved by the Conditional Use Determination for this Property. Construction of paths into or through the wetlands and wetland buffers is specifically prohibited. Allowed uses within the wetlands and their buffer zones are to be in conformance with Section 6 of the Vermont Wetland Rules effective February 23, 1990. These restrictions shall run with the land and are enforceable under the Vermont Wetland Rules and the associated Conditional Use Determination for this Property. (b)Declarant will construct the stormwater treatment systems on the Property in accordance with the approved plans and permit conditions. After construction, the stormwater treatment systems shall be maintained, repaired and replaced by the Association until accepted by the City of South Burlington, if ever, and by the acceptance of a Deed for a Lot or Condominium Unit each Owner shall consent to the Association’s responsibility for such obligations. After construction, Declarant shall have no further obligations for the maintenance, repair or replacement of the stormwater systems, except for construction defects occurring prior to the delivery of the systems to the Association. (c)Notice is hereby given that portions of the Property are adjacent to existing agricultural lands that will be used for agricultural purposes. These agricultural uses may include, without limitation, plowing, planting, fertilizing and the of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and herbicides in the course of cultivating, harvesting, storing and transporting agricultural feed or product. Consistent with this notice, all Lots and Condominium Units are conveyed subject to a perpetual easement for any noise, odors, dust and/or by-products and impacts that may occur in the course of conducting accepted agricultural and best-management practices on the nearby lands, and for any noise, odors or dust. All Owners, by the acceptance of their Deed, waive any objection to impacts arising from accepted agricultural and best-management practices which are consistent with the rules established pursuant to 6 V.S.A., Chapter 215, and are further notified that agricultural activities which are consistent with accepted agricultural and best-management practices do not constitute a nuisance. (d)Declarant reserves the right to own, develop, transfer or preserve the parcel depicted as Future Development on the Site Plan for the maximum density allowed under the City of South Burlington zoning and subdivision regulations which, in the sole discretion of Declarant may be developed either as a separate development or as an affiliated development that will be included as part of the Property and subjected to this Declaration. In connection with the possible future development of such parcel, Declarant also reserves easements over all roadways until accepted as public streets by the City of South Burlington, and over the Common Elements as shown on the Site Plan, for all manner of ingress, egress and utilities to and from such parcel for use by the maximum number of homes or units that may be permitted on such parcel, including, without limitation, the right to expand the sewer pump stations for the Property to accommodate the future development on the Future Development parcel 21 and/or the right to allow additional connections by adjoining property owners. Accordingly, all Owners are on notice that the Future Development parcel may not remain open and in agricultural use and may be developed for the maximum number of units allowed under the City of South Burlington zoning and subdivision regulations and, by the acceptance of a Deed for a Lot or Condominium Unit, agree not to oppose, either directly or indirectly, such development and shall cooperate or cause the Association to cooperate with such development by executing permit applications if necessary. Section 14.21.Amendments. No amendment of Section 14.18, 14.19 or 14.20 of this Article shall be effective without the prior written consent of the Vermont District No. 4 Environmental Commission. Section 14.22.Condominium Covenants. Additional covenants for the Condominium Units are described in the applicable Declarations of Condominium. ARTICLE 15 Amendments Section 15.1.General. Except for amendments which may be made by Declarant hereunder and in § 2-109(f) or § 2-110 of the Act, amendments by the Association under §§ 2-106(d), 2-108(c) or 2-112(a) of the Act, or by Owners under §§ 2-108(b), 2-112(a) or 2-118(b) of the Act, and except for the limitations set forth in § 2-117(d) of the Act, this Declaration may be amended by vote or agreement of Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in the Association is allocated. All amendments to this Declaration shall be made in accordance with § 2-117 of the Act. Section 15.2.Rights Reserved in Declarant. Notwithstanding the amendment provisions set forth above in Section 15.1, Declarant may unilaterally amend this Declaration in accordance with the provisions of Article 13, and may also unilaterally amend this Declaration at any time to satisfy and meet any requirement of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Vermont District No. 4 Environmental Commission, the Vermont Environmental Board and/or Environmental Court, the City of South Burlington or a title insurance company insuring or offering to insure all of a portion of the Property. Section 15.3.Special Declarant Rights. The provisions in this Declaration creating Development Rights and Special Declarant Rights may not be amended without the consent of Declarant. Section 15.4.Consent of Mortgage Holders. Amendments are subject to the consent requirements of Article 16. ARTICLE 16 Rights Related to Mortgages Section 16.1.Notice of Action. Upon written request to the Association from any Institutional Mortgage identifying its name and address and the Lot or Condominium Unit number or address, such Institutional Mortgagee shall be entitled to timely written notice of: 22 (a)Any condemnation loss or any casualty loss which affects any material portion of the Planned Community or any Lot or Condominium Unit on which there is a first mortgage held, insured or guaranteed by such qualified requesting party; (b)Any delinquency in the payment of Assessments or other charges by an Owner subject to a first mortgage held or insured by such party, which delinquency remains uncured for a period of sixty (60) days; (c)Any lapse, cancellation or material modification of any insurance policy or fidelity bond maintained by the Association; or (d)Any proposed action which would require the consent of a specified percentage of Institutional Mortgagees. Section 16.2.Special Voting Rights of Institutional Mortgagees. Any action with respect to the Planned Community, including, but not limited to, material amendment to this Declaration, restoration or repair after partial or total condemnation or casualty loss, or termination of the legal status of the Planned Community under the Declaration, requiring the votes of the Owners, shall also require the consent of Institutional Mortgagees holding mortgages on Lots which represent at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the mortgages of Institutional Mortgagees in the Planned Community; provided, however, that in the case of a termination of the Planned Community not made as a result of destruction, damage or condemnation, the applicable percentage shall be sixty-seven percent (67%) instead of fifty- one percent (51%). For purposes of this Section, a “material amendment” includes, but is not limited to, any provision affecting: (a)Assessments, Assessment liens or subordination of Assessment liens; (b)Voting rights; (c)Reserves for maintenance, repair and replacement of Common Elements; (d)Responsibility for maintenance and repairs; (e)Reallocation of interests in the Common Elements or Limited Common Elements (other than reallocation in connection with the exercise of Declarant’s Development Rights), except that when Limited Common Elements are reallocated by agreement between Owners, only those Owners and only the Institutional Mortgagees which hold mortgages on such Lots or Condominium Units must approve such action; (f)Rights to use Common Elements and Limited Common Elements; (g)Boundaries of Lots or Condominium Units, except that when boundaries of only adjoining Lots or Condominium Units are involved, then only those Owners and the Institutional Mortgagees holding mortgages on such Lots or Condominium Units must approve such action; (h)Convertibility of Lots or Condominium Units into Common Elements or Common Elements into Lots or Condominium Units; 23 (i)Expansion or contraction of the Planned Community, or the addition, annexation or withdrawal of property to or from the Planned Community, except as otherwise reserved by Declarant in Article 13 or other than as specified in this Declaration; (j)Insurance or fidelity bonds; (k)Leasing of Lots or Condominium Units; (l)Imposition of restrictions on an Owner’s right to sell or transfer his or her Lot or Condominium Unit; (m)Restoration or repair of the Planned Community after a hazard damage or partial condemnation in a manner other than that specified in this Declaration; (n)Termination of the Planned Community after the occurrence of substantial destruction or condemnation; and (o)Any provision that expressly benefits mortgage holders, insurers or grantors. Section 16.3.Failure to Provide Negative Responses. For the purposes of Section 16.2 above, an Institutional Mortgagee who receives a written request to approve an action in accordance with Section 16.2, delivered by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed to have consented to such action unless said Mortgagee provides a negative response to the Association within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt by the Mortgagee of the written request. ARTICLE 17 Miscellaneous Section 17.1.Invalidity. If any provision of this Declaration is held to be invalid, the invalidity thereof shall not affect other provisions of this Declaration which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this Declaration are severable. Section 17.2.Headings. The headings in this Declaration are for purposes of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning thereof. Section 17.3.Agent. The person who shall receive service of process for the Association during the period of Declarant control is Guy L. Babb, Esq., Ward & Babb, 3069 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Section 17.4.Declarant’s Disclaimer For Economic Benefit. Declarant has made no representations, and Declarant hereby disclaims any representations made by anyone claiming to act as Declarant’s authorized agent, as to the feasibility of renting a Lot or Condominium Unit in the Planned Community or otherwise generating income or deriving any other economic benefit from a Lot or Condominium Unit. Section 17.5.Declarant’s Disclaimer For Security. Neither the Association nor Declarant shall be held liable for any loss or damage by reason of failure to provide adequate security or ineffectiveness of security measures undertaken. All Owners, and tenants, guests and invitees of any Owner, as 24 applicable, acknowledge that Declarant and the Association are not insurers and that each Owner, tenant, guest and invitee assumes all risk of loss or damage to persons, to Dwellings and to contents of Dwellings, and further acknowledge that neither Declarant nor the Association has made any representation or warranty, nor has any Owner, tenant, guest or invitee relied upon any representation or warranty, express or implied, including any warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose relative to any security measures recommended or undertaken. Section 17.6.Governing Law. This Declaration shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Vermont, without giving effect to such jurisdiction’s principles or conflicts of laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed or caused this Declaration to be executed as of the _____ day of _______________, 2018. JJJ South Burlington, LLC By:______________________________________ _________________________ (printed name) Its Duly Authorized Agent STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS: At ____________________, in said County and State, on this _____ day of _______________, 2018, personally appeared _________________________, Duly Authorized Agent of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of JJJ South Burlington, LLC Before me,_____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: 02/10/2019 H:\Real Estate\Subdivisions\Ledgewood Estates - #370-13 (fka Cider Mill II)\Declaration.wpd 25 Declaration of Planned Community For Ledgewood Estates Exhibit “A” Property Description Parcel 1: Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to JJJ South Burlington, LLC by Warranty Deed of G & A Associates, LLC dated September 30, 2013 and recorded in Volume 1191 at Page 265 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to G & A Associates, LLC by Warranty Deed of Ernest N. Auclair dated May 25, 2006 and recorded in Volume 751 at Page 473 of said Land Records. Being a parcel of land containing 30 acres, more or less, which is shown and depicted as Lot #1 on a plan of land entitled, “Portion of the Lands of Ernest N. Auclair, off Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VT, Subdivision Plat”, prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated October 7, 2005, last revised January 19, 2006, and recorded in Map Slide 478 of said Land Records. Said land and premises are subject to and benefitted by the terms and conditions of: (1) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4-2605 issued on April 26, 2006 and recorded in Volume 751 at Page 464 of said Land Records; and (2) Conditional Use Determination No. 2007-616 issued on October 2, 2008 and recorded in Volume 832 at Page 289 of said Land Records. Also included herewith is all of G & A Associates, LLC’s right, title and interest in and to development rights conveyed to Dorset Street Associates, LLC and G & A Associates, LLC pursuant to a Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights to Receiving Property from Ernest N. Auclair dated March 17, 2009 and recorded in Volume 848 at Page 262 of said Land Records. Parcel 2: Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to JJJ South Burlington, LLC by Warranty Deed of Dorset Street Associates, LLC dated September 30, 2013 and recorded in Volume 1191 at Page 263 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Being a parcel of land containing 35.48 acres, more or less, and being that parcel of land identified as Common C on a plan of land entitled, “The Cider Mill, South Burlington, Vermont, Overall Subdivision Plat”, prepared by Button Professional Land Surveyors, PC, dated April 23, 2003, last revised April 19, 2007, and recorded in Map Slide 496 at Page 5 of said Land Records. Also included herewith is an easement and right of way for all legal purposes, including ingress, egress and the laying of utilities, over and across a sixty foot (60') wide right of way which travels in a westerly direction from the northwest corner of the herein described property to the easterly sideline of Sommerfield Avenue, all as more particularly depicted on “Subdivision Plat C” recorded in Map Slide 497 at Page 2 of said Land Records. Also included herewith is that non-exclusive right of way in common with others over a seventy-five foot (75') wide strip of land leading westerly from Hinesburg Road to a point on the easterly sideline of the herein described parcel of land. Also included herewith are rights of way and easements in common with others for ingress and egress over and across the roadways depicted on the above-referenced plans, including, but not limited to, Cider Mill Drive, Crispin Drive, Royal Drive, Winesap Lane, Braeburn Street and Sommerfield Avenue, until such time as said streets are accepted as public streets by the City of South Burlington; subject, however, to the restriction that any and all construction vehicles engaged in development activity on the herein described parcel shall access the property from Hinesburg Road and not through the above-referenced streets in the Cider Mill subdivision. Also included herewith are easements in common with others for utilities and stormwater drainage through lands of Dorset Street Associates, LLC where said utilities and stormwater drainage are located outside the boundaries of the above-mentioned streets. The herein described parcel of land is also subject to and benefitted by all requirements, easements, rights of way, covenants and restrictions contained in the findings, conclusions, terms and conditions and attached exhibits of the following, as they may be amended from time to time: (a) Land Use Permit No. 4C1128-1 dated March 16, 2005 and recorded in Volume 701 at Page 629 of the City of South Burlington Land Records; (b) Land Use Permit No. 4C1128-4 dated February 29, 2016 and recorded in Volume 1311 at Page 164 and Volume 1317 at Page 329 of said Land Records; (c) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4-2225 dated March 11, 2005 and recorded in Volume 702 at Page 146 of said Land Records; (d) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4- 2225-R dated March 18, 2005 and recorded in Volume 702 at Page 149 of said Land Records; (e) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4-2225-1 dated June 16, 2006 and recorded in Volume 761 at Page 287 of said Land Records; (f) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4-2225-2 dated January 9, 2008 and recorded in Volume 805 at Page 133 of said Land Records; (g) Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit No. WW-4-2225-5 dated November 23, 2015 and recorded in Volume 1300 at Page 39 and Volume 1301 at Page 190 of said Land Records; (h) Authorization to Discharge Permit No. 3144-9015 issued on April 28, 2004 and recorded in Volume 687 at Page 623 of said Land Records; (i) Stormwater Discharge Permit No. 3144-9015.2 dated August 1, 2017, a Notice of Issuance of which is recorded in Volume 1380 at Page 113 of said Land Records; (j) Stormwater Discharge Permit No. 3144-9015.2A dated August 1, 2017, a Notice of Issuance of which is recorded in Volume 1384 at Page 267 of said Land Records; (k) Public Water System Permit to Construct Project No. E-1634, WSID No. 5091 dated December 25, 2005, of record with the State of Vermont Water Supply Division; (l) Conditional Use Determination No. 2001-002 issued on October 27, 2004 and recorded in Volume 687 at Page 627 of said Land Records; (m) Conditional Use Determination No. 2007-616 dated October 2, 2008 and recorded in Volume 832 at Page 289 of said Land Records; (n) State of Vermont Individual Wetland Permit No. 2014-201 dated June 21, 2015 and recorded in Volume 1311 at Page 170 of said Land Records; (o) Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. NAE-2014-2395 dated June 19, 2015; (p) Approvals granted by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board dated August 19, 2003, February 21, 2006, May 16, 2006, April 17, 2007, October 17, 2007 and November 20, 2008; (q) City of South Burlington Development Review Board’s Findings of Fact and Decision on Final Plat Application #SD-16-01 dated March 16, 2016 and recorded in the City of South Burlington Zoning Files; (r) City of South Burlington Development Review Board’s Findings of Fact and Decision on Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-17-29 dated March 21, 2018 and recorded in the City of South Burlington Zoning Files; (s) City of South Burlington Development Review Board’s Findings of Fact and Decision on Master Plan Amendment No. MP-17-09 dated March 21, 2018 and recorded in the City of South Burlington Zoning Files. Being a portion of the land and premises referred to as “Parcel II” in a Warranty Deed from Royal C. Chittenden and Robert R. Chittenden to Dorset Street Associates, LLC dated May 3, 2005 and recorded in Volume 708 at Page 354 of said Land Records, as corrective by Corrective Warranty Deed dated May 9, 2005 and recorded in Volume 709 at Page 255 of said Land Records. Also included herewith is all of Dorset Street Associates, LLC’s right, title and interest in and to development rights conveyed to Dorset Street Associates, LLC and G & A Associates, LLC pursuant to a Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights to Receiving Property from Ernest N. Auclair dated March 17, 2009 and recorded in Volume 848 at Page 262 of said Land Records. Reference is hereby made to the above-mentioned instruments, the records thereof, the references therein made, and their respective records and references, in further aid of this description. Declaration of Planned Community For Ledgewood Estates Exhibit “B” Association Bylaws Katherine and Edward Van Woert 99 Sommerfield Ave. South Burlington, VT 05403 September 9, 2018 City of South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Marla Keene Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington Vermont 05403 Dear Members of the Development Review Board: We are unable to attend the September 18th DRB meeting on the final plat for Cider Mill II as we will be out of state on a planned vacation. Please accept this letter for the DRB packet and for presentation at the meeting. We are in agreement with the developer that the “technical review” was strictly based on a narrow planning perspective and failed to consider past city planning for ultimate east-west connectivity between Dorset and Hinesburg Road. The connection was planned to be designed and made in the future in the context of not yet known development north of the Cider Mill II plat under DRB consideration. The connection was intended to be built in the future to meet connectivity needs that have not yet emerged and cannot be anticipated at this time. The “technical review” did conclude that the connection was unnecessary for traffic purposes related to Cider Mill II, which should be the main take away from that review. Therefore, we support the developer’s proposal to contribute an additional $142,000 to the city for future connection to be defined by later development. It makes sense to hold off and design and connect Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield and beyond in the context of holistic future east-west city connectivity needs. We are very concerned that the “technical review” pros and cons did not include any analysis of the impact of the Cider Mill Drive extension crossing a Class II wetland and designated wildlife corridor. This is yet another reason that the future road extension needs to be well-engineered and in the context of future holistic city needs. It does complicate matters that the wetlands and wildlife corridors run largely north-south which makes it imperative to design thoughtful wildlife crossings with east-west human travel corridors. Incremental encroachment on the designated wildlife corridor and wetland between the current end of Cider Mill Drive and Sommerfield Ave. should be postponed until future city development is better known -- and then designed to meet those needs. We support the recommendation of the “technical review” for a 12 foot pinch point over the wetlands on Aurora Drive for wetland, wildlife, and traffic calming purposes. We also hope that the final plat includes no fences near wildlife corridors that would impede north-south animal movement. Wildlife options to move within South Burlington are shrinking rapidly! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Katherine and Edward Van Woert To: South Burlington DRB From: Karen Cubino RE: Final Plat Application SD-18-28 of JJJ South Burlington LLC Date: September 18, 2018 Development Review Board Members, During this past year I have advocated to extend Cider Mill Road to Sommerfield Ave in the Cider Mill I development off of Dorset St. Winesap Lane, the street I live on in Cider Mill I, will specifically be burdened with increased traffic as it becomes the “through” street for traffic between Cider Mill II’s 142 units and Dorset Street. A traffic study reported by the developer showed a 76% increase on Winesap Lane from 62 vehicles per hour to 109 vehicles per hour during peak travel times at full buildout. I retained Resource Systems Group (RSG) to review the provided traffic data and learned that as many as 60% of the 142 units in Cider Mill II may choose the Winesap Lane-Cider Mill Rd corridor to Dorset St, rather than Hinesburg Rd, because of the lack of good east/west connections in this area and employment data showing many jobs located closest to Dorset St. To the credit of the DRB, an independent traffic review was requested and obtained from BFJ on April 9, 2018 and titled, Cider Mill Phase II Application: Review of Cider Mill Drive Connection. I copied part of their letter below: Cider Mill Drive is designed to be more of a collector road compared to the other streets in the neighborhood. It is therefore logical that these “through” trips be as much as possible on Cider Mill Drive. Recommendation: BFJ concludes that the benefits of the connection outweigh the disadvantages and that it is the fairest decision vis-à-vis the neighbors. Additionally, South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, especially as it relates to the Southeast Quadrant, provide support and guidance for the Cider Mill Drive connection. The DRB also learned from the City Attorney that it can require developer JJJ of South Burlington to build the Cider Mill Drive connection as a condition for approval of Cider Mill II. While I realize the DRB may grant exceptions, allow modifications, issue waivers and permit variances as part of the development review process, I encourage you to look at the Cider Mill II development project holistically as to what makes sense regarding the Cider Mill Drive connection. It seems reasonable that rather than state how operations would be without the road, there should be a stronger justification for why the road is not being constructed per the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments with this cover letter: BFJ Independent Review 4-9-18 S. B. Comprehensive map S. B. Comprehensive Regulations S. B. Land Development Regulations Petitions- 55 Signatures Cubino DRB 12-28-17 Figure #1, 12-28-18 To: Development Review Board
 RE: JJJ South Burlington LLC application to build 142 unit Cider Mill II Date: December 28, 2017 Dear Sir or Madam; The proposal to build 142 units in Cider Mill II and connect them to the existing Cider Mill I neighborhood located off of Dorset Street has raised concerns among several Cider Mill I residents, myself included. An updated traffic study reported December 4, 2017 by Lamoureux & Dickinson to O’Leary Burke Civil Associates shows that traffic will increase through Cider Mill I and, more specifically, on Winesap Lane in Cider Mill I. According to their traffic data, Winesap Lane most likely is the preferred travel route for the current 41 residents (18 on Braeburn St and 23 on Sommerfield Ave) as they travel to/ from Cider Mill Drive and Dorset St. The residents of the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II would also travel on Winesap Lane when they opt to enter/exit through Cider Mill I instead of via Hinesburg Road. Based upon the following information and review of traffic data by a retained civil engineering firm, it is requested that JJJ South Burlington be required to build the Cider Mill Road extension to Sommerfield Ave prior to connecting their 142 unit Cider Mill II development to Cider Mill I. 1. The traffic study data shows traffic on Winesap Lane will go from the current 41 vehicles per hour (vph) to 62 vph when 21 additional homes are built on Sommerfield Ave as part of the Cider Mill I build out. When the proposed 142 units in Cider Mill II are completed, estimated traffic on Winesap will go to 115 vph (or the suggested & unsupported estimate of 109 vph). The increase from 62 vph to 115 vph is nearly a 85% increase in hourly flow along Winesap. This will increase noise, nuisance and potential safety of children in the area. 2.The current proposed distribution of project traffic in PM peak, Figure 4 of the provided traffic study, suggests that 37% of the trips (52 of the total 142) would utilize the existing Cider Mill Drive on Dorset Street. However current census data (https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/) for the distribution of employment for residents in the study area suggest that the portion of traffic destined to Dorset Street may be closer to 60%. It appears (Figure I attachment) that the majority of employment is in the Hill Institutions, Dorset Street itself, University of Vermont, Downtown Burlington and along Shelburne Road. With the given road network and lack of east/ west connections, residents of the proposed 142 units may be inclined to access Dorset Street and travel through our Cider Mill I neighborhood to get there. 3.The City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Planning Commission November 3, 2015 shows Cider Mill Road on the map. Interestingly, it shows the Cider Mill Road extension has already been built. Of course we know that is not the case, but the Comprehensive Plan expects the extension to be built. Since the road is scheduled to be built, it would seem reasonable to build it now instead of adding the increased traffic burden to Cider Mill I. 4.The Cider Mill Road extension was an expectation upon moving into the Cider Mill I community along with possible development in the proposed 142 unit area. As a taxpayer and resident, Cider Mill I residents expected a period of time with increased congestion and traffic and, over a period of time, expected that traffic would revert to a lower overall amount with the Cider Mill Road extension. What is the justification for the expectation not being met now? 5.If the Development Review Board agrees that the road extension is not needed at this time, JJJ South Burlington could put in the road and then be paid back by the future development which occurs north of the solar field. Or perhaps the road cost could be shared between JJJ South Burlington and the future developer north of the solar field. Both developers will be sending traffic into Cider Mill I with their proposals. 6.A petition will be provided to the Development Review Board at the January 2, 2018 board meeting. The petition was signed by over 55 residents that reside in Cider Mill I to request the extension of the current Cider Mill Drive to Sommerfield Ave. Thank you for considering these comments. Karen Cubino
 70 Winesap Lane, South Burlington, VT (315) 794-5763 karencubino@gmail.com Cider Mill Road Planned Extension to Hinesburg Road Note: South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan (Map 10) has long proposed Cider Mill Roads extension to support better east to west connections. http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/ document_center/planning/ SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_ Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf Karen Cubino 9-18-18 Excerpts from the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/document_center/planning/ SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf •Extending Cider Mill Rd eastward towards Sommerfield Rd and later to Hinesburg Rd aligns with goals in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): (Pages 3-36 and 3-37) East-West and Neighborhood Connector Roads: One of the most difficult issues for South Burlington has been the provision of east-west connector roads between Spear Street, Dorset Street, and Hinesburg Road, and provision of connections between adjacent subdivisions. Despite the fact that a network of east-west roads has been shown on the City’s Official Map and included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, at the present time, the only full connection between the north-south roads in the SEQ is Cheese Factory Road. Nowland Farm Road terminates at Dorset Heights; Swift Street terminates at the Village at Dorset Park; and Midland Avenue terminates within Dorset Farms. The lack of east-west roadways means, effectively, that the SEQ presently has over 1,000 housing units and regional traffic moving through a farming community’s roadway network. The lack of east-west connections increases travel times and miles traveled between, for example, Butler Farms and Village at Dorset Park, or Dorset Farms and Shelburne Road. When east-west and neighborhood connector roads are lacking, school bus routes and emergency service responses also are lengthened, and there is less physical connectivity between neighborhoods, creating an isolating development, transportation, infrastructure and social network in the SEQ. •While wetlands are important, building a road in that area with a minimally invasive design is more environmentally sensitive that increasing vehicle miles on surrounding roads: (Page 3-37) Also, wetland regulations are often interpreted in a manner that considers connector roads an “unnecessary impact” or an easy way to reduce wetland impacts. This interpretation is often self-defeating from an environmental perspective, since it leads to greater vehicle miles traveled by new residents when neighborhoods do not connect to other neighborhoods and the street network. Karen Cubino 9-18-18 Excerpts from the South Burlington Land Development Regulations http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/LDRS%20Effective%207-10-2017%20Complete1.pdf Streets such as Winesap Lane and Braeburn Rd were intended to be neighborhood streets in Cider Mill I, not through roads for 142 homes in Cider Mill II. Support for this is found in Land Development Regulations standards for South East Quadrant street layout under Article 9 and standards for roads, parking and circulation under Article 15.12. Article 9, Southeast Quadrant 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts, page 145: E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Article 15 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation, page 268: D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways. (2) Public roadway required. The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1, Figure 15-1, and the Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining property. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation, page 269: D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways. (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. (a) If the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the roadway to the property line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection. (b) In determining whether a connection to an adjacent property may or could occur, and the location and configuration of such connection, the DRB may consider: (i) The existence of planned roadways or recreation paths in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, or these Regulations; (ii) The requirements of the Zoning District in which the adjacent property is located and whether these Regulations allow additional development or development density on the adjacent parcel; (iii) The context of the proposed development’s setting in relation to the adjacent property; Karen Cubino 9-18-18