Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/19/2019 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 March 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Richards, N. Longo, J. Leinwohl, D. Crawford, P. Washburn, R. Brinkerhoff; L. Hammond; J. Messina; C. Montgomery; A. Shields; S. Dopp; B. Bartlett; B. Currier; L. Lackey; J. Leinwohl; C. Gendron; S. Losier; N. Hyman; R. Gonda 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Item #7 was moved up to precede #5 as it is to be continued. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply at that time. 5. (formerly #7) Master Plan application #MP-18-01 and preliminary plat application #SD-18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in 2-family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 56 acres off-site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller noted that the Board has decided to continue the hearing because the appeal of the administrative officer’s opinion has been denied and there has been a recent Court decision regarding TDRs. The Board anticipates more information will be known about how those two matters will affect the project by the date of the continued hearing. Mr. Cota assured members of the public that would have a chance to voice their opinions when the application is next heard. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-29 until 16 April 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Cota then moved to continue Master Plan MP-18-01 until 16 April 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 6. Continued conditional use application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet and increasing the height to fifteen feet, 30 Myers Court: Mr. Washburn noted the one outstanding issue was the height of the building. He noted the difference of opinion between staff and himself. He also noted that the State recommends a minimum of 4 ft. cover over the sewer if there is not be no plowing and 5 feet if there is to be plowing. He showed a hand-drawn plan and indicated the location of the sewer. He is proposing to change the preconstruction grade to 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the accessory structure. He will have to remove a row or 2 of siding to do this, but it would then meet the height requirement. Mr. Miller noted that staff prefers reducing the building height by 1-1/2 feet. Ms. Keene said it is up to the Board, but staff feels the sewer line is functional as it is. Mr. Kochman asked by what authority the Board could vary the preconstruction grade. Ms. Keene directed attention to the section of the LDRs where this is allowed. The section does not provide a lot of guidance, she noted, and it usually applies to a situation where there is fill. Mr. Washburn said the engineer says the state recommends 4 feet, and it is now only 2.5 feet. An attorney representing two abutters said his clients feel this is “an end run around the regulations,” and it seems the applicant is attempting to use a different grade that was not part of the original construction. Mr. Washburn said he had misread the LDR, and never had any nefarious intent. He said he should have asked for the 4-foot sewer requirement 6 months ago. Mr. Kochman asked what has to come off to be within the permissible height. Ms. Keene said 1 foot 5-3/4 inches. Mr. Washburn said that is not quite true because the fill is higher in front of the building. Ms. Keene agreed and said she would review the provided information and calculate a corrected value. Ms. Smith did not like setting a precedent. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Miller said the building needs to be lowered, and the amount of lowering needs to be recalculated based on the already-provided information. Mr. Cota moved to close CU-18-12. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash facility, 2) constructing a new 7990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a 2,353 sq. ft. six position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Longo explained that the plan is to build a full-service carwash and vacuuming facility to replace the existing facility. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: a. Mr. Longo said there is no planned use for the pervious area next to the building. They will make it a grassed area. b. Mr. Longo gave members FAA documents indicating compliance with the regulations regarding interference with approaches to the Airport c. Mr. Longo explained that 112 parking spaces are being displaced. He indicated where they will now be located (in lots B, C, D and E). d. Regarding concern with what the building will look like, Mr. Leinwohl showed photos. To address a concern that the building was too “plain,” he indicated some brick columns and a band of green color around the building. He also noted that it is similar a feel to the parking garage. e. Mr. Longo showed the location of a pedestrian sidewalk and a sidewalk with a path directly to the garage. He said it is unlikely anyone would be walking from the new facility to the garage. The public never has access to the carwash. f. Regarding interior parking islands, Mr. Longo said there is no way to do this within the parking area. He hoped the new grassed area would substitute. Ms. Keene was concerned with setting a precedent as 10% of the interior parking area is required to be landscaped. Ms. Hall indicated a paved area where there might be landscaping. Mr. Longo said they would look into it. g. Members were OK with the offsite landscaping as they felt it would be helpful to the neighborhood. h. Ms. Keene said landscaping in the residential area along the lot lines with the commercial area is fine. i. Mr. Longo indicated that the value of interior landscaping to be added to the landscape bond is $22,000. Members were OK with this. j. The applicant agreed to address the comments of the arborist. k. The applicant will address the comments about the oil/water separator. l. Mr. Longo said they will provide plans for protecting trees during construction. m. Regarding fire vehicle access, Mr. Leinwohl said they will do what was done at CVS with a low mountable curb. He showed where curbing would be removed to do this. It would be designed with a distinguishable material. n. Mr. Longo showed where the bike rack would be. Ms. Keene suggested using the existing small building for long-term bike storage. Mr. Longo noted that employee parking will not be allowed on the site. Mr. Miller noted an option is to put up a “shelter” that can be put over bikes. Staff has some designs to look at. Mr. Longo said they are happy to bring the whole Airport up to speed on regarding bike parking. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-19-07 to 16 April. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Minutes of 20 February 2018: Ms. Smith noted that on p. 6, item #7, she had returned after briefly leaving. Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 20 February 2018 as amended. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. 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 8:25 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.   575 Dorset Street   South Burlington, VT 05403  tel 802.846.4106  fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com                TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   MP‐18‐01 & SD‐18‐29 1505 Dorset Street Master Plan and Preliminary Plat    DATE:     March 19, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      Dorset Meadows Associates LLC has submitted an application seeking master plan and preliminary plat approval  for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling.  The planned unit  development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in  multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of  approximately 56 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.      At the January 29, 2019 hearing, the Board continued the hearing for the purpose of taking public comment.   Since that date, there has been activity in each of two environmental court matters with possible relevance for  the current applications.    1. On February 28, 2019, the Environmental Court issued a Judgement Order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec,  which pertains to an appeal of a final plat application approved by the Board for a project referred to as  Spear Meadows.  The Judgement Order concluded “the TDR Bylaw is invalid as it does not comply with  24 V.S.A. SS 4423,” and that “the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague.”  The appeal period for this  Judgement Order expires on April 2, 2019.    2. On February 19, 2019, the Environmental Court held a Status Conference on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec,  which pertains to an appeal of the Board’s decision #AO‐18‐01 that the current applications (MP‐18‐01  and SD‐18‐29) were complete on September 26, 20181.    Staff recommends the Board conduct the March 19 hearing in the following manner.     Board reviews comments provided by Judge Walsh during February 2019 Status conference and  determines whether to: proceed with the current hearings, close & dismiss the present application  pending resolution of the sketch plan /completeness appeal, or continue the present hearing until that  matter is resolved by the Court.     If the Board makes the determination that they are comfortable proceeding, then we recommend the  Board give the Applicant the opportunity to describe how they plan to proceed in response to the                                                               1 Staff acknowledges this statement paraphrases the subject of the appeal, and refers those interested in the matter to  Board decision #AO‐18‐01 for a complete description of the decision.  #MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29  Master Plan & Preliminary Plat  2    Spear Meadows decision.  The Board should ask questions, and then invite public comment.  Since the  purpose of this date was originally to allow interested persons to speak, Staff recommends that the  Board respect that intention and first take comments from those who have not yet been heard in  connection with the current applications, and allow those who have already provided comment or  provided comment by proxy to supplement their previous comments as time allows.  Staff  recommends the Board then continue the hearing until April 16 (past the appeal period on the Spear  Meadows decision), in order to determine if that Judgement Order is final.     If the Board decides instead not to proceed, the options are either to dismiss the application on the  basis that the Board does not have jurisdiction, or continue the hearing until the earliest date the court  hearings, including the potential appeal of Docket No. 114‐8‐19 Vtec and the hearings related to the  Dorset Meadows sketch plan, could be concluded.  Staff considers July 16 would be the appropriate  date.    Staff has included the following information on the packet for the Board:    1. Transcript of 2‐19‐2019 Status Conference on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐01)  2. Judgement order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2‐28‐2019)  3. Decision on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2‐28‐2019)  4. Interested Person Comments in order received  a. Louise Hammond (1‐29‐2019)  b. Natural Resources Committee (1‐31‐2019)  c. Ray Gonda (2‐3‐2019)  d. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,  Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,  Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3‐6‐2019)  e. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,  Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,  Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3‐8‐2019)    Finally, Staff reminds the Board of their authority at any time to enter a deliberative session to review any of  these materials and avail itself of legal counsel should it choose.  MP‐18‐01 & SD‐18‐29  1505 Dorset Street  Dorset Meadows  Packet for 3/19/2019 Hearing    Table of Contents    Documents are provided in the order they are mentioned in the Staff Comments, starting with  MP‐18‐01 and proceeding to SD‐18‐29.    Transcript of 2‐19‐2019 Status Conference on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐ 01)    Judgement order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2‐28‐2019)    Decision on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2‐28‐2019)    Interested Person Comments in order received    Louise Hammond (1‐29‐2019)    Natural Resources Committee (1‐31‐2019)    Ray Gonda (2‐3‐2019)    Atty  Daniel  Seff  on  behalf  of  Tom  and  Donna  Anfuso,  Robert  Brinckerhoff  and  Louise  Hammond, Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays,  Noah Hyman, Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3‐6‐2019)    Atty  Daniel  Seff  on  behalf  of  Tom  and  Donna  Anfuso,  Robert  Brinckerhoff  and  Louise  Hammond, Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays,  Noah Hyman, Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3‐8‐2019)    eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 1 1 IN THE VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 2 3 ) Case No. 2-1-19 Vtec 4 ) IN RE: ) Burlington, Vermont 5 ) DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC ) February 19, 2019 6 PUD ) 1:06 PM ) 7 ) ) 8 _______________________________ ) 9 TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE 10 BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS G. WALSH, 11 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE 12 APPEARANCES: 13 DANIEL A. SEFF, ESQ., by telephone 14 Attorney for The Citizens of South Burlington 15 MATTHEW B. BYRNE, ESQ., by telephone Attorney for Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD 16 AMANDA S.E. LAFFERTY, ESQ., by telephone 17 Attorney for the City of South Burlington 18 19 20 Transcription Services: eScribers, LLC 21 7227 N. 16th Street Suite 207 22 Phoenix, AZ 85020 (973) 406-2250 23 PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING. 24 TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE. 25 eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 2 1 I N D E X 2 RULINGS: PAGE 3 Environmental Division will issue a 17 scheduling order in the coming days 4 that just sets March 15th as the first deadline for motion practice. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 3 1 (Proceedings convened at 1:06 PM) 2 THE COURT: Let me know when you're ready. 3 MR. DANIEL SEFF: Okay. 4 MR. MATTHEW BYRNE: Okay. 5 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge 6 Walsh. Thanks for participating in this status conference. 7 The matter before the Court is entitled Dorset Meadows 8 Associates LLC PUD appeal. The docket number is 2-1-19 Vtec. 9 I'm on the record here in Burlington, and this proceeding is 10 being recorded. 11 I want to start with a quick roll call for the 12 record. We have Attorney Seff on behalf of several 13 appellates. 14 Good afternoon, to you. 15 MR. SEFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: We have Attorney Byrne on behalf of 17 Dorset Meadows Associates LLC. 18 Good afternoon, Attorney Byrne. 19 MR. BYRNE: Good afternoon. 20 THE COURT: And we have Attorney Lafferty on behalf 21 of the City of South Burlington. 22 Good afternoon, Attorney Lafferty. 23 MS. AMANDA LAFFERTY: Good afternoon. 24 THE COURT: I want to start with a quick disclosure 25 for everybody's benefit, and we can talk about the process eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 4 1 related to the disclosure. For about ten years I served as a 2 board member on the board of directors of the Intervale 3 Center, a local not-for-profit organization. At a holiday 4 party in 2018, I was introduced to Andrew Chalnick and his 5 wife Alyson. We chatted generally for a few minutes. A few 6 days later they invited me to a holiday party, which I 7 originally said I would enjoy attending. A few days later, 8 Mr. Chalnick advised me via a telephone call that there was 9 potential for him to be involved in litigation in front of 10 this division, and upon learning that, I told him that, while 11 I appreciated his invitation to the party, the model rules of 12 judicial conduct required that I not attend to prevent any 13 type of either appearance of a conflict or a conflict of 14 interest itself. 15 So with that, I declined the invitation, and I've had 16 no further correspondence with either Mr. Chalnick or his wife 17 Alyson. So I disclose that situation to avoid any appearance 18 of impropriety. Under the model rules of judicial conduct I'm 19 required to recuse myself if there's a conflict of interest, 20 but it's also a violation of the rules to recuse myself when 21 there is no conflict. 22 In this situation, Mr. Chalnick and I did not talk 23 about this case. He didn't tell me what the case was about. 24 I didn't ask any questions, and I feel as though by my 25 avoiding any further social activities with them, I can remain eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 5 1 fair, impartial, and neutral, and would continue to preside 2 over this matter. 3 Now that I've disclosed that, if any of you have a 4 follow-up question, I'm happy to provide any answers that I 5 can, and we can talk about that. Also, so it's clear what the 6 process is, you will need an opportunity to advise your 7 clients of this disclosure. If anybody has a question, I 8 invite you to call the Court, talk to Jennifer Teske, our 9 court manager; any questions can be answered. 10 Ultimately, if you feel as though there's a conflict, 11 and you would like me to recuse myself, you would then file a 12 motion. I would consider the motion. If I decided to recuse 13 myself, that would be the end of it. If I decide not to 14 recuse myself, the matter would be referred to the chief trial 15 judge, Brian Grearson, who would look at the situation, and 16 ultimately, make a decision. 17 So with that, Attorney Seff, any questions? 18 MR. SEFF: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 19 THE COURT: Attorney Byrne, questions, concerns? 20 MR. BYRNE: No, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Attorney Lafferty, any questions? 22 MS. LAFFERTY: No. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that, again. That 24 doesn't foreclose the issue. I want you all to feel 25 comfortable to take time to talk to your clients, follow-up eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 6 1 questions with Jennifer Teske, and/or file a motion. That's 2 not offensive to me. That's the process. It should be open 3 and very clear, so thank you for your attention to that 4 matter. 5 So Attorney Lafferty, I'll start with you on a quick 6 question. Your representation of the City, are you in an 7 observing pattern or do you intend to be fairly active or do 8 you even know yet? 9 MS. LAFFERTY: I think the City is going to take a 10 more active role. 11 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that. 12 So in broad scopes, I've reviewed the file, I've 13 looked at the statement of questions, it appears that this 14 matter takes issue with the City's sketch plan review process 15 and completeness determinations of two applications, one of 16 them being a master plan review and a preliminary plat review, 17 pursuant to the town's subdivision regulations. 18 Attorney Seff, have you had an opportunity to talk to 19 the other parties in advance of today's conference? 20 MR. SEFF: Not -- thank you, Your Honor. Not since 21 the filing of the statement questions. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. SEFF: There was talk of -- at the time, leading 24 to the City of South Burlington DRB decision that's the 25 subject of this appeal, but since the appeal has been filed, eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 7 1 I'm not recalling any substantive communications with either 2 the City or the applicant. 3 THE COURT: Fair enough. And the reason why I check 4 in, pursuant to the Vermont rules for environmental court 5 proceedings, specifically 2(d), our effort today is to try to 6 craft a schedule for leading to a full, fair, efficient 7 resolution. Topics are: motion practice, discovery, 8 mediation, ultimately getting a trial ready date. So I check 9 in with the parties to see if there's been some discussion, 10 and if there's an idea of the next stage or phase of this 11 matter. 12 I'll start with Attorney Seff. Did you have an idea 13 of certain aspects that you think make sense to try to handle 14 first in this matter? 15 MR. SEFF: Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, I've given it 16 some thought, and I think that what I would suggest, on behalf 17 of appellants, is that the good news here, Your Honor, is that 18 this is a relatively straightforward appeal. We believe the 19 facts are not in dispute, and it's really a question of law -- 20 it's a narrow question of law as to whether the City of South 21 Burlington DRB needs to make a final decision and take a roll 22 call vote on a sketch plan before proceeding to master plan 23 and preliminary plat. 24 And it's undisputed that in this case, the DRB did 25 not take a vote, did not reach a final decision. So it's eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 8 1 really a question of law as to what the legal significance of 2 that, of non-vote and non-decision, is. And I think it can be 3 handled, I would suggest respectively, to be handled on cross 4 motions for summary judgment. And from the appellant 5 standpoint, I think I can be in position to file the 6 appellant's motion by the end of this month. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to 8 take things a little out of order. 9 I'm going to come to you in a second, Attorney Byrne. 10 But Attorney Lafferty, you've heard Attorney Seff 11 suggest the broad strokes of undisputed facts. Is the City of 12 a similar opinion? 13 MS. LAFFERTY: Yes. I was also going to suggest that 14 this could be resolved by petition of summary judgment. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that. 16 Attorney Byrne, thoughts? 17 MR. BYRNE: I think this is premature at this point. 18 There's still proceedings going on, and it seems that the 19 question is not right for judicial determination at this 20 point. There's some chance that this might not even come to 21 the Court, so it doesn't seem to be a use of good judicial 22 resources to resolve a hypothetical question that the Court 23 may not even have to address. 24 So I think we would be of the view that the Court 25 should either dismiss the appeal and take up all issues when eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 9 1 they have a final plat approval is done, or a permit is 2 issued, or the Court should stay this until the time that this 3 determination is made. 4 THE COURT: So in hearing, kind of, a difference of 5 perspective, I'm not going to rule from the bench in this 6 status conference. So I guess what I would like to discuss a 7 bit is, whatever process each of you thinks you need to 8 undertake, because Attorney Seff suggests a motion for summary 9 judgment, where there are no real facts in dispute. Attorney 10 Lafferty might share that view, but Attorney Byrne thinks 11 that, perhaps, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to stay 12 further consideration of this matter for the time, is 13 appropriate. 14 Do I understand your offer, Attorney Byrne, 15 correctly? 16 MR. BYRNE: Yeah. I was hoping that we might come to 17 some sort of agreement, but failing coming to an agreement, I 18 think that the path that Your Honor's outlined is probably the 19 only procedural path we can take to get the petition resolved. 20 Maybe it makes sense for us to chat, and either get 21 back to you with a proposed schedule for the motions or to let 22 you know we've reached an agreement on a stay. That way we 23 can just submit something in writing that outlines a schedule 24 for the agreement to a stay. 25 THE COURT: All right. So for future reference, I eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 10 1 guess, if there's parties hoping that there can be agreement 2 on a process of staying a matter before the Environmental 3 Division, or considering a voluntary dismissal without 4 prejudice -- the way that happens is either a stipulation is 5 filed by all the parties, or there's motion practice that 6 leads to that, so if you're hoping there's a stipulation, 7 that's a good thing to discuss outside of the Court's presence 8 among the parties. And I'm happy to provide you all with time 9 to do that, but I don't feel as though we can do that, and it 10 would be inappropriate to do that, in this status conference. 11 So what I would like to do is craft a schedule that, 12 if everybody agrees, has a little time for the parties to talk 13 to see if a process can be agreed upon, followed by fairly 14 brief amount of time for parties to file whatever motion they 15 think would be appropriate for the next phase of this matter. 16 So Attorney Seff, you've heard Attorney Byrne suggest 17 that there be an opportunity to talk a little bit; do you have 18 any opposition to that? 19 MR. SEFF: No, no opposition to talking at all and 20 Matt and Amanda and I have talked multiple times in connection 21 with other matters and I think we have a good working 22 relationship and I think that could be productive. Except for 23 one thing, I didn't understand Matt, or Attorney Byrne's, 24 point that it would be somehow a bad use of resources to 25 proceed with this appeal now. It sounds like what Attorney eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 11 1 Byrne is suggesting is that the DRB proceedings on preliminary 2 plat and master plan, he's suggesting that those proceed, and 3 that a lot of time, energy, and money be spent in those 4 proceedings, and we wait and see what happens in those 5 proceedings before taking up these court proceedings again. 6 And I think, if that's what he's suggesting, that's 7 what it sounded like to me, then I think that gets it exactly 8 backwards. The reason to proceed with this appeal now is to 9 save parties time, energy, and money -- from wasting time, 10 energy, and money in the DRB if there's no reason to do so. 11 So happy to discuss it with him, but his view of the 12 world -- if the applicants' view of the world is, let's spend 13 a lot of time, energy, and money in DRB and see what happens, 14 and then, and only then, come back to court, I think my 15 clients would be -- I'm fairly confident, my clients would not 16 agree with that. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that. 18 Here's what I'm thinking. Although, Attorney Seff 19 suggested he could file his motion within about ten days or 20 the end of this month, what I want to do is give you all a 21 little time to promptly talk with each other to see if you can 22 all agree to a process leading to resolution, but set a 23 deadline for motion practice. And I'm thinking that maybe 24 March 15th would be an appropriate timeframe for you all to, 25 first, talk and then have a sufficient enough time to either eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 12 1 file your motion for summary judgement or motion to dismiss or 2 motion to put on hold this matter. 3 Thoughts on that process and that deadline, Attorney 4 Seff? 5 MR. SEFF: I mean, I'm happy to speak with Matt and 6 Amanda right after this call, and maybe we can get back to the 7 Court this afternoon if we're able to agree or not agree. The 8 appellant's preference would be -- they don't want to spend, 9 if they don't have to, a lot of time, energy, and legal 10 resources in the DRB if the current DRB proceedings are, 11 effectively, invalid because the matter never got out of 12 sketch. 13 So from the appellants' perspective, we'd like to get 14 a ruling on whether or not the thing properly got out of 15 sketch as soon as possible. We could certainly file a motion 16 for summary judgment by March 15th. I was prepared to file it 17 by the end of this month, so March 15th would work. 18 THE COURT: Okay. One issue that seems to be maybe 19 coming up that I'm not clear on, and I'll start with Attorney 20 Lafferty. 21 With this appeal being filed, I guess I might be 22 concerned that jurisdiction over the project is before the 23 Environmental Division and the City would be without authority 24 to be considering anything. Is that accurate, or is there 25 something else happening? eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 13 1 MS. LAFFERTY: There -- well, I guess the status of 2 the application, right now, is the applicant submitted 3 preliminary plat applications and a master plan application 4 in, I believe it was, mid to late September, and thereafter, 5 the applicants then -- or excuse me, the appellants then filed 6 their appeals to the DRB in connection with issues regarding 7 whether the applications for preliminary plat and master plan 8 were complete. And one of the arguments was based in the 9 status of the sketch plan application, one of them was not. 10 So the DRB proceeded to hear the appeal -- the 11 current appellants' appeal first, and issued its decision and 12 I believe it was a meeting or two after that that the DRB 13 opened its hearings on the master plan application and the 14 application for preliminary plat review. So those are 15 continuing -- they have not -- the DRB has not closed those 16 hearings. 17 THE COURT: Okay, but is it true that the appeal 18 before the Court right now relates to the application for 19 master plan review and the application for preliminary plat 20 review? Because if that is true, then I would be concerned 21 that the DRB doesn't have jurisdiction to further consider 22 those applications since they have been appealed to the 23 Environmental Division. 24 MS. LAFFERTY: I don't think -- hmm. From the City's 25 perspective, the sketch plan is kind of -- so let me say this, eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 14 1 from the City's perspective the applications for preliminary 2 plat and master plan, those are the beginnings of a municipal 3 proceeding -- a separate municipal proceeding. But the sketch 4 plan is basically an introduction to the application for DRB 5 and does not, itself, constitute an application. 6 So moreover, the matters being raised in the 7 statement of questions are procedural. 8 THE COURT: Well, they are, but I'm looking at the 9 City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 10 decision that seems to be on appeal, and the opening paragraph 11 states as follows: "Appeal Number AO18-01 of Tom and Donna 12 Anfuso, et al: appealing the decisions of the administrative 13 officer holding that the following two applications submitted 14 by Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for the property located at 15 1505 Dorset Streets are complete. 1: application for master 16 plan review. 2: application for subdivision plat review". 17 So it seems to me that the appellants are taking 18 issue with the issue of completeness related to these two 19 applications, and if they have an appeal before the 20 Environmental Division, subject matter jurisdiction would be 21 divested from the City and reside within the Environmental 22 Division, and the City couldn't do anything while this matter 23 was pending before the Environmental Division. 24 So that's my concern, that we be efficient and 25 recognize there's a possibility that the Environmental eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 15 1 Division can't be considering something, and at the same time, 2 the City be considering a similar aspect of the same 3 applications, because anything the City did would be void 4 because they'd be without jurisdiction to consider it. 5 So we don't need to answer -- 6 MR. SEFF: Your Honor -- 7 THE COURT: -- we don't need to answer that today. I 8 leave it to the parties. The issue isn't before the 9 Environmental Division at the moment. What I'd like to return 10 to, because we have four minutes left before I have to take up 11 another appeal, is whatever preliminary process the parties 12 wish to put forward. 13 It seems the parties are willing to talk. If it 14 resolves things, great; if not, there should be a deadline for 15 filing motions. Attorney Seff has suggested a deadline of the 16 end of February, which is ten days from now. After hearing 17 from Attorney Byrne, I suggested the middle of March. 18 So Attorney Byrne, it's the applicants', probably, 19 timing concern as well. What do you suggest as far as a 20 deadline for motion practice? 21 MR. BYRNE: I think we can work with March 15th. I 22 think it does make some sense to talk before we file a whole 23 bunch of motions. I will note, for the record, I think that 24 the fact that it's not a final decision means that there's no 25 jurisdiction in this court rather than the other way around. eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 16 1 I mean, if we want -- if we end up briefing that, we'll put it 2 in our briefs, and the Court will be able to make a 3 determination about that issue. 4 But March 15th seems to be a reasonable deadline. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. BYRNE: What I suggest is we put that into a 7 briefing schedule and submit it to the Court. 8 THE COURT: There's no need for you to do that, 9 because I'm going to give you a deadline today, but going 10 back, I want everybody to be clear. There is an appeal with 11 the Environmental Division. It seems to challenge the 12 application for master plan review and preliminary plat 13 review. The fact that that appeal is here, divests the City 14 from further considering those applications until this appeal 15 is resolved. Even if the appeal has no merit, the question, 16 or questions raised relative to those applications, is before 17 the Environmental Division, and the City can't touch them. So 18 be aware of that. 19 If, at the end of the day, it's an inappropriate 20 appeal and we dismiss it, jurisdiction goes back to the City. 21 But in the meantime, while the matter is pending, jurisdiction 22 is with the Environmental Division. 23 Attorney Lafferty, on behalf of the town, any 24 concerns with setting March 15 as a deadline for motion 25 practice? eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 17 1 MS. LAFFERTY: No, that'd be fine. 2 THE COURT: All right. So then, on the record, I'm 3 going to set March 15th as the deadline for parties to file 4 whatever motion they think is appropriate. We've talked about 5 a motion for summary judgment, we've talked about a motion to 6 dismiss, and a motion to stay these proceedings while 7 something else happens. If there's a motion to stay the 8 proceedings, we would also want to combine that with an order 9 that remands jurisdiction back to the City. So that's an 10 aspect that's possible as well. 11 So with that, the Environmental Division will issue a 12 scheduling order in the coming days that just sets March 15th 13 as the first deadline for motion practice. What I'm asking of 14 all of you to do is, talk to each other, before you start to 15 work in earnest on your motions over the next couple of days, 16 to see if you come to an agreement of how to handle this 17 matter, and if you do, quickly file your stipulated process 18 with the Court. If it's reasonable, I'm going to accept it. 19 Anything else we can do today, Attorney Seff? 20 MR. SEFF: No, Your Honor. Thank you very much. 21 THE COURT: Attorney Byrne, anything else? 22 MR. BYRNE: No, thank you, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Attorney Lafferty, anything further? 24 MS. LAFFERTY: No, thank you. 25 THE COURT: Thank you, all, for participating today. eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 18 1 That concludes our conference. Have a good Tuesday afternoon. 2 MR. SEFF: Thank you, Your Honor, you too. 3 MR. BYRNE: (Indiscernible). 4 (Proceedings concluded at 1:28 PM) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net 19 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 I, Abbey L. Roberts, the court-approved transcriber, 4 do hereby certify the foregoing is a true and correct 5 transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the 6 proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 7 8 9 10 February 24, 2019 11 ______________________________ __________________ 12 ABBEY L. ROBERTS DATE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC PUD February 19, 2019 A able (2) 12:7;16:2 accept (1) 17:18 accurate (1) 12:24 active (2) 6:7,10 activities (1) 4:25 address (1) 8:23 administrative (1) 14:12 advance (1) 6:19 advise (1) 5:6 advised (1) 4:8 afternoon (9) 3:5,14,15,18,19, 22,23;12:7;18:1 again (2) 5:23;11:5 agree (4) 11:16,22;12:7,7 agreed (1) 10:13 agreement (6) 9:17,17,22,24; 10:1;17:16 agrees (1) 10:12 al (1) 14:12 Although (1) 11:18 Alyson (2) 4:5,17 AMANDA (3) 3:23;10:20;12:6 among (1) 10:8 amount (1) 10:14 and/or (1) 6:1 Andrew (1) 4:4 Anfuso (1) 14:12 answered (1) 5:9 AO18-01 (1) 14:11 appeal (20) 3:8;6:25,25;7:18; 8:25;10:25;11:8; 12:21;13:10,11,17; 14:10,11,19;15:11; 16:10,13,14,15,20 appealed (1) 13:22 appealing (1) 14:12 appeals (1) 13:6 appearance (2) 4:13,17 appears (1) 6:13 appellant (1) 8:4 appellants (3) 7:17;13:5;14:17 appellants' (2) 12:13;13:11 appellant's (2) 8:6;12:8 appellates (1) 3:13 applicant (2) 7:2;13:2 applicants (1) 13:5 applicants' (2) 11:12;15:18 application (12) 13:2,3,9,13,14,18, 19;14:4,5,15,16; 16:12 applications (10) 6:15;13:3,7,22; 14:1,13,19;15:3; 16:14,16 appreciated (1) 4:11 appropriate (4) 9:13;10:15;11:24; 17:4 approval (1) 9:1 arguments (1) 13:8 around (1) 15:25 aspect (2) 15:2;17:10 aspects (1) 7:13 Associates (3) 3:8,17;14:14 attend (1) 4:12 attending (1) 4:7 attention (1) 6:3 Attorney (33) 3:12,16,18,20,22; 5:17,19,21;6:5,18; 7:12;8:9,10,10,16; 9:8,9,10,14;10:16, 16,23,25;11:18;12:3, 19;15:15,17,18; 16:23;17:19,21,23 authority (1) 12:23 avoid (1) 4:17 avoiding (1) 4:25 aware (1) 16:18 B back (6) 9:21;11:14;12:6; 16:10,20;17:9 backwards (1) 11:8 bad (1) 10:24 based (1) 13:8 basically (1) 14:4 beginnings (1) 14:2 behalf (5) 3:12,16,20;7:16; 16:23 bench (1) 9:5 benefit (1) 3:25 bit (2) 9:7;10:17 board (2) 4:2,2 Brian (1) 5:15 brief (1) 10:14 briefing (2) 16:1,7 briefs (1) 16:2 broad (2) 6:12;8:11 bunch (1) 15:23 Burlington (5) 3:9,21;6:24;7:21; 14:9 BYRNE (21) 3:4,16,18,19;5:19, 20;8:9,16,17;9:10, 14,16;10:16;11:1; 15:17,18,21;16:6; 17:21,22;18:3 Byrne's (1) 10:23 C call (5) 3:11;4:8;5:8;7:22; 12:6 can (16) 3:25;4:25;5:5,5,9; 8:2,5;9:19,23;10:1,9, 13;11:21;12:6; 15:21;17:19 case (3) 4:23,23;7:24 Center (1) 4:3 certain (1) 7:13 certainly (1) 12:15 challenge (1) 16:11 Chalnick (4) 4:4,8,16,22 chance (1) 8:20 chat (1) 9:20 chatted (1) 4:5 check (2) 7:3,8 chief (1) 5:14 City (17) 3:21;6:6,9,24;7:2, 20;8:11;12:23;14:9, 21,22;15:2,3;16:13, 17,20;17:9 City's (3) 6:14;13:24;14:1 clear (4) 5:5;6:3;12:19; 16:10 clients (4) 5:7,25;11:15,15 closed (1) 13:15 combine (1) 17:8 comfortable (1) 5:25 coming (3) 9:17;12:19;17:12 communications (1) 7:1 complete (2) 13:8;14:15 completeness (2) 6:15;14:18 concern (2) 14:24;15:19 concerned (2) 12:22;13:20 concerns (2) 5:19;16:24 concluded (1) 18:4 concludes (1) 18:1 conduct (2) 4:12,18 conference (5) 3:6;6:19;9:6; 10:10;18:1 confident (1) 11:15 conflict (5) 4:13,13,19,21;5:10 connection (2) 10:20;13:6 consider (3) 5:12;13:21;15:4 consideration (1) 9:12 considering (5) 10:3;12:24;15:1,2; 16:14 constitute (1) 14:5 continue (1) 5:1 continuing (1) 13:15 convened (1) 3:1 correctly (1) 9:15 correspondence (1) 4:16 couple (1) 17:15 COURT (42) 3:2,5,7,16,20,24; 5:8,9,19,21,23;6:11, 22;7:3,4;8:7,15,21, 22,24;9:2,4,25;11:5, 14,17;12:7,18;13:17, 18;14:8;15:7,25; 16:2,5,7,8;17:2,18, 21,23,25 Court's (1) 10:7 craft (2) 7:6;10:11 cross (1) 8:3 current (2) 12:10;13:11 D DANIEL (1) 3:3 date (1) 7:8 day (1) Min-U-Script®eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net (1) able - day DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC PUD February 19, 2019 16:19 days (6) 4:6,7;11:19;15:16; 17:12,15 deadline (10) 11:23;12:3;15:14, 15,20;16:4,9,24; 17:3,13 decide (1) 5:13 decided (1) 5:12 decision (7) 5:16;6:24;7:21,25; 13:11;14:10;15:24 decisions (1) 14:12 declined (1) 4:15 Department (1) 14:9 determination (3) 8:19;9:3;16:3 determinations (1) 6:15 difference (1) 9:4 directors (1) 4:2 disclose (1) 4:17 disclosed (1) 5:3 disclosure (3) 3:24;4:1;5:7 discovery (1) 7:7 discuss (3) 9:6;10:7;11:11 discussion (1) 7:9 dismiss (5) 8:25;9:11;12:1; 16:20;17:6 dismissal (1) 10:3 dispute (2) 7:19;9:9 divested (1) 14:21 divests (1) 16:13 division (13) 4:10;10:3;12:23; 13:23;14:20,22,23; 15:1,9;16:11,17,22; 17:11 docket (1) 3:8 done (1) 9:1 Donna (1) 14:11 Dorset (4) 3:7,17;14:14,15 DRB (14) 6:24;7:21,24;11:1, 10,13;12:10,10;13:6, 10,12,15,21;14:4 E earnest (1) 17:15 effectively (1) 12:11 efficient (2) 7:6;14:24 effort (1) 7:5 either (7) 4:13,16;7:1;8:25; 9:20;10:4;11:25 else (4) 12:25;17:7,19,21 end (7) 5:13;8:6;11:20; 12:17;15:16;16:1,19 energy (5) 11:3,9,10,13;12:9 enjoy (1) 4:7 enough (2) 7:3;11:25 entitled (1) 3:7 environmental (13) 7:4;10:2;12:23; 13:23;14:20,21,23, 25;15:9;16:11,17,22; 17:11 et (1) 14:12 even (4) 6:8;8:20,23;16:15 everybody (2) 10:12;16:10 everybody's (1) 3:25 everyone (1) 3:5 exactly (1) 11:7 Except (1) 10:22 excuse (1) 13:5 F fact (2) 15:24;16:13 facts (3) 7:19;8:11;9:9 failing (1) 9:17 fair (3) 5:1;7:3,6 fairly (3) 6:7;10:13;11:15 far (1) 15:19 February (1) 15:16 feel (4) 4:24;5:10,24;10:9 few (3) 4:5,5,7 file (12) 5:11;6:1,12;8:5; 10:14;11:19;12:1,15, 16;15:22;17:3,17 filed (4) 6:25;10:5;12:21; 13:5 filing (2) 6:21;15:15 final (4) 7:21,25;9:1;15:24 fine (1) 17:1 first (4) 7:14;11:25;13:11; 17:13 followed (1) 10:13 following (1) 14:13 follows (1) 14:11 follow-up (2) 5:4,25 foreclose (1) 5:24 forward (1) 15:12 four (1) 15:10 front (1) 4:9 full (1) 7:6 further (6) 4:16,25;9:12; 13:21;16:14;17:23 future (1) 9:25 G generally (1) 4:5 gets (1) 11:7 given (1) 7:15 goes (1) 16:20 Good (12) 3:5,14,15,18,19, 22,23;7:17;8:21; 10:7,21;18:1 Grearson (1) 5:15 great (1) 15:14 guess (4) 9:6;10:1;12:21; 13:1 H handle (2) 7:13;17:16 handled (2) 8:3,3 happening (1) 12:25 happens (4) 10:4;11:4,13;17:7 happy (4) 5:4;10:8;11:11; 12:5 hear (1) 13:10 heard (2) 8:10;10:16 hearing (2) 9:4;15:16 hearings (2) 13:13,16 Here's (1) 11:18 hmm (1) 13:24 hold (1) 12:2 holding (1) 14:13 holiday (2) 4:3,6 Honor (10) 3:15;5:18,20;6:20; 7:15,17;15:6;17:20, 22;18:2 Honor's (1) 9:18 hoping (3) 9:16;10:1,6 hypothetical (1) 8:22 I idea (2) 7:10,12 impartial (1) 5:1 impropriety (1) 4:18 inappropriate (2) 10:10;16:19 Indiscernible (1) 18:3 intend (1) 6:7 interest (2) 4:14,19 Intervale (1) 4:2 into (1) 16:6 introduced (1) 4:4 introduction (1) 14:4 invalid (1) 12:11 invitation (2) 4:11,15 invite (1) 5:8 invited (1) 4:6 involved (1) 4:9 issue (8) 5:24;6:14;12:18; 14:18,18;15:8;16:3; 17:11 issued (2) 9:2;13:11 issues (2) 8:25;13:6 J Jennifer (2) 5:8;6:1 Judge (2) 3:5;5:15 judgement (1) 12:1 judgment (5) 8:4,14;9:9;12:16; 17:5 judicial (4) 4:12,18;8:19,21 jurisdiction (8) 12:22;13:21; 14:20;15:4,25;16:20, 21;17:9 K kind (2) 9:4;13:25 L Lafferty (17) 3:20,22,23;5:21, 22;6:5,9;8:10,13; 9:10;12:20;13:1,24; 16:23;17:1,23,24 Min-U-Script®eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net (2) days - Lafferty DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC PUD February 19, 2019 late (1) 13:4 later (2) 4:6,7 law (3) 7:19,20;8:1 leading (3) 6:23;7:6;11:22 leads (1) 10:6 learning (1) 4:10 leave (1) 15:8 left (1) 15:10 legal (2) 8:1;12:9 litigation (1) 4:9 little (4) 8:8;10:12,17; 11:21 LLC (3) 3:8,17;14:14 local (1) 4:3 located (1) 14:14 look (1) 5:15 looked (1) 6:13 looking (1) 14:8 lot (3) 11:3,13;12:9 M makes (1) 9:20 manager (1) 5:9 March (9) 11:24;12:16,17; 15:17,21;16:4,24; 17:3,12 master (10) 6:16;7:22;11:2; 13:3,7,13,19;14:2, 15;16:12 Matt (3) 10:20,23;12:5 matter (16) 3:7;5:2,14;6:4,14; 7:11,14;9:12;10:2, 15;12:2,11;14:20,22; 16:21;17:17 matters (2) 10:21;14:6 MATTHEW (1) 3:4 may (1) 8:23 Maybe (4) 9:20;11:23;12:6, 18 Meadows (3) 3:7,17;14:14 mean (2) 12:5;16:1 means (1) 15:24 meantime (1) 16:21 mediation (1) 7:8 meeting (1) 13:12 member (1) 4:2 merit (1) 16:15 mid (1) 13:4 middle (1) 15:17 might (4) 8:20;9:10,16; 12:21 minutes (2) 4:5;15:10 model (2) 4:11,18 moment (1) 15:9 money (4) 11:3,9,10,13 month (3) 8:6;11:20;12:17 more (1) 6:10 moreover (1) 14:6 motion (24) 5:12,12;6:1;7:7; 8:6;9:8,11,11;10:5, 14;11:19,23;12:1,1, 2,15;15:20;16:24; 17:4,5,5,6,7,13 motions (5) 8:4;9:21;15:15,23; 17:15 much (1) 17:20 multiple (1) 10:20 municipal (2) 14:2,3 myself (5) 4:19,20;5:11,13,14 N narrow (1) 7:20 need (5) 5:6;9:7;15:5,7; 16:8 needs (1) 7:21 neutral (1) 5:1 news (1) 7:17 next (3) 7:10;10:15;17:15 non-decision (1) 8:2 non-vote (1) 8:2 note (1) 15:23 not-for-profit (1) 4:3 number (2) 3:8;14:11 O observing (1) 6:7 offensive (1) 6:2 offer (1) 9:14 officer (1) 14:13 one (5) 6:15;10:23;12:18; 13:8,9 only (2) 9:19;11:14 open (1) 6:2 opened (1) 13:13 opening (1) 14:10 opinion (1) 8:12 opportunity (3) 5:6;6:18;10:17 opposition (2) 10:18,19 order (3) 8:8;17:8,12 organization (1) 4:3 originally (1) 4:7 out (3) 8:8;12:11,14 outlined (1) 9:18 outlines (1) 9:23 outside (1) 10:7 over (3) 5:2;12:22;17:15 P paragraph (1) 14:10 participating (2) 3:6;17:25 parties (12) 6:19;7:9;10:1,5,8, 12,14;11:9;15:8,11, 13;17:3 party (3) 4:4,6,11 path (2) 9:18,19 pattern (1) 6:7 pending (2) 14:23;16:21 perhaps (1) 9:11 permit (1) 9:1 perspective (4) 9:5;12:13;13:25; 14:1 petition (2) 8:14;9:19 phase (2) 7:10;10:15 plan (15) 6:14,16;7:22,22; 11:2;13:3,7,9,13,19, 25;14:2,4,16;16:12 Planning (1) 14:9 plat (11) 6:16;7:23;9:1; 11:2;13:3,7,14,19; 14:2,16;16:12 PM (2) 3:1;18:4 point (3) 8:17,20;10:24 position (1) 8:5 possibility (1) 14:25 possible (2) 12:15;17:10 potential (1) 4:9 practice (6) 7:7;10:5;11:23; 15:20;16:25;17:13 preference (1) 12:8 prejudice (1) 10:4 preliminary (10) 6:16;7:23;11:1; 13:3,7,14,19;14:1; 15:11;16:12 premature (1) 8:17 prepared (1) 12:16 presence (1) 10:7 preside (1) 5:1 prevent (1) 4:12 probably (2) 9:18;15:18 procedural (2) 9:19;14:7 proceed (3) 10:25;11:2,8 proceeded (1) 13:10 proceeding (4) 3:9;7:22;14:3,3 Proceedings (11) 3:1;7:5;8:18;11:1, 4,5,5;12:10;17:6,8; 18:4 process (11) 3:25;5:6;6:2,14; 9:7;10:2,13;11:22; 12:3;15:11;17:17 productive (1) 10:22 project (1) 12:22 promptly (1) 11:21 properly (1) 12:14 property (1) 14:14 proposed (1) 9:21 provide (2) 5:4;10:8 PUD (1) 3:8 pursuant (2) 6:17;7:4 put (4) 12:2;15:12;16:1,6 Q quick (3) 3:11,24;6:5 quickly (1) 17:17 R raised (2) 14:6;16:16 Min-U-Script®eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net (3) late - raised DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC PUD February 19, 2019 rather (1) 15:25 reach (1) 7:25 reached (1) 9:22 ready (2) 3:2;7:8 real (1) 9:9 really (2) 7:19;8:1 reason (3) 7:3;11:8,10 reasonable (2) 16:4;17:18 recalling (1) 7:1 recognize (1) 14:25 record (4) 3:9,12;15:23;17:2 recorded (1) 3:10 recuse (5) 4:19,20;5:11,12,14 reference (1) 9:25 referred (1) 5:14 regarding (1) 13:6 regulations (1) 6:17 related (2) 4:1;14:18 relates (1) 13:18 relationship (1) 10:22 relative (1) 16:16 relatively (1) 7:18 remain (1) 4:25 remands (1) 17:9 representation (1) 6:6 required (2) 4:12,19 reside (1) 14:21 resolution (2) 7:7;11:22 resolve (1) 8:22 resolved (3) 8:14;9:19;16:15 resolves (1) 15:14 resources (3) 8:22;10:24;12:10 respectively (1) 8:3 return (1) 15:9 review (10) 6:14,16,16;13:14, 19,20;14:16,16; 16:12,13 reviewed (1) 6:12 right (6) 8:19;9:25;12:6; 13:2,18;17:2 role (1) 6:10 roll (2) 3:11;7:21 rule (1) 9:5 rules (4) 4:11,18,20;7:4 ruling (1) 12:14 S same (2) 15:1,2 save (1) 11:9 schedule (5) 7:6;9:21,23;10:11; 16:7 scheduling (1) 17:12 scopes (1) 6:12 second (1) 8:9 seem (1) 8:21 seems (7) 8:18;12:18;14:10, 17;15:13;16:4,11 SEFF (22) 3:3,12,15;5:17,18; 6:18,20,23;7:12,15; 8:10;9:8;10:16,19; 11:18;12:4,5;15:6, 15;17:19,20;18:2 sense (3) 7:13;9:20;15:22 separate (1) 14:3 September (1) 13:4 served (1) 4:1 set (2) 11:22;17:3 sets (1) 17:12 setting (1) 16:24 several (1) 3:12 share (1) 9:10 significance (1) 8:1 similar (2) 8:12;15:2 situation (3) 4:17,22;5:15 sketch (7) 6:14;7:22;12:12, 15;13:9,25;14:3 social (1) 4:25 somehow (1) 10:24 soon (1) 12:15 sort (1) 9:17 sounded (1) 11:7 sounds (1) 10:25 South (4) 3:21;6:24;7:20; 14:9 speak (1) 12:5 specifically (1) 7:5 spend (2) 11:12;12:8 spent (1) 11:3 stage (1) 7:10 standpoint (1) 8:5 start (6) 3:11,24;6:5;7:12; 12:19;17:14 statement (3) 6:13,21;14:7 states (1) 14:11 status (5) 3:6;9:6;10:10; 13:1,9 stay (6) 9:2,11,22,24;17:6, 7 staying (1) 10:2 still (1) 8:18 stipulated (1) 17:17 stipulation (2) 10:4,6 straightforward (1) 7:18 Streets (1) 14:15 strokes (1) 8:11 subdivision (2) 6:17;14:16 subject (2) 6:25;14:20 submit (2) 9:23;16:7 submitted (2) 13:2;14:13 substantive (1) 7:1 sufficient (1) 11:25 suggest (7) 7:16;8:3,11,13; 10:16;15:19;16:6 suggested (3) 11:19;15:15,17 suggesting (3) 11:1,2,6 suggests (1) 9:8 summary (6) 8:4,14;9:8;12:1, 16;17:5 T talk (14) 3:25;4:22;5:5,8, 25;6:18,23;10:12,17; 11:21,25;15:13,22; 17:14 talked (3) 10:20;17:4,5 talking (1) 10:19 telephone (1) 4:8 ten (3) 4:1;11:19;15:16 Teske (2) 5:8;6:1 Thanks (1) 3:6 that'd (1) 17:1 thereafter (1) 13:4 thinking (2) 11:18,23 though (3) 4:24;5:10;10:9 thought (1) 7:16 thoughts (2) 8:16;12:3 timeframe (1) 11:24 times (1) 10:20 timing (1) 15:19 today (5) 7:5;15:7;16:9; 17:19,25 today's (1) 6:19 told (1) 4:10 Tom (1) 14:11 Topics (1) 7:7 touch (1) 16:17 town (1) 16:23 town's (1) 6:17 trial (2) 5:14;7:8 true (2) 13:17,20 try (2) 7:5,13 Tuesday (1) 18:1 two (4) 6:15;13:12;14:13, 18 type (1) 4:13 U Ultimately (3) 5:10,16;7:8 Under (1) 4:18 undertake (1) 9:8 undisputed (2) 7:24;8:11 up (5) 8:25;11:5;12:19; 15:10;16:1 upon (2) 4:10;10:13 use (2) 8:21;10:24 V Vermont (1) 7:4 via (1) 4:8 view (4) 8:24;9:10;11:11, 12 Min-U-Script®eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net (4) rather - view DORSET MEADOWS ASSOCIATES LLC PUD February 19, 2019 violation (1) 4:20 void (1) 15:3 voluntary (1) 10:3 vote (2) 7:22,25 Vtec (1) 3:8 W wait (1) 11:4 Walsh (1) 3:6 wasting (1) 11:9 way (3) 9:22;10:4;15:25 whole (1) 15:22 wife (2) 4:5,16 willing (1) 15:13 wish (1) 15:12 within (2) 11:19;14:21 without (3) 10:3;12:23;15:4 work (3) 12:17;15:21;17:15 working (1) 10:21 world (2) 11:12,12 writing (1) 9:23 Y years (1) 4:1 Z Zoning (1) 14:9 1 1 (1) 14:15 1:06 (1) 3:1 1:28 (1) 18:4 15 (1) 16:24 1505 (1) 14:15 15th (7) 11:24;12:16,17; 15:21;16:4;17:3,12 2 2 (1) 14:16 2018 (1) 4:4 2-1-19 (1) 3:8 2d (1) 7:5 Min-U-Script®eScribers, LLC | (973) 406-2250 operations@escribers.net | www.escribers.net (5) violation - 2d STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat JUDGMENT ORDER For the reasons set forth in the Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment that accompanies this Judgment Order, the Court concludes that the City of South Burlington transfer of development rights bylaw (“TDR Bylaw”), as set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Use Regulations (“Regulations”) is invalid. As detailed in our Decision, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw fails to comply with the enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423 with respect to subsections §§ 4423(a)(3) and (5) and is unconstitutionally vague. We further conclude that a dead-end street longer than 200 feet may be permitted in the context of a Planned Unit Development pursuant to the Regulations Therefore, Appellants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Similarly, Snyder Group, Inc.’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The consequence of our determinations is that judgment is entered in favor of the neighboring Appellants and against Appellee/Applicant Snyder Group, Inc. The August 1, 2017, approval of a final plat application submitted by Snyder Group, Inc., issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board is therefore VOIDED. This concludes the matters before the Court in this proceeding. Electronically signed on February 28, 2019 at Brattleboro, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). ________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge Environmental Division 1 STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment The present appeal is of an August 1, 2017 approval of a final plat application submitted by Snyder Group, Inc. (“Snyder”) issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board (“DRB”). The application proposes to construct 47 new dwelling units and maintain one existing dwelling unit, all on property located at 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The DRB approved the project as a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). Neighboring property owners William Gilbert, Maurene Gilbert, Louise Kleh, Michael Scollins, Mary Scollins, Robert Skiff, Marley Skiff, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association (collectively, “Appellants”) appealed that decision to this Court.1 Presently before the Court are Snyder and the Appellants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Snyder is represented in this matter by Matthew B. Byrne, Esq., Robert H. Rushford, Esq., and Jeffrey O. Polubinski, Esq. Appellants are represented by Daniel A. Seff, Esq. The City of South Burlington (“City”) is represented by Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute concerning the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. V.R.C.P. 56(a), applicable here through V.R.E.C.P. 5(a)(2). When considering the facts presented to us, “the nonmoving party receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 2015 VT 108, ¶ 14, 200 Vt. 125 (quoting Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 356). When considering cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court 1 We note that Attorney Seff has moved to withdraw as counsel for Maureen and William Gilbert as they have moved from South Burlington and no longer wish to be parties in this litigation. That motion is GRANTED and Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert are relieved of their party status. We further note that, over the course of these proceedings Louise Kleh passed. 2 considers each motion individually and gives the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. City of Burlington v. Fairpoint Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 VT 59, ¶ 5, 186 Vt. 332. Factual Background We recite the following facts solely for the purpose of deciding the pending motions for summary judgment. Our recitation here summarizes the facts that we have deemed undisputed and material to the legal issues raised by the parties, but should not be mistaken for factual findings, which cannot occur until after the Court conducts a trial. Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 170 Vt. 632, 633 (2000). 1. On April 27, 2017, Snyder submitted a subdivision application for a PUD. The application proposed to raze one single family dwelling, construct 18 single family dwellings, construct three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and construct 10 two family dwellings (“the Project”). In total, the Project consists of 48 residential units. 2. On August 1, 2017, the DRB approved final plat application #SD-17-14 for the Project. See In re the Snyder Grp. Inc. – 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear St., #SD-17-14, Final Plat Application, Findings of Fact and Decision, at 1 (S. Burlington Dev. Rev. Bd. Aug. 1, 2017) (hereinafter “DRB Decision”). 3. The Project was reviewed and approved pursuant to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations that were last amended on June 27, 2016 (“Regulations”). 4. The Project is located on 25.93 acres at 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The parcel is in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District (“SEQ-NR”). 5. Spear Meadows, Inc., 1350 Spear Street, LLC, and Gary J. Farrell currently own the three parcels which comprise the Project. Snyder has an option to purchase the properties. 6. The Project was approved as a PUD and proposes 48 units, which results in 1.85 units per acre. Snyder seeks to increase the Project’s density from the applicable maximum density limit for the zoning district of 31 dwelling units to 48 units by using transferable development rights (“TDRs”). 3 TDR Bylaw 7. The City has adopted a TDR bylaw, which is set forth in Regulations § 9.05(B) and 9.13(C) (together, “TDR Bylaw”). The Bylaw became effective on April 24, 2006. 8. A municipal TDR bylaw must comply with the statutory requirements set forth in 24 V.S.A. § 4423. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a) states that: (a) In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1) Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2) Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3) Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4) Define “density increase” in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination. (5) Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. 9. Regulations § 9.13(C) sets forth the basis for the TDR Bylaw. It requires that: (a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district, and EITHER that the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations; OR (b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. 10. It then states in § 9.13(C)(2) that: If the conditions of 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development 4 density calculated for a noncontiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above 11. Regulations § 9.05(A) state that the maximum density within the SEQ-NR is 1.2 units per acre. Pursuant to this, the base density of the Project would be 31.12 units. 12. Regulations § 9.05(B) states that the applicable density “within a contiguous development parcel subject to a single PUD or Master plan approval shall not exceed an average density” of 4 dwelling units per acre in the Neighborhood Zoning District. It further notes that “[s]uch average densities may be achieved only under a PUD Planned Unit Development application. See Section 9.13, SEQ Review and Approval Process.” Regulations § 9.05(B). 13. Under the TDR Bylaw, the Project would have an allowable density of 103.72 units within at PUD proposal. 14. Snyder applied for approval for 17 development rights to be transferred for the Project. It proposes that the Project is the “receiving parcel” and the Bread and Butter Farm, formerly known as the Leduc Farm, on Leduc Farm Road in South Burlington as the “sending parcel.” It proposes a density of 1.85 dwelling units per acre. Dead End Street 15. Snyder proposes a 320-foot-long dead-end roadway, referenced as Street A. 16. Regulations § 9.08(A)(2)(b) state that “[d]ead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” 17. Nevertheless, the DRB approved Street A, in part under the possibility that it could be, at some as-yet determined point in the future, connected with another nearby roadway, Vale Drive. It also concluded that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) was waivable. Discussion Both Snyder and Appellants move for complete judgment all Questions Appellants raise in their Statement of Questions. The Town has filed a brief in opposition of Appellants’ motion. Appellants raise five Questions in their Statement of Questions.2 2 Four of those Questions have multiple subparts. This results in 37 Questions, including subparts. 5 Question 1 asks whether Regulations provisions “concerning the purported transfer of development rights, including without limitation [Regulations] §§ 2.02 . . ., 9.05(A)—(B) and 9.13(C) . . ., [are] invalid and unenforceable?” Question 2 asks whether the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutional. Question 3 asks whether the TDR Bylaw is facially unconstitutional, with subparts addressing vagueness. Question 4 asks whether the TDR is unconstitutional as applied, similarly addressing vagueness. Question 5 asks if Snyder’s proposed 320-foot dead-end street should be rejected and prohibited. The subparts of each Question address more specific aspects of these broader Questions. Before addressing the substance of these Questions, we address a threshold argument raised by Snyder: that Appellants lack standing to raise their statutory and constitutional challenges to the TDR Bylaw. We then address the remaining legal issues in turn. I. Whether the Neighbors have standing to raise their statutory and constitutional arguments. We begin by noting that Snyder’s motion is one for summary judgment. However, in substance, it appears to be a, at least in this aspect, a motion to dismiss pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). In this aspect of its motion, Snyder does not seek judgment on any question posed by Appellants in their Statement of Questions but instead challenges their standing to be an appealing party in this appeal. We first note that “standing is a necessary component of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Bischoff v. Bletz, 2008 VT 16, ¶ 15, 183 Vt .235 (citing Brod v. Agency of Nat. Res., 2007 VT 87, ¶ 2, 182 Vt. 234). The absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including by this Court on its own motion. Id.; see, e.g., Brigham v. State, 2005 VT 105, ¶ 9, 179 Vt. 525 (mem.) (citation omitted). Therefore, we will review Snyder’s motion, solely with respect to the issue of standing, as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In reviewing such a motion, we accept all uncontroverted factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT 72, ¶ 2, 190 Vt. 245. Snyder raises two arguments as to why Appellants lack standing in this matter. First, it asserts that Appellants have not demonstrated that the Project has the potential to result in a physical or environmental impact on their interests, and therefore do not qualify as “interested 6 persons” pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). Second, Snyder challenges Appellants’ standing to raise their specific statutory and constitutional arguments. We address these issues in turn. a. Physical or Environmental Impact To qualify as interested persons as Appellants seek to do in this appeal, a showing is required that such persons claiming such status (1) own or occupy property in the “immediate neighborhood” of the subject property; (2) can “demonstrate a physical or environmental impact on his interest under the criteria reviewed”; and (3) “alleges that the decision or act, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms” Regulations. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). To preserve their status as appellants, an interested person must also demonstrate that they participated in the proceeding below. 24 V.S.A. § 4471. It appears undisputed that the Appellants participated in the proceedings below and that that they live in the immediate neighborhood.3 Snyder argues, however, that they have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a physical or environmental impact on their interests under the criteria reviewed.4 An interested person must establish a non-speculative demonstration, or a reasonable possibility, of a physical or environmental impact under the criteria reviewed. In re UVM Certificate of Appropriateness, (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 26, 2013) (Walsh, J.). (citations omitted) aff’d by No. 2013-301 (Jan. 23, 2014). To demonstrate such a possibility, the person or persons “must describe how the development under review will impact him or her specifically (i.e., describe a concrete and particularized injury) and must reference evidence showing that such impact is not hypothetical (i.e., demonstrate an actual or imminent injury).” Id. (citations omitted). 3 Whether Appellants have alleged that the decision on appeal, if confirmed by this Court, “will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms” of the Regulations appears undisputed as well. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). 4 Snyder appears to argue that the criteria reviewed are not the applicable Regulations, but instead 24 V.S.A. § 4423 and the Constitution, as Appellants raise statutory and constitutional challenges. However, the Project is to be reviewed, as a general matter, under the Regulations, which Appellants contend are improper. Therefore, we conclude, for the general purposes of whether Appellants have standing to appeal pursuant to § 4465, the criteria reviewed are the Regulations. An in-depth analysis of whether Appellants may raise their statutory and constitutional challenges occurs below. 7 We note that the elements of whether a party is in the “immediate neighborhood” and whether their interests could be affected by a development are closely intertwined. See In re Appeal of Stank & Mulvaney, No. 101-7-01 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Oct. 15, 2001) (Wright, J.). It is uncontested that Appellants live in the immediate neighborhood of the Project. Further, Appellants have described alleged impacts that an allegedly improperly increased density would have on their interests, such as increased traffic, noise, light pollution, and adverse aesthetic impacts. These facts have not been controverted, and we conclude that Appellants have alleged a reasonable possibility of a physical or environmental impact under the criteria reviewed. We decline to require Appellants, as Snyder asserts we should, to “prove” these impacts at this stage of the proceeding. To do so would be to place a higher burden on Appellants than contemplated by the “reasonable possibility” standard. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants may generally appeal the DRB’s decision to this Court. We next turn to whether they may raise their statutory and constitutional arguments. b. Statutory and Constitutional Arguments Snyder essentially asserts that Appellants lack standing to raise their statutory and constitutional arguments because they are not the proper party to raise these issues, Snyder is. To have standing, a party must show: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 77 (1998) (citations omitted). “The prudential elements of standing include . . . the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interest protected by the law invoked.’” Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 341 (1997) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)) (citations omitted). Injury in fact is the “invasion of a legally protected interest.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, (1995) (internal quotations omitted). The determination of whether a party has suffered such an invasion “requires inquiry into the substance of plaintiff's claim.” Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., Inc, 166 Vt. at 341. The zone of interest test is “whether the interest sought to be protected by the [party] is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970). 8 Snyder asserts that Appellants cannot show any of the three elements of standing as related to their void for vagueness argument. It further asserts Appellants are outside the zone of interest with respect to their statutory claim. Appellants assert that, because it fails to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, the TDR Bylaw is improper. From this improper bylaw, they assert that they will be injured by an improperly permitted development which permits an increase in density beyond what is otherwise permissible in the Regulations. They further assert that, should the Court conclude that the TDR Bylaw is either improperly enacted or unconstitutional, their injury will be redressed, as the development would be limited to the density available without the use of TDRs. We begin with the constitutional claim. Neighboring property owners, as a general matter, have interests most often impacted by neighboring development. Further, as stated above, there is a reasonable possibility that Appellants’ interests will be impacted by the Project. The TDR Bylaw, if the Court concludes it is void for vagueness, therefore invades their interests as it unconstitutionally permits the increased density of a neighboring property. We therefore conclude that there is a direct link between their injury (i.e., impacts to their respective properties from increased density) and the alleged vagueness. We decline to adopt Snyder’s assertion that only applicants would or could suffer the requisite injury to have standing to raise constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances. Such a conclusion would disregard important interests that neighboring property owners have that may be impacted by a neighboring development.5 We also have found no precedent that supports Snyder’s position. We further note that, should the Court conclude the TDR Bylaw unconstitutional, Appellants alleged injury would be redressed, as the applicable maximum density in the district would apply as set out in § 9.03. We see no justification, as Snyder suggests, that a conclusion that the TDR Bylaw is unconscionably vague would somehow invalidate the Regulations in its entirety, resulting in no limitations on density, at which time Snyder could construct the Project 5 We further note that the Vermont Supreme Court has previously entertained constitutional challenges raised by neighboring property owners, without addressing the issue of their standing to raise the issue. See In re Peirce Subdivision Application, 2008 VT 100, 184 Vt. 365. 9 at any density it saw fit.6 Therefore, Appellants injury is redressable. We conclude that Appellants have standing to raise their constitutional challenges. With respect to Appellants’ statutory claim, Snyder has limited its standing challenge, asserting that Appellants are not within the zone of interest and therefore cannot raise their statutory challenges. We begin by noting we are slightly confused by Snyder’s argument. It appears to assert that Appellants lack standing to challenge § 4423, which is not what Appellants are attempting. Instead, Appellants challenge the Regulations compliance with § 4432, its enabling statute with respect to TDRs. Appellants are therefore asserting no legal right under § 4423, but assert such a right under the Regulations. As neighboring property owners, we conclude that Appellants are within the zone of interests the Regulations seek to protect.7 We therefore conclude that Appellants have standing to raise their statutory clams. Having concluded that Appellants have standing to raise all of their arguments, we turn to the substance of their challenges. II. Whether the City’s TDR Bylaw complies with 24 V.S.A. § 4423. Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid. McLaughry v. Town of Norwich, 140 Vt. 49, 54 (1981). As such, the Court “will not interfere with zoning unless it clearly and beyond dispute is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory.” City of Rutland v. Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 367 (1964). However, “[a] municipality has zoning authority only in accordance with, and subject to, the terms and conditions imposed by the state in making the power grant.” Flanders Lumber & Bldg. Supply Co. v. Town of Milton, 128 Vt. 38, 45 (1969) (citations omitted); see also N. Country Sportsman’s Club v. Town of Williston, 2017 VT 46, ¶ 12, 205 Vt. 1 (“While municipalities are entitled to create their own regulatory ordinances, those ordinances must conform to statutory standards.”) (citing In re White, 155 Vt. 612, 618 (1990)). 6 A more in-depth analysis of this issue is provided below in Section III. 7 Much like their constitutional challenge, we note that the Vermont Supreme Court has previously entertained a neighboring property owners challenge to zoning regulations as inconsistent with the relevant enabling statute, though without addressing the argument of whether the neighbor had standing to do so. See In re John A. Russell Corp., 2003 VT 93, 176 Vt. 520. 10 Therefore, “[s]tatutes are the state’s legislative policies; municipalities are its instrumentalities.” Kedroff v. Town of Springfield, 127 Vt. 624, 627 (1969). As such, if “an ordinance does not properly comply with or effectuate a statute, that ordinance should be read to include and effectuate the statute.” N. Country Sportsman’s Club, 2017 VT 46, ¶ 12. 24 V.S.A. § 4423 authorizes municipalities to use the possible transfer of development rights in zoning ordinances.8 Section 4423 requires that: (a) In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1) Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2) Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3) Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4) Define “density increase” in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination. (5) Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. In interpreting zoning ordinances, we apply familiar rules of statutory construction. In re Appeal of Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 19, 184 Vt. 262. First, we “construe words according to their plain and ordinary meaning, giving effect to the whole and every part of the ordinance.” Id. (citations omitted). If there is no plain meaning, we will “attempt to discern the intent from other sources without being limited by an isolated sentence.” In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 8 The City and Appellants agree that § 4423 is the statutory authority under which municipalities may enact TDR programs. Snyder does not appear to contest that § 4423 authorizes the TDR Bylaw, but also states that there are other sources of authority to enact such a bylaw. Snyder specifically references 24 V.S.A. § 4410, which grants the Town broad authority to enact zoning bylaws, and the City charter. While it is true that these sources give the City authorization to regulate land use development, neither address TDRs. The Legislature, however, has set forth specific requirements that municipalities must meet to enact TDR programs. We are unconvinced that these broad grants of authorization somehow negate or supersede the Legislature clear directives set forth in § 4423. 11 280 (1995). In construing statutory or ordinance language, our “paramount goal” is to implement the intent of its drafters. Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 61. We will therefore “adopt a construction that implements the ordinance's legislative purpose and, in any event, will apply common sense.” In re Laberge Moto-Cross Track, 2011 VT 1, ¶ 8, 189 Vt. 578 (quotations omitted); see also In re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial, 2014 VT 13, ¶ 22 (quoting Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 148 Vt. 47, 49 (1986)) (“Our goal in interpreting [a zoning regulation], like a statute, ‘is to give effect to the legislative intent.’”). We keep these principles of interpretation in mind as we address whether the TDR Bylaw complies with each subsection of § 4423. a. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(1) Section 4423(a)(1) requires that a TDR bylaw “[s]pecify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired.” Snyder asserts that the Regulations comply with this subsection through § 9.13(C)(1)(a). This section states that an applicant seeking to use TDRs: [S]hall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or any adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district. Appellants disagree. They contend that § 9.13(C)(1)(a) does not comply with § 4423(a)(1) because it does not define “development rights,” which the Court analyzes below, or “sending area.” They assert that the closest the Regulations get to defining a sending area would be found within § 9.04(C), stating: “Areas designated SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC shall be considered development areas. Areas designated SEQ-NRP are designated as conservation areas.” They assert that conservation areas are not equivalent to “sending areas,” as used in § 4423(a)(1). The Regulations do not define any area using the term “sending area” nor is the term defined in its own right. However, § 4423(a)(1) does not require such rigidity in this respect. Instead, it requires that a sending area be designated as a location where development rights may be acquired. Here, the Regulations state that development rights must be secured within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any 12 sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a). It then goes on to call these lands “the sending parcel.” Id. We note that in § 9.04(C), SEQ-NRP is designated as a conservation area whereas SEQ- NRT is designated as a development area. However, this section generally designates the SEQ sub-districts. Section 9.13(C) is specific to TDRs and non-contiguous PUDs. It is in this section that the Regulations specify certain areas as sending parcels. We do not conclude these different designations, one not specific to the TDR program, results in the TDR Bylaw failing to comply with § 4423(a)(1). Because we must begin our analysis with the presumption that zoning ordinances are valid, and we must read them to effectuate the statute, we conclude that the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(1) as it identifies “sending parcels” in § 9.13(C)(1)(a). b. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(2) Section 4423(a)(2) requires that a TDR bylaw “[s]pecify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used.” The Regulations state that, should development rights be obtained within a sending parcel, the DRB “may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated . . . to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2). Snyder asserts that, because Chapter 9 of the Regulations is specific to the SEQ District, and § 9.13(C)(2) identifies any other sub-district of the SEQ District as an area where development rights may be transferred (i.e., a receiving area), the TDR Bylaw complies with § 4423(a)(2). Appellants assert that the Regulations do not use the term “receiving area” and again direct us to § 9.04(C), which states that “Areas designated SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR and SEQ- VC shall be considered development areas. Areas designated SEQ-NRP are designated as conservation areas.” It states that the term “development area” does not mean “receiving area.” They further note that § 9.05(b)(2) indicates the SEQ-NRT sub-district as an area at which density 13 may be increased under § 9.13, but also a “sending parcel” under § 9.13(C)(1), which they assert is in violation of § 4423(a). The Regulations do not define or use the term “receiving area.” However, similarly to our above discussion, § 4423(a)(2) does not require such rigidity. Instead, it requires that the Regulations designate a receiving area or areas as a location where development rights may be used. Here, the Regulation states that if rights are secured as set forth in § 9.13(C)(1), the DRB may approve the transfer of all or some of those rights “to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2). Regulations § 9.05(B) then states that densities may be increased pursuant to § 9.13 in the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC sub- districts.9 Further, we reach this conclusion despite the fact that the SEQ-NRT sub-district is identified both as a sending area and a receiving area. The statute merely states that a bylaw must identify area or areas as sending and receiving areas. We can find no prohibition that an area may be designated both as a receiving and sending area, as Appellants suggest. We decline to read such a prohibition into the statute. While never specifically designated as “receiving areas” we conclude that the Regulations satisfy § 4423(a)(2), in that the Regulations specify areas within which development rights may be used.10 c. 24 V.S.A. §§ 4423(a)(3), 4423(a)(4) Because of the interrelated nature of §§ 4423(a)(3) and (4) we combine our analysis of the TDR Bylaw’s compliance with these sections. Section 4423(a)(3) requires that TDR bylaws must “[d]efine the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases.” 9 The SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to Regulations § 9.12. 10 We note that Appellants appear to concede this fact. See Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, p. 12 (“Section 9.05(B) . . . specifies the SEQ zones that can receive additional units per acre as part of the Section 9.13 TDR-based density increase (albeit without specifying the zones as ‘receiving areas’).”) 14 Section 4423(a)(4) requires that TDR bylaws must “[d]efine ‘density increase’ in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination.” Because the definition of “density increase” is fundamental to § 4423(a)(3), we begin our analysis with whether the Regulations properly define “density increase.” The term “density increase” is not expressly defined in the Regulations, nor is it used. Density in the SEQ district is defined in terms of dwelling units per acre. See Regulations § 9.05. Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw does not comply with § 4423(a)(4) both because it fails to mention the term “density increase” and because it does not speak in terms of “an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ration of floor area to lot size, or any combination.” Snyder asserts that density increase is defined in terms of building bulk or a combination of the enumerated definitions and, as such, complies with § 4423(a)(4). Snyder points out, oddly enough, the definition of the word “define.” “Define” means “(1) To state the precise meaning of (e.g., a word or sense of a word), (2) To describe the nature or basic qualities of . . ., (3) To delineate the outline or form of, (4) To specify or fix distinctly . . ., (5) To serve to distinguish.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Define 302 (3rd Ed. 2005). It asserts that, while the Regulations do not use the term density increase, it effectively defines the term. Section 9.05(B) sets a base density in terms of dwelling units per acre. It then sets forth the maximum density for a lot in an enumerated SEQ sub-districts in the same terms. While we note that § 9.05(B) speaks in terms of dwelling units per acre, that term does not exist in a vacuum. As a baseline, the Regulations note that, 1.2 dwelling units per acre are permissible in the SEQ district. This is reflected in Regulations Table C-2, entitled Dimensional Standards Applicable in All Districts. This table denotes minimum lot sizes for all of the SEQ sub- districts. See Regulations Table C-2. It notes the minimum lot sizes, and also presents this size in terms of maximum dwelling units per acre. Id. This is presented as 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Id. 15 Table C-2 also sets forth maximum building heights and percentage of the site which may be covered by buildings, both components of building bulk. See 3 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 54.2 (4th Ed.). We conclude that the Regulations adequately define “density increase” in terms of dwelling units per acre, since the definition includes both terms of lot size, as related to dwelling units per acre, as well as terms of building bulk. Therefore, we conclude that the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(4). We next turn to whether the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(3) and “[d]efine the amount of density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases.” The Regulations give a base density, 1.2 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum allowable density by use of TDRs, which ranges from 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre, depending on the relevant SEQ sub-district that has been defined as a receiving area. See Regulations § 9.05(B). As such, we conclude that the Regulations have effectively defined the amount of density increase allowable in a receiving area, in compliance with § 4423(a)(3). With respect to the second aspect of § 4423(a)(3), however, the Regulations provide no guidance. Section 9.13(C)(1) states that an applicant “shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered” in a sending area. It notes that the parcel must be “sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development.” Regulations § 9.13(c)(1)(a). There is nothing in the Regulations regarding how much, either in terms of land mass or parcel size, that would result in sufficient “development rights” to be regarded as an allowable density increase.11 We therefore conclude that there is no definition of the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain the density increases set forth in § 9.05(B). For this reason, we conclude that the Regulations do not comply with § 4423(a)(3). 11 Snyder appears to argue that, by adequately describing how much density increase is allowable, the Regulations have satisfied how much development rights must be secured to use TDRs. This argument fails to address that development rights and density increase are two different statutory requirements. Snyder’s attempt to conflate the two does not provide a sufficient explanation. 16 d. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(5)12 Section 4423(a)(5) requires that a bylaw: Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. The term “development rights” is not defined by the Regulations. The Regulations require that applicants “demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered” in a sending district. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a). It then goes on to say that the parcel must be: [S]ufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations [or . . .] [a]ll encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a)—(b). Snyder asserts that development rights are defined as “all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a noncontiguous encumbered parcel or another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2).13 Appellants argue that the Regulations do not formally define the term, nor do they reference the minimum statutory definition set forth in § 4423(a)(5). Therefore, they assert the Regulations fail to comply with the subsection. We agree with Appellants; the Regulations are lacking in both respects. Section 9.13(C)(1)(a) states that encumberment could occur “through a purchase or other agreement 12 While we conclude that the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(3), we include an analysis of compliance with § 4423(a)(5) pursuant to Appellants’ Question 1.8. 13 We note that Snyder additionally argues that defining “development rights” in terms of conservation easements would be illogical. Citing Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Agency of Transp., 174 Vt. 341, 348 (2002) (stating that the Court “will always avoid a statutory construction which leads to absurd or irrational results.”). It asserts that, because conservation easements limit development, it cannot be included in a definition of “development rights.” This argument misses the purpose of the term “development rights” and the need for its definition in the context of the § 4423 and TDR programs generally. Development rights are those rights to be secured in a place designated for conservation or limited development, a sending area, and used in area designated for development, a receiving area. As such, the statute directs that the definition set forth the encumberment to be secured in the sending area, for use in the receiving area, at a minimum as including a conservation easement. This is neither irrational or absurd in the context of a TDR program. 17 acceptable to the City Attorney.” There are no references to what type of encumberment would be sufficient to satisfy the Regulations, nor an inclusion of the minimum definition as set forth in the statute. While subsection (b) references a conservation easement, it also mentions restrictions “of similar binding effect.” Such a fleeting mention does not remedy the fact that they are patently lacking in this respect. Snyder argues that we should look to the plain meaning of the words “development” and “rights” pursuant to Regulations Article 2.01. While we could look to the plain meaning of the words “development” and “rights,” such an exercise would not result in the Regulations meeting the minimum statutory requirements. It would therefore be a fruitless endeavor. We therefore conclude that the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(5). We next turn to whether this and our above conclusions regarding §§ 4423(a)(3) and 4423(a)(5) must result in the invalidation of the TDR Bylaw. III. Whether the TDR Bylaw is invalid due to failure to comply with §§ 4423(a)(3) and (5). Snyder asserts that, even if the Court concludes the TDR Bylaw does not comply with § 4423, it is still valid. Citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639 (1991); and In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402 (1990). Both the Walker and Duncan decisions reference municipalities that failed to enunciate mandatory statutory requirements regarding conditional use approval standards; specifically, “that a proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect the utilization of renewable energy resources.” Walker, 156 Vt. at 639 (citing 24 V.SA. § 4407(2) (repealed eff. July 1, 2004). In Walker, the Court concluded that an “ordinance must be read to include the statutory requirements [set forth in the conditional use statute], and those requirements will govern whether or not they are expressly set forth in the ordinance.” Walker, 156 Vt. at 639. Both cases are distinct from the present matter. Both matters reflected a failure to include an explicit statutory standard, whereas here the statute requires the ordinance to define terms, to which the statute provides varying degrees of direction. The Regulations at issue here fail to provide the necessary direction; an implicit inclusion of a statutory reference does not in this instance cure the omission. 18 We conclude the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(3) for failure to define the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain increased development rights. Looking to the statute, there is no definition therein, but only the requirement to define. The same is true for § 44239(a)(5). Section 4423 does not lend itself to the same “gap filling” as proposed for the conditional use approval standards examined in Walker and Duncan. We therefore conclude the TDR Bylaw is invalid. Having reached this conclusion, we address its impact on the pending application. Regulations § 1.03 states that: Should any section, sub-section, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase of these land development regulations be declared by any competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of any other portion of these land development regulations, except the section in question. Here, we conclude that Regulations §§ 9.13(C)(1)(a), 9.13(C)(2), and 9.05(B)(2)—(6) do not comply with § 4423 and are, therefore, invalid. Snyder asserts that this conclusion somehow invalidates either the entirety of the Regulations or all density requirements therein. We disagree. Nothing within this decision effects other aspects of the Regulations including, of particular import here, § 9.05(A), which sets forth the maximum allowable density in the SEQ district without the use of TDRs. Having found no reason to disturb or invalidate § 9.05(A) or any other aspect of the Regulations not above discussed, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw provision is severable from the rest of the Regulations. Therefore, the Project is limited to 31 units.14 We next turn to Appellants’ constitutional challenges. 14 Snyder argues that, “because land-use regulations are in derogation of property rights, any uncertainty in their meaning must be decided in favor of the property owner.” Citing Agency of Nat. Res. v. Weston, 2003 VT 58, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 573. Under this tenant of statutory construction, Snyder reiterates its assertion that any invalidation of the TDR Bylaw would eliminate density requirements in either South Burlington generally or the SEQ district in particular, and that Snyder would therefore be permitted to construct the Project without limitation. This argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, our above conclusions regarding the TDR Bylaw’s compliance with § 4423 is not based in any ambiguity or uncertainty in the Regulations overall meaning. Second, pursuant to the Regulations severability clause, the purported destruction of the non-TDR related density requirements would be improper. 19 IV. Whether the TDR Regulation is constitutional. Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally void for vagueness both on its face and as applied. When reviewing a municipal land use decision, we begin with the presumption that a zoning regulation is constitutional. In re Highlands Dev. Co., LLC, No. 194-10-03 Vtec, slip op. at 13 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Feb. 2, 2010) (Wright, J.) (citing Hunter v. State, 2004 VT 108, ¶ 31, 177 Vt. 339). Our approach to complaints of “standardless, arbitrary discretion focuses on the criteria for due process and equal protection.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 19 (citing In re Handy, 171 Vt. 336, 345-46 (2000). We will consider two factors to determine whether a regulation is void for vagueness and thus unconstitutional. First, we consider whether the regulation is “sufficiently precise that an ordinary person using the means available and ordinary common sense can understand the meaning and comply” and does not leave an applicant “uncertain as to what factors are to be considered by the [municipal panel].” Rogers v. Watson, 156 Vt. 483, 491 (1991) (citing Brody v. Barasch, 155 Vt. 103, 111 (1990); Town of Westford v. Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 124 (1973). Second, we consider whether the regulation provides standards that sufficiently guide municipal decisions and therefore do not allow for the “exercise of discretion in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 20 (quoting Kilburn, 131 Vt. at 124). Additionally, a balance must be struck between the flexibility a municipal panel must have in reviewing a specific development proposal and a landowner’s right to know what standards govern an application. See Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491; see also Handy, 171 Vt. at 349; Kilburn, 131 Vt. 124 (“On one hand the standards governing the delegation of such authority should be general enough to avoid inflexible results, yet on the other hand they should not leave the door open to unbridled discrimination.”). Thus, while we must “invalidate ordinances that ‘fail to provide adequate guidance” and allow for “ad-hoc decision making that is essentially arbitrary,” we will uphold general standards “accompanied by some ability of landowners to predict how discretion will be exercised.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 20 (quoting Kilburn, 131 Vt. at 125); Handy, 171 Vt. at 349. For this reason, we consider regulations in the context of the entire ordinance so that “even if some of the bylaws’ objectives are general,” it may be constitutional 20 “as long as other provisions impose specific limits to guide and check the [decisionmaker’s] discretion.” Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491; Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 24 (“By providing both general and specific standards for [] review, the bylaw strikes an appropriate balance between providing guidance to the Commission and avoiding inflexible requirements which would defeat the creativity and flexibility required to effectuate the goals of the [bylaws].”)). Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide any standards for the DRB, or the Court on appeal, to apply when determining whether to approve the transfer of all or some of the TDR-based density requested by an applicant. Further, they assert the TDR Bylaw does not provide any standards for the City Attorney to apply when determining whether a parcel is sufficiently encumbered under § 9.13(C)(1). Snyder asserts that the TDR Bylaw is constitutional because it sets forth the limited range within which a density can be approved when using TDRs. It also asserts that by providing that the City Attorney must “ensure conformance” with the Regulations, the TDR Bylaw provides sufficient guidance when determining whether encumberment is sufficient. Section 9.13(C)(2) allows the DRB to “approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density” when approving the use of TDRs. Section 9.05(A) sets the maximum allowable density within the SEQ district and § 9.05(B) sets the maximum allowable density through the use of TDRs within the various SEQ subdistricts. As discussed above, there is no guidance on the quantity of development rights that must be secured in order for TDRs to be utilized. Similarly, there is no guidance regarding what the DRB should consider when approving the assignment of all or a portion of the development rights. A mere maximum and minimum, in the absence of these important aspects of lawful TDR programs, are not sufficiently precise such that an ordinary person could understand how the TDR program works, specifically with respect to the transfer of development rights, and would leave an applicant and those concerned by a proposed development uncertain as to what factors are to be considered by the DRB when determining the transfer of development rights. See Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491. 21 As the Regulations are, in effect, standardless regarding this issue, and lack sufficient guidance for the DRB to employ when making determinations regarding the number of TDRs the DRB will allow to be used in an area. Therefore, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague on its face.15 V. Whether the proposed dead-end street is permissible. When interpreting a zoning ordinance, we apply the familiar rules of statutory construction. Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 19. A complete review of the legal standards we apply in doing so is set forth above. Of import to our present analysis is whether the Court affords deference to a municipality’s interpretation of its ordinance. The parties both direct us to In re Confluence Behavioral Health LLC CU. In that decision, we noted that: The interpretation by an appropriate municipal panel of its own zoning regulations can have some import in our analysis. In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402, 408 (1990) (“we have consistently held that ‘absent compelling indication of error, we will sustain the interpretation of a statute by the administrative body responsible for its execution.’”) (citation omitted). However, as noted above, municipal zoning decisions are appealed to the Environmental Division de novo. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). We therefore do not defer to the municipal panel’s interpretation of a zoning term when that determination is itself the subject of an appeal. The exception to this rule is where the municipal panel has established a pattern of consistent interpretation. In re Korbet, 2005 VT 7, ¶ 10, 178 Vt. 459; 38 Thasha Lane Dev. Water & Sewer Fees Denial, No. 136-9-14 Vtec, slip op. at 4—5 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 28, 2015) (Walsh, J.). No. 15-2-16 Vtec, slip op. at 11 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 23, 2017) (Durkin, J.) aff’d by 2017 VT 112. Section 9.08 sets forth “additional dimensional and design requirements” for the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, and SEQ-NRT sub-districts. Section § 9.08(A)(2)(b) states that “[d]ead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer-head) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” Regulations § 9.08(A)(2)(b). PUDs are: 15 Having reached this conclusion, we need not reach whether the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutional as applied. We note that the impact of this conclusion on the application before the Court is identical to that in Section III, above. 22 One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed. Regulations § 2.02 (emphasis added). Snyder asserts that, because the Project is a PUD, the DRB and this Court on appeal may deviate from dimensional requirements pursuant to the definition of PUDs. Therefore, it asserts that the oversized road may be permitted. Additionally, and alternatively, it asserts that the roadway standards are waivable pursuant to § 15.12(D)(5). Appellants disagree, arguing that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is mandatory and non-waivable. Therefore, it asserts that Street A is impermissible as proposed. First, we address whether the Regulations permit deviations from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) when permitting PUDs. PUDs, by their definition, permit the DRB, and this Court on appeal, flexibility in imposing land use restrictions. Specifically, their definition states that “dimensional requirements” may be deviated from. Section 9.08(A)(2)(b) is included as a dimensional and design standard for the SEQ district. See Regulations § 9.08. Therefore, by the plain language of the Regulations, § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is the type of requirement that the Regulations contemplated PUDs deviating from in some instances. While § 9.08(A)(2)(b) provides clear requirements on dead-end streets, there is nothing in the Regulations to show that this would not be subject to the flexibility afforded to PUDs by their nature as set forth in Regulations § 2.02. Therefore, we conclude that deviation from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is permissible with respect to PUDs. Second, we address whether the § 9.08(A)(2)(b) requirement is waivable.16 Section 15.12 governs standards for roadways, parking and circulation in PUDs generally. Included in this section is the provision that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the DRB to grant waivers of public roadway standards subject to the provisions of § 15.12(D)(4).” 16 Having reached the above conclusion, an analysis of whether § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is waivable is largely unnecessary. However, we reach the issue as it is presented by Appellants’ Questions 5.4—5.10. 23 Regulations § 15.12(D)(5); see also Regulations § 15.12(D)(4) (provisions related to roadway connections to adjacent parcels). We must begin by noting that, while Appellants present a number of Questions related to the issue of waiver, their briefs in large part do not address the issue. Appellants include the bald assertion that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is non-waivable, but this appears to be based solely on their interpretation of § 9.08(A)(2)(b) and not how it interrelates with § 15.12(D)(5). Section 15.12 sets for the “Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation” in subdivisions and PUDs. Included in this are roadway criteria in § 15.12(D). Section 9.08, however, sets forth specific dimensional and design requirements in the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, and SEQ-NRN sub-districts. Neither section reference one another, nor is § 9.08(A)(2)(b) identified as a public roadway standard, but instead a component of street, block and lot patterns within the enumerated sub-districts.17 Other than the fact that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) relates to roadways, we can find no interpretation that supports the conclusion that it can be waived pursuant to § 15.12(D)(5). As such, we conclude that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) cannot be waived. This conclusion, however, does not disturb our above conclusion that the DRB may deviate from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) when permitting PUDs. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw is invalid as it does not comply with 24 V.S.A. § 4423. We further conclude that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague. Finally, we conclude that the DRB, and this Court on appeal, may permit a roadway longer than 200 feet in length in the context of a PUD application. This concludes the matter before the Court. A Judgement Order accompanies this Decision. 17 Snyder asserts that the Town’s conclusion that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is waivable is entitled to some deference. However, having received no indication of consistent application of this interpretation and the matter being the subject of the present appeal, we afford this interpretation no deference. See Confluence Behavioral Health LLC CU, No. 15-2-16 Vtec, slip op. at 11 (Jan. 23, 2017). Further, to the extent Snyder asserts that other oversized dead end streets have been approved pursuant to § 15.12(D)(4) for future interconnection, because we reach the above conclusion that the DRB may deviate from § 9.08(A)(2)(b), we conclude that an analysis of this issue is unnecessary. 24 Electronically signed on February 28, 2019 at Brattleboro, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). ________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge Environmental Division 1 Marla Keene From:Louise Hammond <karmakosmo7@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:30 PM To:Dalila Hall Cc:Marla Keene Subject:Wildlife in South Burlington Dahlia and Marla,    Please share the attached with members of the DRB Thank you.     I was in attendance at the meeting this evening, however like many I did not get a chance to speak ( same as last DRB  meeting…) I am headed out of town very early tomorrow until March 7th so I decided to share my thoughts this way.    A few weeks back the Planning Commission had Jens Hilke from Vermont Fish and Wildlife give a presentation.  It was  excellent and very informative.  He is an expert in planning for wildlife movement and management and is experienced  in providing technical assistant to Vermont Municipalities.   Jens Hilke made it very clear that the areas of wetlands, riparian and wildlife corridors, wildlife connectivity are all vitally  important to us and he few remaining open spaces we have left.  Few as he mentioned makes them even more  important/valuable.  I also heard him say that even developing around these areas will result in them losing their  intended function.  There are plenty of scientific studies informing us of the importance of keeping this riparian connectivity open.    The wildlife is very,very  important!      I have photographed over 84 species of birds over the past 12 years and those are only the ones I have photographed.  I  am sure there are many others that I have not seen but are out there.  This is all in /near the same land as the Dorset  Meadow proposal.     Last week in FPF a neighbor in the Pinnacle/ Spear area wrote that woke up to adult fisher tracks on their back porch.   They stated they have seen red fox, bobcat, skunks, raccoons, squirrels, woodchuck, opossum and numerous mice voles  and moles.  They also mentioned having several coyote tracks across their yard.   We are paving over their homes and they are running out of places to go!  They don’t belong on our porches and in our  front yards.  They belong in the wild… wildlife.  I too have seen the above mentioned wildlife as well as deer, rabbits, and last week a mink and several beaver.   In yesterdays Burlington Free Press the front page had an article about opossum.  They eat ticks!  Let’s not pave over  their home.  We need them to eat the ticks.  Ticks cause lyme disease.    We are knowingly shrinking their homes.  Let’s be a voice for the voiceless.  The animals need their homes, there is a  balance in life and they are a huge part of it.  They benefit us on so many levels.  They don’t cost us anything and bring such joy!  Ever notice how you feel when you see a bird, or a deer or and owl or  see a turtle in the road?     In making your decision I hope you will think about the wildlife and how we have already destroyed many of their  homes/ habitats.       Respectfully,    2 Louise Hammond  15 Shea Drive  1 Marla Keene From:Duncan Murdoch <duncanhmurdoch@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:14 PM To:Marla Keene; Dave Crawford Subject:RE: NRC buffer recommendation for Dorset Meadows: Clarification Hello DRB members,    I was asked if there was any scientific reasoning behind the NRC's recommendation of a larger than 50 ft buffer.  I did  not thoroughly answer the question at the time.  Here is my response in advocating a buffer of 100 feet:    “Streams and brooks within the City Owned Land should be protected by a naturally  vegetated 100‐foot riparian buffer zone.”    ‐(pg. 13) 2004 Arrowwood Environmental, LLC report “Wildlife and Natural Communities Assessment of  the South East Quadrant, South Burlington Vermont”    This report was done at the local level.  Please consider this report's recommendations as you consider development  around streams and brooks in South Burlington.    I am writing on behalf of the NRC.    Thank you,    Duncan Murdoch  Certified Nature & Forest Therapy Guide  www.natureconnectionguide.com  www.duncanmurdoch.com                  m. 718.753.8443      1 Marla Keene From:Ray Gonda <gonda05403@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 3, 2019 1:21 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:native plants and pollinators commentary to DRB Attachments:Proposed Dorset Meadows Testimony.docx Hi Marla, Here is an updated version of the "Native Plants" testimony I hurriedly wrote for the DRB Dorset Meadows hearing.. This constitutes a replacement for the previous version. This version corrects some unclear paragraphs in the previous version and some typos. I would appreciate it if you would forward this to DRB members. Best regards and thank you, Ray 264-4886 Proposed Dorset Meadows: Comments - Native Tree Planting Submitted by: Ray Gonda, 27 Pinnacle Drive, S.B. 264-4886 To South Burlington: Development Review Board, Natural Resources Committee, Parks and Recreation Committee 1/27/2019 I read in the South Burlington TOP that at Jan 2 meeting of the S. B. Natural Resources Committee, committee member Duncan Murdock encouraged using native species for plantings to which “veteran landscape architect” Mike Buscher with TJ Boyle Associates responded: “that was ‘almost impossible’. There are about six or seven really native trees … half of those aren’t suitable for streescape plantings” he said An interesting statement since last year I made a catalog of about 72 native or “naturalized” (naturalized meaning established long enough in Vermont in the wild to have some level of co- evolvement with native insects) Vermont trees including the oaks and maples. There are at least 50 of those whose existence is not currently threatened by serious pests or other diseases such as ash, hemlock, and beech. Here is the result of research I have done on commercial availability of these “really native” trees in Vermont. I selected species/cultivars conservatively. Among them are a sprinkling of large shrubs that can be trained to be tree-like. Four Seasons said that additional species beyond their catalog species could be sourced B&B Nurseries, Morrisville, VT 8 species E.C. Brown Nurseries, Thetford Center, VT 28 species Four Seasons, Williston, VT 24 + species Are the criteria used for Mr. Buscher to select his preferred trees include convenience of purchase, low-maintenance trees, uniform growth among them, trees that don’t “drop” things like acorns of apples or nuts, among other similar things? If so, perhaps the criteria used by Mr. Buscher should be re-considered. Here is why: As a child I was fascinated by the many insects and moths, large and small, of various shapes and sizes that would each summer night buzz and flutter around street lamps – seemingly in the hundreds. Today I see little of this. On other nights when sitting on the porch I would be enchanted by the chorus so many different sounds –the sounds of so many insects - many identifiable – most not – just background “white” noise. Today sitting out on the porch in S.B along Speer Street, I still hear these sounds of my youth. But, what I hear are insects by the tens – not the hundreds or thousands. In a protected forest in Germany, the results of a 27 years study, there has been a drop of 75% of the original numbers of insect populations – without a specific cause being identified. https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive- insect-loss/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83bd1bcb2f09 Worldwide we are losing some 200 species of organisms per hour – extinctions. (The number of mammals is today about 50% of the original populations). There are many reasons for insect losses (as well as mammals) including pesticide and excessive fertilizer uses, especially non-selective pesticides, deforestation, habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, conversion of small farm fields separated by very diverse fencerows, rock walls and hedgerows mixed with forest patches to large non-diverse continuous plains of tilled soil, growing monoculture commodity plants and protecting them from insect threats. What is not appreciated is the contribution to these losses caused by our own private property landscapes and the decisions we make regarding how and what we plant. From the original habitat, we subtract the footprint of the buildings from the property acreage, subtract further paved or side-walked sections of acreage, then plant mostly alien non-native grasses of little or no benefit to wildlife along with keeping them cut too frequently and too short. Further planting of foreign rather than native trees shrubs and flowers has an equivalent effect as habitat loss. Native plants (trees shrubs, flowers, and grasses) provide many ecological services to domestic wildlife (wildlife includes insects and perhaps microorganisms of the soil) that imports do not. Insects have co-evolved with native plant species over thousands or millions of years to the point of some being highly dependent on one or a few plant species only (while others utilize several or more plant species). If that or those plant species are removed from a plant community – then so are the insects that co-evolved with it. And then there are the possible symbiotic ecosystem services that may be provided by specific insect species, yet still be undiscovered, that is aptly illustrated by this non-insect example: In the coniferous Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest lives the northern spotted owl which preys on the northern flying squirrel as its staple diet. The flying squirrels, in turn, depend on truffles, the below-ground fruiting bodies of certain mycorrhizal fungi. (Mychorrizal denotes the obligatory symbiotic relationship between various fungi and plant roots that is of nourishment benefit to both). Flying squirrels, having eaten truffles, defecate live fungal spores elsewhere on the forest floor, which upon being washed into the soil by rain, inoculate the roots of the sprouting forest trees with the needed fungi. Remove the squirrels, and in the absence of other mitigating processes, truffles cease to be spread. Then the trees diminish, reducing or eliminating nesting platforms for the owls. So the removal of the squirrels potentially can cause the loss of the trees, owls and truffles. Imported plants, even from other states, though they may provide nectar and pollen from flowers and blossoms, fail to provide important insect lifecycle services outside of nectar season such as plant material to eat, to lay eggs in, and to overwinter in. Thus introducing alien species into one’s yard rather than native species is the equivalent of removing habitat. We unwittingly are contributing to the worldwide loss of wildlife right in our own yards. Remembering that insects are a major source of food for birds and many small mammals and they in turn, are food for larger predator mammals, then, it becomes obvious that our native plant communities are the fundamental base for our wildlife populations. Studies suggest that North American bird species that depend on aerial insects for feeding themselves and their offspring have suffered much more pronounced declines in recent years than other perching birds that largely feed on seeds. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/report-finds-north-american-skies-quieter-by-15- billion-fewer-birds/article31876053/ Why worry about the loss of a bunch of bugs? Highest on the list of reasons for protecting and restoring insect populations is pollination. 75% of all flowering plants need pollinators including many crops we depend on for food. If domestic honeybees are used exclusively for pollination, which many large industrial farms use, then we face the usual threat of disease spread in monocultures leading to catastrophic population crashes. So we need the diversity inherent in wild pollinators which include many insect species – albeit with declining populations. The most important of these are butterflies and moths, the many wild bee species, beetles, wasps, and flies among many other contributing insect species. So I think that Mr. Buschner should go back to the drawing board and maker wiser choices for tree plantings. Furthermore I recommend that the relevant city committees make it a policy to require native “woody” tree plantings on any new development taking place in the city. Also the same consideration should include “native” herbaceous plants rather than aliens in the same landscape plans. And furthermore, the city should make it a policy to actively encourage private landowners to utilize native plants in their own yards. A Few Resources for introduction and deeper understanding of this issue: General Introduction: Bringing Nature Home - Douglas W. Tallamy Native Plants: Native Plants of New England Gardens - Mark Richardson and Dan Jaffe Essential Native Trees and Shrubs for the Eastern United States - Tony Dove and Ginger Woolridge Pollinators identified: Attracting Native Pollinators - The Xerces Society                             Native Vermont Trees Commercially Available                               (plus additional native species if out‐sourced)                                                   Ray Gonda     1/27/2019      Acer Pennsylvania vanicum                                                    Striped maple  Acer Spicadeum                                                                        Mountain Maple  Acer Rubrum                                                                              Red Maple  Acer Saccharum                                                                        Sugar Maple  Acer saccharum, “commemorutum”                                     Sugar Maple  Acer Saccharum   “Green Mountain”                                    Sugar Maple  Acer Spicatum                                                                            Mountain Maple  Albies balsamea                                                                         Balsam Fir  Amelanchier canadensus                                                          Serviceberry / Shadberry / several cultivars  Betula lentra                                                                                Sweet (Black) Birch  Betula papyrifera                                                                        Paper Birch  Betula nigra                                                                                 River Birch (but not the “Heritage “ cultivar)  Carpus Caroliniana                                                                      Musclewood (American Hornbeam)  Castanea dentata                                                                        American Chestnut  Chionanthus virginiacus                                                              Fringetree  Cornus alternifolia                                                                        Pagoda dogwood  Crataegus, spp                                                                               Hawthorne cultivars  Divia paulustris                                                                              Eastern Leatherwood   Juniperus virginiana                                                                      Eastern Red Cedar  Larix  laricina                                                                                  Eastern Larch, Tamarack    Linnera benzoin                                                                              Spicebush  Ostrya virginiana                                                                             Ironwood (American Hophornbeam)  Pinus strobus                                                                                   Eastern White Pine  Psyocarpus opulifolius                                                                   Ninebark  Quercus alba                                                                                    White Oak  Quercus Bicolor                                                                                Swamp White Oak  Quercus macrocarpa                                                                      Burr Oak  Quercus palustris                                                                             Pin Oak  Quercus rubra                                                                                   Northern Red Oak  Rhodendron, spp.                                                                             Rhodendron and Cultivars  Robina psueacacia                                                                            Black Locust  Thugis Occidentalis                                                                          Eastern White Cedar      Tilia americana                                                                                  Redmond American Linden (Basswood)  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐                                               Native Vermont Flowers (Source: Pollinators of Native plants (Heather Holm)) This first list’s plants serve as Larval or specialist bees hosts as well as sources of nectar and pollen Common name Latin Name Prairie Plants Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa Wild Lupine Lupinus Perennis Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa Spotted Bee Balm Monarda punctata Black-Eyed Susan Rudbekia hirta Golden Alexanders Ziza aurea Woodland Edges Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Large-Leaved Aster Eurybia macrophylla Wild Germanium Aguilegia canadensis Virginia Waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum Bloodroot Sanguinaria Canadensis Zig Zag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis Wetland Edges Swamp Milkweed Swamp Milkweed White Turtlehead Chelone glabra Canada Tick Trefoil Oesmodium canadense Common Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed Eurochium maculatum Great St. John’s Wort Hypericium pyramididatum New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae Blue (Swamp) Vervain Verbena hastata Culver’s Root Veronicastrum virginicum This list is of native plants that provide only nectar and pollen. Prairie Harebell Campanula rotundafolia Prarie (Tall) Cinquefol Potentilla arguta Woodland Edges White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda Sharp-Lobed Hepatica Anemone acutilobayes Dutchman’s Breeches Dicentra cucallaria False Soloman’s Seal Maianthemum Virginianum Bishop’s Cap ( Mitterwort) Mitella diphylla Long-Styled Sweet Cicely Ozmorhiza longistylis Smooth Soloman’s Seal Poilygonatum biflorum Rue Anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Large Flowered Bellwort Uvularia grandiflora Downy Yellow Violet Viola pubuscens Wetland Edges Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis Marsh Marigold Calthra palustris Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewii Great Blue Lobelia Lobella siphilitica Obedient Plant Physostegia virginiana Virginia Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 PHONE 802 861-7000 FAX 861-7007 MSKVT.COM March 6, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Bill Miller, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 C/o Mr. Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Email: pconner@sburl.com Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 Dear Chairperson Miller: I serve as counsel for Tom and Donna Anfuso, 695 Nowland Farm Road; Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road; William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons interested in the above-referenced Applications (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”). I am writing to notify the DRB that on February 19, 2019, Judge Thomas G. Walsh of the Vermont Superior Court – Environmental Division (the “E-Court”) issued a verbal directive in In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2-1-19 Vtec (the “E-Court Appeal”) that the DRB cannot take further action on Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 or Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 during the pendency of the E-Court Appeal. Judge Walsh’s February 19th directive is reproduced on the second page of this letter. I am writing to you to make sure the DRB is aware that Judge Walsh has directed that the pending E-Court Appeal “divests the City from further considering” Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 or Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 “until this [E-Court] appeal is resolved.” See Transcript of Feb. 19, 2019 Status Conference, at page 16, lines 10 to 22: Letter to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller March 6, 2019 Page 2 of 3 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com Transcript of Status Conference at 16, In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2- 1-19 Vtec (Feb. 19, 2019). On request, I can supply the DRB with a PDF version of the full 24- page transcript. SOS South Burlington trusts that the DRB will respect Judge Walsh’s February 19th directive and cancel the March 19, 2019 DRB hearing concerning Dorset Meadows. In addition, SOS South Burlington trusts that the DRB will not take any further action concerning the proposed Dorset Meadows project during the pendency of the E-Court Appeal.1 For the record, if the DRB were to act on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s pending Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications while the E-Court Appeal remains pending, SOS South Burlington would maintain that any such action is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. 1 SOS South Burlington continues to maintain that the DRB lacks jurisdiction to consider Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 due to the DRB’s lack of a final decision and vote on Sketch Plan Application No. SD-18-23. This issue is now the subject of the pending E-Court Appeal. Letter to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller March 6, 2019 Page 3 of 3 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com On a related note, on March 5, 2019, I e-mailed attorneys Robert H. Rushford and Matthew B. Byrne, who serve as counsel for Dorset Meadows Associates LLC, and asked whether they plan to withdraw Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 in light of last Thursday’s E-Court Decision in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), invalidating the City’s TDR Bylaw on State statutory and federal constitutional grounds. (On request, I can supply the DRB with PDF version of the E-Court’s twenty-four page Snyder Group decision and the accompanying one-page Judgment Order.) Withdrawal of the Dorset Meadows Applications seems to make sense given that they are predicated on sixty-seven (67) units of TDR-based density, and such density is no longer an option after Snyder Group. If Dorset Meadows Associates LLC withdraws its Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications, the DRB, could, in my view, take whatever actions are necessary to remove those Applications from its docket without violating Judge Walsh’s above-quoted February 19, 2019 directive. Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail) Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail) Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail) Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail) Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail) 1 Marla Keene From:Daniel A. Seff <DSeff@mskvt.com> Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 4:31 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Amanda Lafferty; Dalila Hall; mbyrne@gravelshea.com; Robert Rushford; Paul Conner Subject:RE: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 Attachments:In re Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC PUD, Transcript of Feb. 19, 2019 E-Court Telephone Status Conference (00346494xA9531).PDF Good afternoon, Marla. As requested in your e-mail message of this morning (below), attached as a PDF file please find the 24-page transcript of the February 19, 2019 status conference in In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2-1-19 Vtec (the “E-Court Appeal”). In your e-mail message (below), you ask me to clarify what action I am asking the DRB to take. Respectfully, it does not matter what I want the DRB to do. Rather, what matters is what E-Court Judge Thomas G. Walsh expects the DRB not to do. On the second page of my March 6, 2019 letter, I quote Judge Walsh’s statement as it appears on page 16, lines 10 to 22, of the attached transcript. Judge Walsh is adamant: “The fact that that the appeal is here [in the E-Court], divests the City from further considering those [Dorset Meadows Preliminary Plat and Master Plan] applications until this [E-Court] appeal is resolved.” Judge Walsh “want[s] everybody to be clear” about the fact that the City “can’t touch” the Dorset Meadows Preliminary Plat and Master Plan applications while the E-Court appeal is pending. “So be aware of that,” Judge Walsh admonished the attorneys, including the City’s attorney and the attorneys for Dorset Meadows Associates LLC. As Judge Walsh explained, when the E-Court appeal is over, “jurisdiction goes back to the City.” “But in the meantime, while the [E-Court] matter is pending, jurisdiction is with the Environmental Division.” If the Planning and Zoning Department learns between now and the March 19th DRB hearing that the DRB intends to honor Judge Walsh’s February 19th directive and you could let me know, that would be helpful. A lot of people will need to show up on March 19th [under protest] if there is no advance confirmation that the scheduled Dorset Meadows hearing is off. I think one way to save everybody a lot of time would be for Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s counsel to reply to this e-mail message and request that the March 19th DRB hearing be called off. I have copied Gravel & Shea PC attorneys Robert Rushford and Matthew Byrne on this e-mail message. Bob and Matt, what say you? 2 Finally, Marla, I would be grateful if you would please include a copy of this e-mail message in the DRB packet along with the attached transcript. Thanks, and have a nice weekend. Best regards, Daniel A. Seff MSK Attorneys 275 College Street, P.O. Box 4485 Burlington, VT 05406-4485 Phone: (802) 861-7000 x119 | Fax: (802) 861-7007 dseff@mskvt.com | www.mskvt.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies or records of the original message. From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@sburl.com]   Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 8:27 AM  To: Daniel A. Seff <DSeff@mskvt.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Cc: Amanda Lafferty <alafferty@sburl.com>; Dalila Hall <dhall@sburl.com>; mbyrne@gravelshea.com; Robert Rushford  <rrushford@gravelshea.com>  Subject: RE: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP‐18‐01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD‐18‐29    Good morning Daniel,  Thank you for your letter.  It will be included with other public comments in the packet for the Board.  As offered, could you please forward the full transcript, which I will include as an attachment?    Finally, to cancel a hearing is not an action available to the Board.  Could you please clarify what action you are  requesting the Board make?  The available actions are to close or to continue a hearing, both which must be done in a  public setting.    Marla Keene, PE   Development Review Planner   City of South Burlington    (802) 846‐4106     From: Daniel A. Seff <DSeff@mskvt.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 7:50 PM  To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Cc: Amanda Lafferty <alafferty@sburl.com>; Dalila Hall <dhall@sburl.com>; Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>;  3 mbyrne@gravelshea.com; Robert Rushford <rrushford@gravelshea.com>  Subject: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP‐18‐01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD‐18‐29    Good evening, Paul. Attached as a three-page PDF file please find a March 6, 2019 letter from me on behalf of SOS South Burlington to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller concerning the Dorset Meadows matter. I would be grateful if you would please forward the attached letter to the DRB membership at your earliest convenience, as it concerns an important and time-sensitive matter. Thanks very much. Best regards, Daniel A. Seff MSK Attorneys 275 College Street, P.O. Box 4485 Burlington, VT 05406-4485 Phone: (802) 861-7000 x119 | Fax: (802) 861-7007 dseff@mskvt.com | www.mskvt.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies or records of the original message. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   CU‐18‐12 30 Myers Court    DATE:    March 19, 2019   Development Review Board meeting      Paul Washburn has submitted Conditional use application #CU‐18‐12 to amend a previously approved  conditional use permit for construction of a 14’ X 17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft.  accessory residential unit.  The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five (5) feet and increasing  the height to fifteen (15) feet at 30 Myers Court.    The Board reviewed this application at the November 20, 2018 and January 29, 2019 hearings.  At the  November 20, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the Board directed Staff to obtain an independent  third‐party technical review of the height of the building, measured from average pre‐construction grade as  stipulated in the LDRs.  The Applicant has requested an adjustment of pre‐construction grade to post‐ construction grade as allowed under LDR Section 3.12 due to physical constraints that would otherwise  preclude the unit from having gravity flow sewer, therefore the technical reviewer also provided  measurements to post‐construction grade.      The technical review found that the accessory structure was 16’ 5 ¾” higher than current grade, and 17 to 18’  higher than pre‐construction grade.     AT the January 29, 2019 hearing, the applicant enumerated the requests they were making of the Board:  1. Allow a 15’ maximum height  2. Measure height from a grade which brings the height to 15’  3. Allow a 5’ minimum setback  4. Allow 100 sf of the permitted but not constructed garage to be living space to increase the maximum  allowable square footage of the accessory unit     The Board was comfortable with all but the second request.  The Board advised that they would be comfortable  measuring height from the minimum grade necessary to create positive sewer flow, and directed Staff to retain  an independent third‐party to evaluate that grade.      The technical report is included in the packet for the Board, and concludes that the existing gravity‐fed sewer  maintained the minimum cover using traditional and common construction methods.  Staff concludes from the  report that no additional cover is needed for the gravity sewer to function as currently installed.      Therefore based on the Board’s direction at the January 29, 2019 hearing, Staff recommends the Board not  approve the applicant’s request to place fill such that the resulting height measured from final grade is 15’, and  #CU‐18‐12  2 instead approve an adjusted pre‐construction grade as allowed under LDR Section 3.12 equal to the currently  existing grade.  The result of such a condition would be that the applicant must reduce the height of the building  by 1’ 5 ¾”.    Recommendation  Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.    #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 1 1 of 12  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐19‐07_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_QTA_PP  FP_2019‐03‐19.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: March 15, 2019  Plans received: February 12, 2019  1200 Airport Drive  Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐07  Meeting date: March 19, 2019  Owner/Applicant  City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport   C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation   1200 Airport Drive, Box 1   So. Burlington, VT 05403      Property Information  Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C  Airport District  777.84 acres   Architect  PGAL  1425 Ellworth Industrial Dr #15  Atlanta, GA 30318  Location Map    #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 2 2 of 12    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to  amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex.  The amendment consists of:  1) razing an  existing car wash facility, 2) constructing a new 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3)  constructing a 2,353 sq. ft. six position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive.    PERMIT HISTORY      The Development Review Board reviewed the sketch plan application on January 15, 2019.      COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have  reviewed the plans submitted on 2/12/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the  Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The Project is located in the Airport district.  Development within this district must be reviewed  pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.   Until recently, the LDRs required all projects within this district be reviewed under PUD standards.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions    The applicant has represented that the proposed facility will not result in a change to overall lot coverage,  which the applicant estimates to be 34%.  The maximum allowable lot coverage for this district is 50%.  The  applicant has not provided an estimate of building coverage for existing or proposed conditions.  The  maximum allowable building coverage for this district is 30%.  Staff considers it unlikely the building  coverage exceeds the maximum allowable.  At Sketch, the board determined they were comfortable with  this assessment and did not need an exact calculation of building coverage.     1. There appears to be a trapezoidal‐shaped area between the existing building to be retained at the  north of the site and the proposed dumpster location that is currently impervious.  Staff  recommends that since there is no apparent use for this impervious area, the Board require the  applicant to return it to a pervious condition.    2. Staff notes the direction of the north arrow is inconsistent between plans, making it challenging to  refer to various portions of the property.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to  review the north arrow on all submitted plan sheets and make corrections as necessary.    6.02F Airport District Additional Standards    All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05  and the following additional standards:  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 3 3 of 12    (1)   No use shall be permitted which will produce electrical interference with radio communications  or radar operations at the Airport.  (2)   No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion with  airport lights.  (3)   No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the Airport.  (4)   All uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration, and  any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports.    At sketch, the Board requested that the applicant provide documentation of compliance from the  applicable regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones as part of their final plat  application.  The applicant has not provided this information.    3. Staff recommend the Board request documentation of compliance with these criteria, in particular  the potential for obstruction of aerial approaches to the Airport, prior to concluding the application.      6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts    A.  Site plan or PUD review required. Development according to industrial and airport district  regulations shall be subject to site plan or planned unit development review    Site plan standards are addressed below.    B.  Multiple structures and uses permitted. Multiple structures, multiple uses within  structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board  determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth.    Staff considers this criterion met.  C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation  (1)  Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the  presence  of  sidewalks  or  recreation  paths,  and  residences  lying  within  walking  distance  (defined  as  no  further  than  one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of  these  districts).  Any  requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by  permanent  legal  agreements acceptable to the City Attorney.  (2)  Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible.  (3)  Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number  of curb cuts onto the public roadway.  (4)  Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.  The proposed facility will displace 112 parking spaces from the lot accessed via White Street.  Staff  considers that though there are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs, previous  applications rely on a parking needs assessment to demonstrate that there are sufficient parking  spaces to accommodate the demand generated by the uses present on the airport property.  At  Sketch, the applicant described where the displaced vehicles will park.  As part of this application,  the applicant has submitted a narrative and plan showing what they described at sketch.  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 4 4 of 12    4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they find the submitted documentation sufficient to  demonstrate compliance with these criteria or whether they will require the applicant submit an  update to their parking needs assessment.    D.   Buffer strip. Properties in the Airport, Mixed Industrial Commercial, Industrial Open Space  and Airport Industrial districts that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along  the abutting line, as per Section 3.06(I) (buffers).    Staff considers this criterion not applicable due to the Project’s location within the interior of the  airport property.    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    14.06 General Standards    A.  Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due  attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies  for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.    The project consists of a replacement of structure associated with an existing use which is proposed to  continue. The project is located within the Northeast Quadrant in the Plan. Staff considers this criterion  to be met.  B.  Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.  (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 applicant submitted renderings showing that the proposed building will be white with brick  pillasters and green accents.  The fueling canopy is proposed to be white.  At sketch, the Board did  not specifically consider the transition between structures and between structure and site.  Staff has  included a screen capture showing the appearance of the adjacent parking garage to allow the Board  to evaluate this criterion.    5. Staff recommends the Board consider the transitions from structure to site and from structure to  structure based on the provided renderings.      Based on the provided site plan, it appears pedestrian access to the facility will be only via the north  end using an existing sidewalk which connects to the White Street parking lot.  No pedestrian facilities  are apparent at the south end of the lot connecting to the terminal or to the parking garage where  rental cars are stored when they are not using the proposed facility.      6. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require pedestrian access between the south end of  the proposed facility and the terminal or parking garage.    (2)   Parking:  (a)   Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 5 5 of 12  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) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with  Disabilities Act;  (ii) – (vii) N/A  Staff considers that no parking is proposed to be closer to the street (Airport Drive) than exists today.   Staff considers this criterion met.  C.   Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.  (1)   The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common  materials  and  architectural  characteristics  (e.g.,  rhythm,  color,  texture,  form  or  detailing),  landscaping,  buffers,  screens  and  visual  interruptions  to  create  attractive  transitions  between  buildings of different architectural styles.  (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.  7. As alluded to above, the Board did not consider these criteria at sketch and recommends the Board  consider them as part of this hearing.  14.07 Specific Review Standards    A.  Access to Abutting Properties. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve  general access and circulation in the area.    A new internal access drive connecting the White Street Lot to the main airport driveway is proposed.  No  additional roads or driveways are proposed.  Staff considers this connection as addressing this criterion,  and considers this criterion met.    B.  Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections  shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility  installations  remaining  above  ground  shall  be  located  so  as  to have  a  harmonious  relation  to  neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.    Utility connections are proposed to be underground.  Staff considers this criterion met.      C.  Disposal  of  Wastes.  All  dumpsters  and  other  facilities  to  handle  solid  waste,  including  compliance with any recycling, composting, 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).  Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall  not be required to be fenced or screened.    The applicant is proposing a screened dumpster enclosure at the northwest corner of the facility.  Staff  considers this criterion met.  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 6 6 of 12    D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and  Street Trees.  13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees    A.   Purpose. The City of South Burlington recognizes the importance of trees, vegetation, and well‐ planned green spaces in bringing nature into the city and using these as a resource in promoting the  health, safety, and welfare of city residents through improved drainage, water supply recharge,  flood control, air quality, sun control, shade, and visual relief. Landscaping and screening shall be  required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. Street tree planting  shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. In evaluating  landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall  promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species.   In making its decisions, the Development Review Board may refer to the Vermont Tree Selection  Guide,  published  by  the  Vermont  Urban  &  Community  Forestry  Program  and/or  the  recommendation  of the City Arborist.   Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and  screening is required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. The  minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington  Land Development Regulations.  The total cost of the building is estimated at $3,829,000 by the  applicant.    13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas  Staff considers that while the interior of the proposed facility is designed as a vehicle staging area and  focuses on the movement of vehicles (as opposed to the parking of vehicles), there are two areas on  the southwestern side (19 spaces) and the northeastern side (15 spaces) which are configured as  vehicle parking areas for which these standards should apply.  (1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,  shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to  allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of  the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide  shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for  surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants  that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.    Staff considers this criterion met for the southwestern parking  area.    Staff  considers  constraints of federal regulations appear to preclude compliance with this standard for the  northeastern parking area, and considers the Board may grant relief from this standard as a  PUD.    (2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or  in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the  interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other  plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking.    #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 7 7 of 12  8. Staff considers the applicant should provide interior parking islands for these two areas.  Staff  considers for the purpose of this standard could be met by replacing four (4) parking spaces of  the total 34 with vegetated islands.    (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed  as  a  collection  and  treatment  area  for  management  of  stormwater  runoff  as  per  13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet  on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large  islands are encouraged.   Curbing is proposed where the parking areas abut vegetated areas.  Staff considers this  criterion met, but that demonstration of compliance with this criterion should be reevaluated  against any required plan modifications.  (4)   Landscaping Requirements   (a)   Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All  planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or  salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.   (b)   At  least  one  (1)  major  deciduous  shade  tree  shall  be  provided  within  or  near  the  perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly  throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum  of thirty (30) feet apart.  (c)   Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when  measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.  The proposed perimeter trees are called out as having a caliper between 2” and 2.5”.  Staff  recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the landscaping plan to require a  minimum of 2.5” caliper.    13.06G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require  minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. In evaluating landscaping  requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than  tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.    Table 13‐9 (modified to include project calculations)  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% $33,290   Minimum Landscaping $  $45,790   Proposed Landscaping  $45,810    The applicant’s calculation of proposed landscaping value only includes landscaping that is proposed  to be planted along the north side of White Street and along the west side of Airport Drive.  They  have also submitted a planting plan for around the proposed facility, for which they have not  provided a schedule of values.    At sketch plan, the Board indicated they would like to understand whether the LDR allowed  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 8 8 of 12  landscaping to be located off of the immediate airport property.  Staff considers the Board has made  this interpretation for a larger version of this same project in the past, but has not made this  interpretation on other projects.  There do not appear to be specific provisions with in the LDRs  prohibiting it.  Several sections of 13.06 pertain to the distribution of landscaping, specifically by  requiring landscaping of parking areas, screening and buffering, and landscaping of front yards of  non‐residential and multi‐family uses.      9. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the proposed off‐site landscaping  adequately meets the purpose of the landscaping standards, stated in 13.06A, and the other  required elements of 13.06, with a large portion of the landscaping located off the airport property.      10. Section 13.06C requires screening along lot lines where a commercial district abuts a residential  district.  Staff considers this standard applicable for two reasons.  First, there is no exception to this  rule where a commercial district abuts undeveloped residential lots.  Second, Staff recommends the  Board discuss whether this standard allows a portion of the required landscape budget to be planted  in the locations proposed by the applicant as screening.    11. If the Board determines it will accept the applicant’s proposed landscape plan, Staff recommends the  Board require the applicant to provide an estimated value of the on‐site landscaping for inclusion in  the required landscape bond, as Staff assumes the on‐site landscaping will enter into the Board’s  consideration of whether the purposes of the landscaping section are met.    The City Arborist reviewed the plans on February 22, 2019 and offers the following additional  comments.   Tree Protection specifications look good but trees to be protected should be designated  on the plans   Areas that are to be planted that are currently under pavement will require  decompaction and either soil amendment or soil replacement to a depth of 2.5 ft. to  support tree growth   Planting Norway and White Spruce on 10 ft centers is very tight spacing unless they are  intended to be maintained as a hedge   Along White St it looks like trees are being planted under the crown of existing trees but  there is no indication if removal of the existing trees is planned    12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the landscape  arborist prior to closing the hearing.  Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify  whether trees along White Street are proposed to be removed to allow planting of new trees, and  that the Board not consider replacement trees as counting towards the required minimum landscape  budget.    E.  Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the  limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and  waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board  may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive  Plan are met. However,  in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five  (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a  total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new  development,  or  increasing  the  coverage  on  sites  where  the  pre‐existing  condition  exceeds  the  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 9 9 of 12  applicable limit.    Setback and site coverage requirements are unchanged.  Staff considers this criterion met.    F.  Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site  disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other  techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying  soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required  pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.  LID practices are not proposed.  The Stormwater Section reviewed the application on February 12, 2019  and has no concerns.  The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent indicates that while the applicant has  reduced  the  amount  of  impervious  compared  to  the  previously  approved  plan,  the  have  kept  the  previously approved stormwater system, in case they increase the amount of impervious on the site at a  future point in time.  Staff considers this criterion met.    G.  Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for  Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.    Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general  standards for all PUDs.    (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the  project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City  water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit  from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    The proposed car wash and fuel facility is proposed to replace an existing car wash and fuel  facility.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and  wastewater allocation prior to recording the mylar, and to obtain final water and wastewater  allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit, or to certify in writing  that no additional flows are proposed.      13. The Director of public works reviewed the provided oil‐water separator design and requests the  Board require the applicant to provide an operation and maintenance plan for the separator and  include as a condition of approval the following:    The applicant shall comply with the O&M plan for the car wash’s oil/grease separator and keep  all files and annual inspection reports on record for inspection.    (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized 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 DRB  may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for  Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.    The project will disturb greater than one acre of land.  The applicant has provided erosion  prevention and sediment control plans (Sheets C‐701, C‐702 and C‐703).      #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 10 10 of 12  14. Staff notes the provided plans omit tree protection for the existing trees to be preserved within  the limits of disturbance, and recommends the Board require the applicant to amend their plan  to address tree protection.    (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to  prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB 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.    As discussed above, the Applicant is proposing to add a connection from the existing White  Street parking lot to the main airport driveway.  No changes to trip generation are proposed.   Staff considers this criterion met.    (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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these  Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural  Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.    The project is proposed to be constructed on existing impervious surfaces.  No natural resource  impacts are anticipated.  Staff considers this criterion met.     (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.    See discussion of visual compatibility with existing structures above under site plan review  standards.  Staff considers the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the  zoning district.      (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 project will not affect open space areas.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to  insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval  including, but not be 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. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed  and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.    The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 3/12/2019 and notes that fire apparatus can’t make the  turn into the southern entrance.  He further notes that the applicant needs to motorize the gate  and place an Opticom system.      15. Staff recommends the Board require fire access be adequately addressed prior to closing the  hearing, as the means of addressing the southern entrance configuration may vary.  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 11 11 of 12  (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 properties.    No changes to roads are proposed.  Sidewalks are addressed above.  Stormwater is addressed  above.  Staff considers this criterion will be met when other concerns discuss above are met.     (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, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council.    Based on submitted materials, lights within the private property will be downcast, shielded, and  less than 30‐ft in height.  No changes to public infrastructure are proposed.  Staff considers this  criterion met.      (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for  the affected district(s).    A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review  standards above.     (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and  integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to  generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and  groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.    The project slightly reduces lot coverage.  The Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on  February 22, 2019 and has no concerns.  OTHER    13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage    For this use, the applicant is required to provide one short term bicycle parking space for every 5,000  gross square feet of building area, or a minimum of four.  Staff considers the Board is able to apply this  standard to just the proposed facility and not to the overall airport PUD.  The proposed facility involves a  7,990 sf proposed building and a 800 sf existing building to be retained.  Therefore the minimum number  of short term bicycle parking spaces is four, the minimum number of long term bicycle parking spaces is  two, and the minimum number of clothes lockers is one.  At the time of the first site plan application, the  applicant must provide at least 50% of the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle  racks must meet the minimum spacing and siting standards of LDR Section 13.14B(2).  The applicant will  be required to place the remainder of the required short‐term bicycle parking spaces as part of their next  site plan approval.    16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plan to provide at least two short term  bicycle parking spaces for the proposed facility and demonstrate compliance with the long term and  clothes locker requirements by providing a floor plan showing their location.  Staff recommends the  #SD‐19‐07  Staff Comments 12 12 of 12  Board consider whether they would allow the long term and clothes locker requirements to be met in  the existing building to be retained (and renovated).      Snow Storage    Snow storage for the facility is proposed to be located off‐site at a nearby parking lot off Airport Dr.  Staff  has no concerns with this proposal.      RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicants to address the issues identified herein.     Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  Introduction The WST LED is designed with the specifier in mind. The traditional, trapezoidal shape offers a soft, non-pixilated light source for end-user visual comfort. For emergency egress lighting, the WST LED offers six battery options, including remote. For additional code compliance and energy savings, there is also a Bi-level motion sensor option. With so many standard and optional features, three lumen packages, and high LPW, the WST LED is your “go to” luminaire for most any application. NOTES 1 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with photocell (PE), fusing (SF, DF), or dual switching (DS). 2 Top conduit entry standard. 3 Not available with BBW. 4 Not available with PE, PER, PER5, PER7, VG or WG. 5 Not available with MVOLT option. Button photocell (PE) can be ordered with a dedicated voltage option. Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277 or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires 208, 240 or 480 voltage option.” 6 Not available with E7WH, E7WC, E7WHR, E20WC, E20WH, or E23WHR. Used with inverter system. Not available with 347/480V. Not available with PE, PER, PER5 & PER7. 7 Not available with 347/480V. 8 Battery pack rated for -20° to 40°C. 9 Comes with PBBW. 10 Warranty period is 3-years. WST LED Series Performance Package Color temperature Distribution Voltage Mounting Options Finish (required) WST LED P1 1,500 Lumen package P2 3,000 Lumen package P3 6,000 Lumen package 27K 2700 K 30K 3000 K 40K 4000 K 50K 5000 K VF Visual comfort forward throw VW Visual comfort wide MVOLT 1 120 1 208 1 240 1 277 1 347 480 Shipped included (blank)Surface mounting bracket Shipped separately BBW Surface-mounted back box PBBW Premium surface- mounted back box2 LCE Left side conduit entry3 RCE Right side conduit entry3 PE Photoelectric cell, button type PER NEMA twist-lock receptacle only PER5 Five-wire receptacle only PER7 Seven-wire receptacle only PIR Motion/Ambient Light Sensor, 8-15' mounting height4 PIR1FC3V Motion/ambient sensor, 8-15' mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 1fc4 PIRH 180° motion/ambient light sensor, 15-30' mounting height4 PIRH1FC3V Motion/ambient sensor, 15-30' mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 1fc4 SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V)5 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V)5 DS Dual switching6 E7WH Emergency battery backup (7W)7 E7WC Emergency battery backup (cold, 7W)7,8 E7WHR Remote emergency battery backup (remote 7W)7,9 E20WH Emergency battery backup (20W)7,10 E20WC Emergency battery backup (cold, 20W)7,8,10 E23WHR Remote emergency battery backup (remote 20W)7,9 Shipped separately RBPW Retrofit back plate VG Vandal guard WG Wire guard DDBXD Dark bronze DBLXD Black DNAXD Natural aluminum DWHXD White DSSXD Sandstone DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DBLBXD Textured black DNATXD Textured natu- ral aluminum DWHGXD Textured white DSSTXD Textured sandstone WST LED Architectural Wall Sconce Luminaire Ordering Information EXAMPLE: WST LED P1 40K VF MVOLT DDBTXD Catalog Number Notes Type Height:8-1/2” (21.59 cm) Width:17” (43.18 cm) Depth:10-3/16” (25.9 cm) Weight: 20 lbs(9.1 kg) One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2016 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. Optional Back Box (BBW) Height:4” (10.2 cm) Width:5-1/2” (14.0 cm) Depth:1-1/2” (3.8 cm) Specifications WST-LED Rev. 06/21/16 4.45 3.0 DFOR 3/4" NPTSIDE-ENTRY H W FOR 1/4"MOUNTINGBOLTS H One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com © 2011-2015 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSX1-LED Rev. 10/27/15 Page 1 of 4 D-Series Size 1LED Area Luminaire Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The modern styling of the D-Series is striking yet unobtrusive - making a bold, progressive statement even as it blends seamlessly with its environment. The D-Series distills the benefits of the latest in LED technology into a high performance, high efficacy, long-life luminaire. The outstanding photometric performance results in sites with excellent uniformity, greater pole spacing and lower power density. It is ideal for replacing 100 – 400W metal halide in pedestrian and area lighting applications with typical energy savings of 65% and expected service life of over 100,000 hours. Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. L H L H WW Ordering Information EXAMPLE: DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T3M MVOLT SPA DDBXD DSX1LED Series LEDs Drive current Color temperature Distribution Voltage Mounting DSX1 LED Forward optics 30C 30 LEDs (one engine) 40C 40 LEDs (two engines) 60C 60 LEDs (two engines) Rotated optics 1 60C 60 LEDs (two engines) 530 530 mA 700 700 mA 1000 1000 mA (1 A) 30K 3000 K 40K 4000 K 50K 5000 K AMBPC Amber phosphor converted 2 T1S Type I Short T2S Type II Short T2M Type II Medium T3S Type III Short T3M Type III Medium T4M Type IV Medium TFTM Forward Throw Medium T5VS Type V Very Short T5S Type V Short T5M Type V Medium T5W Type V Wide MVOLT 3 120 3 208 3 240 3 277 3 347 4 480 4 Shipped included SPA Square pole mounting RPA Round pole mounting WBA Wall bracket SPUMBA Square pole universal mounting adaptor 5 RPUMBA Round pole universal mounting adaptor 5 Shipped separately KMA8 DDBXD U Mast arm mounting bracket adaptor (specify finish) 6 Specifications EPA:1.2 ft2 (0.11 m2) Length:33” (83.8 cm) Width:13” (33.0 cm) Height:7-1/2” (19.0 cm) Weight (max):27 lbs (12.2 kg) NOTES1 Rotated optics available with 60C only. 2 AMBPC only available with 530mA or 700mA. 3 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120V, 208V, 240V or 277V options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options). 4 Not available with single board, 530mA product (30C 530 or 60C 530 DS). Not available with BL30, BL50 or PNMT options. 5 Available as a separate combination accessory: PUMBA (finish) U; 1.5 G vibration load rating per ANCI C136.31. 6 Must be ordered as a separate accessory; see Accessories information. For use with 2-3/8” mast arm (not included). 7 Photocell ordered and shipped as a separate line item from Acuity Brands Controls. See accessories. Not available with DS option. 8 If ROAM® node required, it must be ordered and shipped as a separate line item from Acuity Brands Controls. Not available with DCR. 9 DMG option for 347V or 480V requires 1000mA. 10 Specifies a ROAM® enabled luminaire with 0-10V dimming capability; PER option required. Additional hardware and services required for ROAM® deployment; must be purchased separately. Call 1-800-442-6745 or email: sales@roamservices.net. N/A with DS, PER5, PER7, BL30, BL50 or PNMT options. AccessoriesOrdered and shipped separately. For more control options, visit DTL and ROAM online. Controls & Shields DLL127F 1.5 JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (120-277V) 20 DLL347F 1.5 CUL JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (347V) 20 DLL480F 1.5 CUL JU Photocell - SSL twist-lock (480V) 20 SC U Shorting cap 20 DSX1HS 30C U House-side shield for 30 LED unit DSX1HS 40C U House-side shield for 40 LED unit DSX1HS 60C U House-side shield for 60 LED unit PUMBA DDBXD U*Square and round pole universal mounting bracket (specify finish) KMA8 DDBXD U Mast arm mounting bracket adaptor (specify finish) 6 11 Requires 40C or 60C. Provides 50/50 luminaire operation via two independent drivers on two separate circuits. N/A with PER, DCR, WTB, PIR or PIRH. 12 Requires an additional switched circuit. 13 PIR and PIR1FC3V specify the SensorSwitch SBGR-10-ODP control; PIRH and PIRH1FC3V specify the SensorSwitch SBGR-6-ODP control; see Motion Sensor Guide for details. Dimming driver standard. Not available with PER5 or PER7. Ambient sensor disabled when ordered with DCR. Separate on/off required. 14 Dimming driver standard. MVOLT only. Not available with 347V, 480V, DCR, DS, PER5, PER7 or PNMT options. 15 Dimming driver standard. MVOLT only. Not available with 347V, 480V, DCR, DS, PER5, PER7, BL30 or BL50. 16 Also available as a separate accessory; see Accessories information. 17 WTB not available with DS. 18 Single fuse (SF) requires 120V, 277V or 347V. Double fuse (DF) requires 208V, 240V or 480V. 19 Available with 60 LEDs (60C option) only. 20 Requires luminaire to be specified with PER option. Ordered and shipped as a separate line item from Acuity Brands Controls. Control options Other options Finish (required) Shipped installed PER NEMA twist-lock receptacle only (no controls) 7 PER5 Five-wire receptacle only (no controls) 7,8 PER7 Seven-wire receptacle only (no controls) 7,8 DMG 0-10V dimming driver (no controls) 9 DCR Dimmable and controllable via ROAM® (no controls) 10 DS Dual switching 11,12 PIR Motion/ambient sensor, 8-15’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 5fc 13 PIRH Motion/ambient sensor, 15-30’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 5fc 13 PIR1FC3V Motion/ambient sensor, 8-15’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 1fc13 PIRH1FC3V Motion/ambient sensor, 15-30’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 1fc13 BL30 Bi-level switched dimming, 30% 12,14 BL50 Bi-level switched dimming, 50% 12,14 PNMTDD3 Part night, dim till dawn 15 PNMT5D3 Part night, dim 5 hrs 15 PNMT6D3 Part night, dim 6 hrs 15 PNMT7D3 Part night, dim 7 hrs 15 Shipped installed HS House-side shield 16 WTB Utility terminal block 17 SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 18 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) 18 L90 Left rotated optics 19 R90 Right rotated optics 19 DDBXD Dark bronze DBLXD Black DNAXD Natural aluminum DWHXD White DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DBLBXD Textured black DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DWHGXD Textured white     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD              20 FEBRUARY 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20  February 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone),  M. Cota, B. Sullivan    ALSO PRESENT:  R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B.  Jakubowski, S. Tschorn, D. Penar, J. Unsworth, K. Cubino, A. Clayton, C. Galipeau, M. Koch, L.  DeMaroney, P. O’Leary, P. & M. Meyendorff, K. Mumma, K. & N. Van Woert, R. LaMothe, J. & B.  Darling, B. Currier, M. Saunders, L. Walker, G. Bruns, P. & J. Ewing, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, C.  Pierce, C. Snyder, B. Currier, B. Ducevich, M. Lacoch, M. McClary, C. Lumont, G. Lee      1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller 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:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐04 of Blue Dragonfly, LLC, and Antonio Pomerleau to  resubdivide 3 lots, 1519 and 1525 Shelburne Road and 5 Bartlett Bay Road:    Mr. Galipeau noted this is the first step to changing the uses on all three lots.  This had been a  PUD but was taken out of a PUD.  Mr. Galipeau identified the 3 lots as The Magic Hat Brewery  Lot (lot #1), the existing Jiffy Lube/Martin’s Coins lot (lot #2), and an unoccupied lot (lot #3).  He  noted that Magic Hat is interested in using the unoccupied lot, which is owned by Pomerleau,  to address an office need. To make that work, they need to combine lots.  This will also result in  a walking trail between the upper and lower lots.  Mr. Galipeau identified the areas being  transferred between lots and showed the plan for the additional parking.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 2        Mr. Galipeau showed where there will be a “jog” to address frontage.    Members questioned  whether the boundary line adjustment creates a side yard setback issue with the Magic Hat  parking lot.  Mr. Belair explained that there is no required setback from a parking lot, but the  Board usually asked for 5 feet for snow storage.  Mr. Galipeau suggested a permanent snow  storage easement on Lot #2.  Mr. Belair was OK with this.    Mr. Miller asked whether the parking requirement will be met.  Ms. Keene said staff still needs  to review this.  Mr. Galipeau noted that Jiffy Lube will maintain all of its spaces.  All the rest of  the parking will be for lot #3 and will be striped.  Mr. Galipeau stressed that there is no  intention to drive between the two parcels.    Mr. Kochman asked about access to lot #3.  Mr. Galipeau said 99% will be through lot #2.  He  indicated the curb cut for that access.  The egress will be signed for a right turn only.    6. Continued preliminary plat application #SD‐17‐29 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 to 142 units.  The 142 units will consist of 66 single‐  family lots, 46 units in two 2‐family dwellings and 30 units in three 3‐units multi‐family  dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road:    Mr. O’Leary reviewed the changes since the last hearing as follows:    a. Connection to Aurora Rd./Sommerfield  b. Increased road width to 26 feet in front of units  c. Revised intersections for pedestrian crossings  d. Reduced footprints of the duplexes along the west stormwater pond  e. Removed park “E”  f. Provided plantings  g. Revised the rec path to be cross‐country from Russett Road to Aurora Road  (Mr. O’Leary showed the new route on the plan)    Staff notes were then reviewed as follows:    1. The applicant was OK with TDR notification  2. The applicant indicated that the area formerly occupied by park “E” will not be  developed in the future.  3. The issue of boulders may need to be reviewed.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 3        4. An agreement has been reached with the stormwater section to address this concern.   Mr. O’Leary said he thought the City was being overly picky about stormwater when  they have a state stormwater permit.    5. Side‐loaded garages will be on end units only.  These were indicated on the plan.    6. Mr. O’Leary explained that in order to make the road work, they have to raise the road,  which subsequently raises the homes.  Ms. Keen clarified that staff is asking them to  grade out more gradually rather than putting home on a “platform.”  Mr. O’Leary said  they have provided an existing grade for every lot.  Mr. Kochman questioned how you  can call something “pre‐existing” that isn’t “pre‐existing.”  Ms. Keene explained that  there is an “alteration of grade” permit.  The DRB can keep the existing grade or allow a  new grade to be the existing grade going forward.  Staff has asked the applicant to  “meet in the middle” somewhere, but they haven’t arrived at an answer yet.  Mr. Belair  further explained that not every project can work with the existing grade.  Ms. Keene  said staff feels the road can be raised without raising the buildings.  They prefer a more  gradual slope.  Mr. O’Leary said they will look at that.  He stressed that when done, all  the houses will be at the same elevation.    7. The Board was OK with the proposed landscaping.  Mr. Currier showed where additional  landscaping has been provided around the units.  Landscaping around the perimeters  will be managed by an Association, so they have provided boulders and a split rail fence  in place of some landscaping.      8. Parkland will be kept in its natural state without playgrounds.  Mr. Kochman was not OK  with this.  Mr. O’Leary said that in a number of their projects, the Homeowners  Associations have asked to remove playground equipment because of the cost of  insurance and maintenance.  Mr. Kochman felt that families with children should have  amenities, even a couple of benches, not just bare grass.  Mr. O’Leary said they can  provide some benches.    9. Mr. O’Leary said they will demarcate open spaces.    10. The Board was OK with proposed street trees.    11. Mr. Wilking did not feel there should be a mid‐block pedestrian bump out on the main  road because of the volume of traffic.  Mr. O’Leary agreed but said they would put it  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 4      back if the city wants it.  The Board also favored narrowing the mid‐block crossing on  Senator Street.    12. The Board was OK with the proposed rec path configuration.    13. Sizing of drainage structures will be addressed at final plat.    14. Covered under the grading discussion.    15. Open space plans will be incorporated into the Homeowners documents.    Mr. Miller noted that there are competing petitions from residents, one favoring the extension  of Cider Mill Drive, the other opposing its extension.    Mr. Kochman said he supports extending the road because residents believed it was a “given”  when they bought their homes.  He also was not convinced by the traffic study regarding traffic  coming through the inner streets.      Mr. Cota said he was never informed of the road extension when he signed for his house.    Ms. Cubino said she was told in 2015 by the developer that the road would be extended when  the next phase of development came in.  She said she chose a home where there would be less  traffic once Sommerfield was completed.  No time‐line was given for extension of the road.    She said the road extension is a “high priority” for most residents.  Mr. Miller said the opposing  petition says the road would benefit only a minority or residents.    Mr. Kochman was concerned that the Board does not have the written report of the traffic  consultant hired by residents.    Mr. O’Leary noted that once a 50th unit is built, they will have to have a second connection  open.    Mr. Sullivan said he is leaning toward requiring an independent traffic study/technical review to  help the Board make the right decision for everyone.  Mr. Kochman said he was OK with that  but still wanted to hear directly from the residents’ consultant.    Mr. Miller said he favors technical review and would like the following questions be considered  a. Use of 2000 census data as opposed to 2010  b. Information on whether the conection is warranted  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 5      c. More accurate representation of where the traffic is going – is everyone going to  Shelburne Road and no one to Montpelier?    Mr. Cota moved to invoke technical review on Application #SD‐17‐29.  Mr. Wilking seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    Public comment was then heard as follows:    Ms. Cubino was concerned with the lost value to 22 homes when they are impacted by  additional traffic.    Mr. Meyendorff asked for additional landscaping between his home and the bike path.  Mr.  O’Leary said they can provide a hedge.    Ms. Bruns said she was never told the connection was possible.    Mr. Darling said they were told there would be a connection.    Ms. Van Woert said she felt the “bike path to nowhere” doesn’t make sense.  She also said they  were told the connection would be for emergency vehicles only and that any more  development was “very far in the future.”  She supports natural resources over a bike path.    Ms. Bronze agreed and said they were told the land was only for conservation and would not be  developed.  Mr. Cota noted that if the property north of the solar panels is ever developed, the  road has to be put in.    Mr. Miller stressed that the DRB is not bound by what residents were told by developers.    Mr. Kochman said that just looking at the plan, the road “begs for completion.”  He felt it was a  given that the road would be built.  He agreed with Mr. Miller that the Board cannot consider  what people were told by salesmen.    Ms. Penar felt there should be a safer bike path connection at the cul‐de‐sac on Sommerfield  rather than between two houses.    Mr. Van Woert was concerned with east‐west traffic at higher speeds.  He felt it is dangerous  now with people crossing to check the mail.  He didn’t want to see a “drag strip.”    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 6      Mr. Kochman asked if traffic calming is appropriate on that road.  Mr. Belair said that is a City  Council decision.    Ms. Meyendoff asked for more landscaping near the wildlife corridor.  Mr. Miller noted that  originally it was to be a park, but the public wanted it left wild, so it will be.  Mr. O’Leary said  they will put no landscaping there.    Mr. Miller directed attention to an elevation and a comment from Mr. Behr about the unbroken  roof over the garages.  Mr. O’Leary said they will look at that.    As there were no further public comments, Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐17‐29.  Mr. Wilking  seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    7. Continued Master Plan Application #MP‐17‐02 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a  previously approved master plan for a 258 unit planned unit development in two  phases.  The amendment consists of revising the roadway layout in Phase II (City Mill  II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 to 142 units, 1580 Dorset  Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road:    Ms. Smith left the meeting.    Mr. Belair explained the master plan process.    Mr. Miller noted the applicant is at 29% of total coverage which is below the maximum allowed.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close MP‐17‐02.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    8. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐02 of John & Joyce Belter to subdivide a 286 acre lot  developed with a farm into two lots of 3.57 acres (Lot #1) and 282.43 acres (Lot #2),  115 Ethan Allen Drive:    Ms. Clayton noted the location of the Belter Farm and noted that there is a farm property and a  home property.  The subdivision would be to the farm property and would be for Green  Mountain Power.  The leftover piece would be combined with the home property.        DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 7      Mr. Jacobowski said the Green Mountain Power piece would be 4 acres, and the farm would be  282 acres.  They did not calculate the home acreage.  Mr. Miller noted that the home property  would now be separated from the farm by the Green Mountain Power property.    Mr. Jacobowski explained that Green Mountain Power is looking at other sites, and the Belter  property is not the preferred site.  However, they need to go through this process to ensure  they have a viable site.  If they get the preferred site (also in South Burlington), they will  probably withdraw this application.    Mr. Jacobowski indicated an area that will be left undisturbed at the request of the Belters.  He  also explained how the substation would be “vetted” in a public process through the Public  Service Board.    Mr. LaMothe asked if the area east of the farm road will not be involved.  Mr. Jacobowski said it  will not be involved.    Mr. McClary noted there already is a substation at the end of Berard Drive and asked if that is  relevant.  Mr. Jacobowski said they substations are linked together.  The substation inside the  National Guard base, however, will go away.    Mr. Kochman asked if the road remains the same.  Mr. Jacobowski said it will be improved up to  where the power lines are.  The rest will stay as is.    Mr. Lee asked about zoning.  Ms. Clayton identified the residential and Mixed I‐C zoning areas.   Mr. Lee said he didn’t want any of the buffering destroyed.    Mr. Jacobowski again stressed that this is “Plan B.”    No further issues were raised.    9. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐05 of Peter Ewing to subdivide a 10.9 acre parcel into  two lots of 213 acres (Lot #1) and 8.77 acres (Lot #2), 133 Cheesefactory Lane:    Ms. Keene noted that the applicant is proposing a 2‐lot subdivision and a 4‐lot subdivision in  the Town of Shelburne.  The Shelburne application depends on access through South  Burlington.  The project is located in the NRP district and is only permissible with a conservation  plan approved by the DRB.  There are 2 homes proposed in South Burlington.  The existing     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 8      home is not subject to DRB approval, but the access road is.  Three homes will be built in  Shelburne.  The remaining 85 acres in Shelburne will be conserved.  The will be a building  envelope for the South Burlington homes.    Ms. Keene explained that the standard is for no more than 5 single family homes off a private  road.  Beyond that, it must be a public road.  Today, Cheesefactory is a public road which ends  at the Shelburne town line.  Beyond that, it is private with one home.  The applicant is  proposing 5 homes plus the existing home which would equal 6 homes off a private road.  Staff  feels that extending the pubic road is not in the city’s best interest, but it also makes sense to  support the regulations.  Ms. Keene then showed how that could work.    Mr. Kochman asked why it doesn’t matter that the 5 homes won’t be in South Burlington and  just ignore the homes in Shelburne.  Ms. Keene said the City Attorney felt the town line didn’t  make a difference.  Mr. Kochman said he didn’t agree.    Ms. Keene said the complication to what staff proposes is that the private road has to cross the  wetland.  The applicant has approval to do that, and the Fire Chief is OK with an 18‐foot road.   Keeping the road to 12 feet is not OK with the Fire Chief who has to protect those homes.  In  addition, the minimum standard on the public road segment is 25‐foot width, less than what is  there today.  There is also a request for a few spaces of parking for people maintaining the  conservation area, which would make the road 28 feet wide in that area.  Mr. Ewing read a  letter from John Binhammer that states they’d support a couple of spaces on a widened  roadways.    Mr. Kochman asked if the lots were for sale.  Mr. Ewing said the lots are for sale.      Mr. Kochman asked what parking is needed to make the conservation agencies happy and  asked if parking could be on private land.  Mr. Ewing said the City asked for public parking but  they’d rather put the parking on private land.     Mr. Kochman said he has a problem with conservation agencies sealing off properties without  access to the public.  Ms. Dopp said she expects the land trust will be using South Burlington  funds to cover a portion of the purchase and the City should defer to them to determine what  land is suitable for recreation.  Mr. Kochman said citizens of South Burlington will indirectly pay  to have this land in their midst that they can’t access. He felt that to be excluded was “galling.”   Mr. Ewing agreed to include a condition in the conservation agreement that says they cannot  post “no trespassing” signs in the right of way.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 9      Mr. Saunders indicated his house, immediately west of the property in question.  He was  pleased with the conservation effort but was concerned with the public road and with tree  removal.  He didn’t favor a public road or the proposed parking spaces which will require  widening the road.  He cited poor sight lines at the north end of the Cheesefactory Lane which  has resulted in accidents.  He noted that people from Fish and Game and UVM just come down  and park.  Mr. Saunders didn’t favor enhancing that.      Ms. Leduc member of the audience agreed with the unsafe conditions that now exist.  Mr.  Ewing noted that the road will have to be widened for 2 vehicles to pass, even if it is a private  road.    Mr. Cota asked if the sale to the conservancy is dependent on the parking space.  Mr. Ewing  said it is not.  He added that he had offered them space in the field, and they are fine with that.    Ms. Dopp made a pitch for creative, out‐of‐the box thinking and cited this as an opportunity to  conserve wonderful land.    The Board was OK with a waiver to a 20‐foot roadway. There is still a question as to whether  the Board can waive paving of a private road.     Mr. Wilking had an issue with the city maintaining a public road without a substantial tax  benefit to the city.    Mr. Pierce suggested the existing parking on Route 116 could suffice for the conservation  people.  Ms. Keene said staff did not contemplate parking on Route 116.    10. Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐01 of South Burlington City Center, LLC, to place  fill in wetland and wetland buffers and to clear trees within the wetland and wetland  buffers for the purpose of preparing the property for development, Market Street:    Mr. McKenzie reviewed the history and noted there are now permits from the Army Corps of  Engineers for mitigation of wetland impacts.  A water quality improvement project is being  created to treat untreated runoff from neighboring properties.    Mr. Snyder then showed a plan of the area and identified the primary Class 2 wetland area.   They have been working with the state regarding the desire for high‐impact development  there.  An area in the northwest corner of Garden Street will be preserved.  Adjacent to that  will be a stormwater basin.  The goal is to preserve Tributary 3 adjacent to Dumont Park.  Mr.  Snyder described this as a trade‐off process to allow for city plans for City Center.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  20 FEBRUARY 2018  PAGE 10        Ms. Dopp asked if the filled land would have an impact on footings, etc, for proposed buildings.   Mr. Snyder said it would not.    No issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close CU‐18‐01.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    11. Minutes of 6 February 2018:    Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 6 February 2018.  Mr. Kochman seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 11:20 p.m.            _____________________________________       Clerk     _____________________________________       Date