Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/10/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 April 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Klugo, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Hamlin, S. Chaney, J. & S. Jewitt 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Macdonald: The South Burlington Business Association (SBBA) met with the City Council a few weeks ago to discuss what SBBA might do for the city. There was discussion of forming a “sustainable economic development committee,” and the Council were receptive to that idea. Mr. Conner: Prior to next Monday’s City Council meeting (6 p.m.), there will be a celebration of the life of City Councilor Pat Nowak who passed away last week. The State will be doing new ortho-photography for Chittenden County beginning 11 April, weather permitting. This will provide better resolution than Google. On 23 May, VLCT will hold a workshop in Rutland for Planning Commissioners regarding legal issues in planning. A number of trees are being removed this week in association with approved projects. This includes the area of City Center along Market Street. Staff is discussion regularly scheduled community outreach, possibly quarterly “brown bag lunches.” A Planning Commission member representative should consider attending if that would work. There will be new bikes & bike racks in town as part of the Chittenden County “bike share” program. People can sign up and get a code to use to get a bike for a short trip. There will be over 100 bikes in the County, some of which will be electric-assist modified. 5. Initial review: requests to 1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset Street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential; 2) modify Official Map to indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel: Mr. Hamlin noted that only the center third of the parcel (identified on a map) is leased to the Golf Course. The request is to change the zoning for areas to the east and west of the Golf Course portion. Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the request and noted that at an earlier meeting the Commission had confirmed the zoning of the east and west portions of the property as Natural Resource Protection Zone (NRP). Following that decision, the applicant made a request to change the zoning. Mr. Hamlin said the intent is to make the zoning the same as that of the surrounding properties. He identified the location of an easement which would allow the connection of two pieces of road across the western portion of this property. Mr. Chaney noted the elevation changes and said that the higher land was traditionally kept for development. He said it is possible the zoning designation may have been an oversight, assuming all of the land was leased to the Golf Course. Mr. Riehle read a note from Commissioner Mittag who felt the entire parcel is in the NRP zone and the request should be denied. He also felt it is an important wildlife corridor. He also said the Official Map should not be modified because it is a ‘private arrangement.’ Mr. Riehle also read a letter from resident Roseann Greco requesting that the land not be rezoned. She cited the costs of sprawl. Mr. Riehle said he would just go with option #2, correcting the Official Map and not pursuing the zoning change. Mr. Gagnon asked how many acres are involved. Mr. Chaney said approximately a total of 25 for the 2 pieces. Mr. Gagnon noted the area is completely surrounded by development, so he wouldn’t have as much of an issue changing the zoning. He would support putting in on the Commission’s work plan. Mr. Macdonald said he understands Mr. Gagnon’s point but would be hesitant to change the zoning on NRP land in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) for fear of setting a precedent. He asked if there are other parcels in the city where this could become an issue. Mr. Conner said he would do some research on that. Mr. Klugo said this parcel is unique because it doesn’t follow natural contours. The question is how it ended up with the current zoning. Mr. Chaney said local residents have been going onto the property and cutting down trees, marking trails, etc., and creating their own “recreation area.” He was concerned with the liability that poses. Mr. Hamlin said the wildlife corridor would not be closed off. He also would not characterize the surrounding homes as “sprawl.” Zoning currently would allow the building of one house on the western property which would involve more disruption for sewer, water, etc. He felt that was not good planning. Mr. Klugo said he also questioned how the zoning ended up as it did. He would like to add it to the work plan and not close the door on the discussion. He also understood Mr. Macdonald’s concern with opening a “Pandora’s box.” Mr. Chaney said in his research he didn’t find any other parcels that would be in the same situation as most zoning in the city follows logical boundary lines. Members agreed to continue the discussion when there are more members present. Mr. Conner noted there will be an item on the workplan to update the Official City Map. There is a question of whether to indicate private entity lines, and the suggestion is to show no delineation of ownership. The map hasn’t been updated for more than 10 years. Members were OK with staff’s position on the Official Map. Mr. Hamlin noted that the southern road is now non-conforming. If it could be connected, that non-conformity would disappear. The city also has a goal of connecting neighborhoods which would happen if that road could be connected. Mr. Jewitt asked staff to be sure to follow up on how many other parcels could be similarly affected. The owners of those parcels should also be specifically invited to attend that discussion. 6. Review and consider approval of Library/City Hall/Community Center Purpose & Need: Mr. Klugo noted that his company has been short-listed on this project, so he will remain silent. He felt there should be no action at this meeting as any action with only four members present would require a vote from him. Mr. Riehle said he felt Mr. Klugo could ask questions but supported his not voting on any action. Ms. Blanchard said the project proposed to build a Library/City Hall/Community Center on half an acre on Market Street. There have been numerous public input meetings, and architects have been reaching out to stakeholders. A purpose and needs statement has been drafted and the Library portion of it has been approved by the Library Board of Trustees. The project will include the following: a. Space for a senior center b. Public space c. Meeting spaces d. Space for “lifelong learning” e. An anchor for City Center f. Space for book collections g. Quality pubic services h. Improved efficiency/sustainability in a way that can’t occur with current facilities The City has signed a Letter of Intent to purchase the property adjacent to the new Cathedral Square housing project. Ms. Blanchard identified the property on a map and indicated a new street as well. The proposed building will be approximately 45,000 sq. ft. on three floors. Parking will be considered as part of a different project. Mr. Riehle noted that with the construction of Market Street and 2 buildings going up, there will be a lot of chaos. Ms. Blanchard said parts of Market Street will not be a through street. Allard Square is slated to open in November, and the intent is to open the City Hall/Library in 2020. Mr. Klugo asked the status of the adjacent school-owned property. Mr. Conner said the City has a Letter of Intent to purchase a small piece of the school-owned land. This is currently under discussion at the School Board. Ms. Blanchard said the City will work to be sure the school still has the same functionality on their property. Ms. Blanchard then explained the TIF funding for the project. A bond will be presented to public vote in November. Mr. Klugo suggested looking for more tie-ins to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner suggested “life‐long learning” and “efficiency.” Mr. Riehle asked if there will be outdoor public space (e.g., sitting area). Ms. Blanchard showed concepts of a plaza area in front of the building. There will also be terraces and a green roof and a large indoor lobby. Mr. Riehle asked if a small coffee shop might be included. Ms. Blanchard said there is nothing to preclude that. Mr. Riehle asked if the project is ‘on schedule.’ Ms. Blanchard said it is. The project could proceed without the school land, even though it is felt to be important. Members were OK with the Purpose and Needs statement. Mr. Conner suggested bringing it back for action at the next meeting and adding more referenced to the Comprehensive Plan. Members agreed. 7. Review draft modifications to Form Based Code T4 District Regulations: Heights and applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District: Mr. Conner reviewed the history noting that the Commission wanted the buffer not to be applicable to highway ramps. They also wanted to see a 5-story building with the 5th story set back (similar to the T5 district). The question is what happens to the side of the building facing the Interstate. There is an exemption from all standards except for the number of windows and the need for architectural variation (building breaks). Mr. Klugo suggested treating that building side as a “front” but with no primary entrance. It could have a secondary entrance. He suggested requiring everything but allowing a pathway for standards they can’t meet. Mr. Klugo said this intersection is the gateway to South Burlington, and he wanted to be sure the building is nothing less than a “gateway.” Mr. Conner showed some possible building concepts. One question is where to measure the 5th story setback from. Mr. Klugo said he wasn’t sure there is a benefit to setting the 5th floor back. He suggested just pushing the glass back and having a seating area there. Mr. Conner showed a concept similar to that idea. He suggested possibly requiring a 5th floor setback at a “gateway” replacing it with a “special feature.” Mr. Gagnon said he agreed with Mr. Klugo: require everything but allow for exemptions. Mr. Klugo asked the goal of item #1d. Mr. Conner said it is to be sure that properties that back onto Barrett Street don’t get a 5th story. Mr. Klugo suggested doing a shadow study or a percentage coverage from the 5th floor. Mr. Conner noted that where this would apply there are single family homes behind the potential buildings. Mr. Klugo suggested just prohibiting a 5-story building within 150 feet of an R-4 district. Staff will continue to work on concepts. 8. Burlington International Airport Noise Compatibility Plan possible element summary: Mr. Gagnon noted that his company does a lot of work for the Airport, so he would not provide much comment. Mr. Conner explained that there are 2 “buckets” into which noise is dealt with. The first is to take down the affected home(s). The second is to get money to adapt homes for noise mitigation in order to support the continued existence of the neighborhood. With the second option, there are then 3 categories of things that can be done: a. Sound barriers (e.g., walls): staff has been told these are most effective next to the source of the noise or next to the noise recipient. In this case, most of the noise in generated when military planes leave the ground. b. Programs that result in the house being insulated for noise: “Purchase Assurance”: Under this arrangement, a home could be sold to the Airport. The Airport would then insulate the home to a standard that lowers the noise impact. The home would then be put back on the market. Or, Insulating the home for the existing owner. c. Programs that provide one‐time financial compensation: “Sales Assistance: Under this arrangement, a seller who cannot sell their home at fair market value can gain compensation for the difference, up to an amount. And finally a program where the homeowner is compensated for allowing an “avigation easement” to be placed over the property. The problem is that such houses are deemed to have had “mitigation” and no further investment is possible. What is needed now is community conversation as to what types of programs people want for this area. The City Council is looking to survey the community to see what people have to say. Mr. Macdonald said he would want to see as much of the housing as possible remain in place. Mr. Conner noted that the Energy Committee has been exploring options to provide a double benefit when homes are being insulated for sound to also improve energy efficiency as well with partners such as Efficiency Vermont (as FAA funds may only be used for sound insulation, not thermal insulation). Mr. Conner also noted that mitigation plans are on hold until the new noise maps are completed. Mr. Klugo asked why there isn’t a “business requirement” for sound barriers as there is for other businesses. It was noted that the Airport is exempt from the city’s noise ordinance. Mr. Conner added that except for the military planes, the rest of the Airport noise is below the requirement for mitigation. The first draft of the updated Noise Exposure Maps is due in September. The study will be based on computer modeling, not utilizing actual flights here. The Noise Compatibility Plan, current under development but on pause, will be picked back up when the draft Noise Exposure Maps are completed. 9. Discuss Structure for Review of 2018-2019 Work Plan: Mr. Conner said he has heard from a couple of Commissioners that it is hard to get a handle on the 85 things on the “to do” list, so staff is considering possibly sorting items by themes and also bringing some draft recommendations on priorities. Commissioners agreed. 10. Recent Development Summary: Mr. Conner outlined some recently approved/started development in the City including: Fayette Road, wetland (class 3) impacts related to City Center (the State and Feds have already dealt with class1 & 2), Quarry Hill buildings adjacent to the Interstate ramp (80 dwelling units, of which 15% will be affordable, plus commercial space in the FBC zone, Golf Course subdivision based on the Supreme Court decision and landswap with the city, South Village (60 new homes), and the Airport hotel adjacent to the south side of the parking garage. 11. Other Business: a. Petition of Verizon Wireless requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission: Mr. Conner noted there is still an effort to get some street trees in conjunction with this item. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner will notify members if there will not be a needed quorum for the meeting of 24 April. 12. Meeting Minutes of 27 March 2018: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 27 March 2018 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:58 p.m. Minutes approved by Planning Commission April 24, 2018 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 Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Initial review: requests to (1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset street from SEQ- Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential (2) modify Official Map to indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel; Rick Hamlin (7:20 pm) See enclosed memo. It is the same as with the prior agenda packets. 6. Review and consider approval of Library / City Hall / Community Center Purpose & Need (7:35 pm) See the enclosed draft Purpose and Need Statement. As with past projects, it is the City’s policy to have the Planning Commission consider and ultimately approve a Purpose and Need Statement for larger projects / project studies. Commissioners are welcome to propose amendments. Note, however, the elements related to the Library have been approved previously by the Library Board. 7. Review draft modifications to Form Based Code T4 District Regulations – Heights and applicability of Interstate Highway Overlay District (7:50 pm) See the closed draft amendments to the FBC based on the Commission’s input at its February 27th meeting. 8. Burlington International Airport Noise Compatibility Plan possible element summary (8:05 pm) Enclosed are the Technical Memos provided by the Airport’s consultants over the past few months to the “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC). The TAC includes representatives from various airport operations / users as well as nearby cities and towns. Staff will provide a summary of this training and information that has been provided to the TAC over the past few months in developing the draft updated Noise Compatibility Plan. 9. Discuss structure for review of 2018-19 PC work plan (8:30 pm) Staff would welcome input from Commissioners on how to best organize and provide candidate projects for the Commission’s 2018-2019 work plan. Enclosed with this week’s packet is an updated status report on the current work plan. 10. Recent development summary (8:45 pm) Staff will provide a summary of recent development & projects of note per the Commission’s request to be kept abreast from time to time. 11. Other business (8:55 pm) a. Petition of Verizon Wireless requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission, 366 Dorset Street b. Upcoming meeting schedule 12. Adjourn (9:00 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Initial consideration of zoning change request from SEQ-NRP to SEQ-NR, 1225 Dorset Street DATE: March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Enclosed please find a request from Rick Hamlin on behalf of the property owners at 1225 Dorset Street to change the zoning from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential. As you may recall, the Commission considered a request to formally determine the boundaries of the current zoning on that parcel earlier this winter. The Commission’s conclusion was that the entire parcel is presently located within the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection district. The enclosed request also seeks an amendment to the Official Map to accurately note where the Golf Course is located across the property. Initial staff analysis Earlier this winter, during the boundary determination, the Commission reviewed the history of planning & designations upon the property. Several Southeast Quadrant land use studies have included the parcel in some manner and the zoning for the entire SEQ was revised in 1992 and in 2006. The current zoning on this property has been in place since that time as SEQ-NRP. The total parcel is approximately 45 acres in size, all of which is currently in the NRP district. A change to the for the full parcel would be a relatively significant policy action by the City and may involve a review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in addition to the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommendation Staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determine, first, whether this is a request with merit for possible further consideration. If yes, then staff would recommend that the Commission put the consideration as a possible candidate project for next year’s work plan. The Commission will be developing its annual work plan later this spring, likely in May. Given that this would be a relatively large undertaking, staff would recommend that it be considered in the context of other work products. The Commission may also elect not to pursue the zoning change at this time, but would certainly recommend that the Official Map be corrected to reflect the actual Golf Course boundaries. DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Please reply to: ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS P.O. Box 9 136 Pearl Street Tel. (802) 878-3956 Essex Junction Essex Junction, Vermont Fax (802) 878-2679 Vermont 05453 E-mail: HamlinEngineers@dlhce.com WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SUBDIVISIONS LABORATORY ANALYSIS WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SKI LIFTS (WATER AND WASTE WATER) STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RECREATION AND INDUSTRIAL PLANNING LAND SURVEYING AIRPORTS SOIL BORINGS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Engineering – “The link between what we have and what we need” January 25, 2018 Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Ila M. Isham Estate, 1225 Dorset Street, Public Request for Amendment to the Land Development Regulations Dear Mr. Conner: I am writing in accordance with the South Burlington Planning Commission’s LDR Amendment Request Policy with two requests. Our first request relates to changing the current zoning for the parcel located at 1225 Dorset Street. As we discussed when we first met on this matter, the representatives of the Estate are requesting a change of the zoning of this parcel from its current Southeast Quadrant Subdistrict of Natural Resource Protection (SEQ-NRP SEQ), as recently confirmed by the Planning Commission in their January 9, 2018 decision, to the Southeast Quadrant Subdistrict Neighborhood Residential (SEQ-NR-SEQ). The goal of this request is to allow the zoning on this parcel to match the zoning district that completely surrounds both the east and west end of the parcel. See plan below: Page 2 DONALD L. HAMLIN Secondly, we also request that a change be made to the “City of South Burlington Official Map (Citywide) which identifies the use of the entire parcel as “Golf Course”, as this is incorrect. The Vermont National Country Club has an easement for golf course purposes on only a portion of the center of the property. We request that the map be changed to depict just the area being currently utilized as a golf course as “Golf Course”. Please let me know if you need any further information. We look forward to continuing our conversation with you and the Planning Commission. Respectfully, Richard F. Hamlin, P.E. Chief of Engineering c: Phil Shand Steve Shand Shawn Cheney SOBU SPACES 2020: Library & City Hall Purpose and Need Statement Purpose: The purpose of the SoBu Spaces 2020: Library + City Hall is to create a central place accessible for individuals to experience, learn, entertain, and share ideas and information. It is to provide resources and programming for all ages, beliefs, and backgrounds; capitalize on creative designs that maximize function and usage; increase opportunities for public engagement and growth; and cultivate a sense of ownership and civic pride while spurring growth and economic development in City Center. Needs: 1. Build attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center. The 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan states: “Establish a city center with pedestrian-oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community” (p.1-1), but no public city buildings have been built that are consistent with the plan. Quality architecture, indoor and outdoor gathering space, and public art are needed to enhance the experience of a walkable urban center. 2. Support a dynamic, evolving community. Nearly 19,000 people make their home in South Burlington, a number that has increased over 75 percent since the library was established in 1971 and the city hall at 575 Dorset Street was constructed in 1980. The City also has a growing number of senior citizen but no official center to serve their needs. The City’s population is projected to reach 22,000 by 2030. Since the library was established and today’s city hall built, the vision of the city and manner in which services are provided has changed, and existing spaces no longer adequately meet community needs. 3. Provide spaces where all of South Burlington’s residents and visitors can meet, discuss, participate, learn, and visit. There is a lack of meeting space available for community groups, clubs, small groups of students and/or tutors to gather. South Burlington has no community-owned performance space, thereby limiting the support of the community’s cultural, public and educational activities. Opportunities for public involvement and input are often scheduled in rooms with seating that is uncomfortable and acoustics that are inferior for multi-hour sessions. Meeting spaces predate the internet and offer no built-in recording or streaming capabilities. Current public facilities lack areas needed to offer ongoing educational programs in formal settings, activities in flexible spaces, and quiet conversation in cozy areas. These are needed due to the diversity of interests, abilities and ages within the South Burlington community. 4. Anchor the City Center downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. City Center is currently a collection of shopping centers and individual, detached businesses surrounded by housing. A library, senior center and city hall will provide a community gathering space, services and amenities within walking distance of existing and future neighborhoods. It will also generate foot traffic that will attract social activity, development and economic investment in South Burlington’s designated downtown. Such a developed space will support collaboration within and between the business and residential communities. 5. Strengthen the South Burlington community through abundant opportunities to learn, share and succeed. The library requires significantly more space than its current 7,000 square feet to fulfill its mission to the community through arts, humanities and literacy programs, lifelong learning activities, and providing quality, timely and equal access to information and early childhood literacy. Library services and programs currently lack casual meeting areas as well as meeting rooms to support the gathering of individuals to share interests and knowledge. 6. Meet community need for collections. The library currently occupies a leased space of about 7,000 square feet with a book collection of less than 50,000 volumes. Recent research shows a continuing preference by all generations for physical volumes in addition to e-books and other library offerings such as technology and hands-on programming and maker spaces. The recommended collection size for similarly sized communities is over 90,000 volumes. The current space is too small to accommodate a larger collection or allow for growth. In addition, libraries are trending toward book cover displays to maximize browsing ability and ease of checkout. 7. Provide quality public services; ensure transparent and accessible government. The new library, senior center and city hall will incorporate a great degree of flexibility and adaptability as technology continues to evolve, allowing for greater participation and ease of use. It will be in compliance with accessibility standards and will encourage use by all members of the community. South Burlington lacks space for interactive community events and public voting, and city committees and civic groups to meet after hours. 8. Improve efficiency. Newer buildings offer efficiency and operational savings that do not exist in the current structures. Well-designed buildings that maximize natural light, use products with low toxicity and incorporate airtight, well-insulated areas with little energy or fuel dependency provide increased comfort and productivity of occupants. The building’s efficiency will become an example and learning tool within the community. A co-location offers better integration of staff as well as opportunities for combining spaces for programming and the provision of services across departments. FBC T4 Draft Amendments For Planning Commission Review 4-10-2018 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include the following areas, as depicted in Figure 10-1: (1) all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and (2) all land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the interstate ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, as depicted in Figure 10-1except that within the City Center Form Based Code District. 8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards (A) Purpose Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements Supplemental (C) Building Standards (2)Building Stories (a)Principal (b)Accessory (3)Floor-to-Floor Height (a)First story (b)Upper Stories (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Where a T-4 Lot abuts the R4 or R7 Zoning District, the following standards shall apply: (a) A buffer strip shall be required See Section 8.06(E) (b) (c ) (d) (d) (e ) (4)Upper Story setbacks (a) Notes (3) All stories above the fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the primary and secondary building facades. All BES standards except glazing and building breaks shall be exempt for buildings facades oriented towards the Interstate or an Interstate Ramp The fifth story of any building shall be separated a minimum of one hundred and fifty feet (150') from the R4 or R7 District boundary. 2 Min., 4 5 Max. 1 Max. Along Secondary Streets, parking structures within the build-to-zone that do not meet entrance and/or glazing standards are permitted and shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements, provided that a minimum of 0.5% of the construction cost is used for original artwork installed on or in front of the building façade facing said street. Along Secondary Streets, a Streetfront Open Space, as defined within these Regulations, shall count towards Frontage Buildout requirements. T4 BES Standard Generally a multi-use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T-4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street. The third story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’) from the rear building line; and, The fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-four feet (24’) from the rear building line. 24' Max. 14' Max FBC T4 Draft Amendments For Planning Commission Review 4-10-2018          BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT   PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM UPDATE   TECHNICAL PAPER – VARIOUS NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAMS  February 27, 2018    1.0 Introduction  The purpose of this paper is to review the various types of noise mitigation that can be offered in  addition to sound insulation which was presented in the previous technical paper.  Additional Noise Mitigation Programs  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 150 process allows for several types of noise mitigation  programs to be offered to non‐compatible land uses.  In general there are 2 types of programs;    No change in land use and   Change in land use  An Airport sponsor may implement programs designed to acquire an easement for noise compatibility  purposes if it is contained within an approved 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program.  The properties must be within the 65 dB DNL or higher noise contour for which the land use is not  considered to be compatible (49 USC § 47502, as implemented by Table 1 of Appendix A in 14 CFR Part  150). The requirements for implementing these types of programs is defined by the FAA in accordance  with Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects” of FAA Order 5100.38D “Airport Improvement  Program (AIP) Handbook1”.  Below is a table which summarizes each potential noise mitigation measure, the estimated potential  cost per parcel, whether an avigation easement is required, and the potential advantages and  disadvantages.  The sponsor believes that a combination of these programs may offer the best options  to the community for the foreseeable future.  The City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington  have expressed a preference in maintaining the residential neighborhood adjacent to the airport which  is currently impacted.  Other adjacent jurisdictions should consider the following options and express an  opinion regarding the implementation of these programs in their jurisdictions should the updated noise  exposure map expand the current noise exposure area.                                                              1 FAA Order 5100.38D “Airport Improvement Program Handbook”, Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects”,  effective date September 30, 2014.        Matrix of Mitigation Measures: The matrix below identifies the various mitigation programs discussed in this paper and summarizes the type of program, need for an avigation easement, estimated average cost per home, recommended noise contour for implementation advantages and disadvantages.  A more detailed discussion of each program follows:                                                             2 Estimated cost is 10% of average fair market value based on homes purchased by BTV 2017 home acquisition program. Mitigation Measure Easement Required Estimated Average Potential Costs per Property Recommended Noise Contour to be Implemented Advantages Disadvantages Sound Barriers and Buffers Not Applicable N/A 70 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level)  Provides noise relief to those adjacent to wall  Provides a visible barrier between the residential area and the airport property  Properties which benefit from barrier are not eligible for other types of mitigation  Expensive measure which benefits a few and will delay implementation of other programs Sales Assistance Yes Up to 10% of Fair Market Value (FMV)2 65-75 DNL  Allows the property owner to relocate outside the project area  Maintains the residential neighborhood  Stabilizes market by limiting sales to market absorption  Airport sponsor obtains an easement which makes property Part 150 land use compatible  Property owner is guaranteed fair market value for property  Avoids vacant properties  Maintains the jurisdiction(s)’ tax base  Does not guarantee sale of home  Depending on market conditions process can be slow  Typically very low participation in this type of program  Developing policies regarding differential payment to ensure market stability can by difficult      Page 3                                                                 3 Estimated cost is based on the FMV of homes purchased by BTV 2017 home acquisition program. Purchase Assurance Yes FMV3 65-75 DNL  Allows property owners to sell to the sponsor immediately, pending available funding  Allows for sound insulation of property along with current homeowner’s ability to move from neighborhood  Depending on how long it takes to sell the property, maintenance and protection costs could be excessive  Jurisdiction(s) would lose ad valorem tax revenue during sponsor ownership of property  The Airport sponsor obtains ownership of the property, which would result in costly maintenance to prevent deterioration including: lawn maintenance, securing from vandalism and theft, ensuring buildings remain mold-free, securing and maintaining swimming pools, providing routine inspections, which increases administrative costs to the project  The market absorption and foreclosure market may result in long term vacancies and destabilize the neighborhood and property values for remaining residents  The Program has excessive costs and timeline which will detract funding from strategies such as Sound Insulation and Sales Assistance  The Airport sponsor absorbs all the risk      Page 4                                                                  4 Estimated cost is based upon the average of the 2017 property purchases by Burlington International Airport 5 Estimated cost is based upon 2017 costs from other New England Region sound insulation programs Easement Acquisition Yes $2,500 65-75 DNL  Allows the property owner to remain in their home  Maintains the residential neighborhood  Airport sponsor obtains an easement which makes property Part 150 land use compatible  Property owner is guaranteed a cash payment in exchange for the easement  Maintains jurisdiction(s)’ tax base  Is an alternative for individuals who do not qualify for sound insulation  Typically very low participation in this type of program Land Acquisition & Relocation Prior to Land Use Change FMV ($296,000) & Relocation costs ($43,000)4 75+ DNL  Allows homeowners to sell to the Airport sponsor immediately, pending available funding  There are no other viable mitigation options for homes located in the highest noise levels  Jurisdiction(s) would lose ad valorem tax revenue  The Airport sponsor obtains ownership of the property, which would result in costly maintenance to prevent deterioration including: lawn maintenance, securing from vandalism and theft, which increases administrative costs to the project Sound Insulation Encouraged / Not Required $45,0005 65- up to the75 DNL  Allows the property owner to remain in their home  Maintains the residential neighborhood  Maintains jurisdiction(s)’ tax base  Is not effective in residential properties in high DNLs            2.0 Sound Barriers and Buffers (HMMH)  Introduction to Sound Barriers  Physical barriers can be effective means of reducing noise exposure in certain situations. Barriers are  commonly used along roadways and near stationary noise sources to minimize the propagation of noise  to adjacent communities. Barriers can be effective at airports in containing the noise at runup locations,  and airport buildings can offer some shielding from gate and taxiing operations. Barriers near runways  to block takeoff and landing noise are generally not practical due to airspace restrictions.  Sound Barrier Effectiveness  Sound barriers begin to be effective only when the line‐of‐sight between the source and receiver is  broken. However, simply breaking the line of sight between the source and receiver provides a very  minimal amount of shielding from noise produced by the source. Sound, as a wave phenomenon,  experiences diffraction around objects in its path. This means that for an optimally effective noise  barrier, line‐of‐sight blockage alone is insufficient. Two quantities must be considered when predicting  the value of a noise barrier:  1. Path length difference. This is the distance the sound travels from source to receiver, over  the top of the barrier, minus the direct distance from source to receiver through the barrier.  2. Wavelength of sound.  The barrier’s effectiveness depends on the ratio of these two quantities. The greater the path‐length  difference relative to the wavelength of the sound, the more the sound will be blocked. For a broadband  noise source, such as a jet aircraft, the effectiveness of the barrier is frequency‐dependent, with more  blockage of high‐frequency components than low‐frequency components. In practical terms, what this  means is that for a barrier to be optimally effective, it should be:  1. High relative to source and receiver heights,  2. High relative to the wavelength of the lowest‐frequency sound to be blocked, and  3. Close to either source or receiver.  The requirement that the barrier be high relative to the source height means that for aircraft noise,  barriers can only be effective for blocking ground noise, and are ineffective for airborne aircraft.  Constraints to Barrier Design  A significant constraint limiting the effectiveness of barriers at airports is the requirement to limit the  height of obstacles in the airport environs. The heights of objects near an airport’s runways are limited  by CFR Part 776, which defines imaginary surfaces above the airfield that cannot be penetrated by  structures or other objects on the ground. These surfaces include a horizontal rectangle including and  adjacent the runway, and sloping surfaces rising from this horizontal surface at a slope of 1:7 (rise:run)  to the sides of the runway, and 1:50 from the ends of the runway. This severely limits the ability to build                                                               6 Height restrictions are regulated by 14 CFR Part 77 “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace”and other associated FAA  documents.         Page 6       a barrier both high enough and close enough to the runway to be effective in blocking takeoff roll and  landing roll noise.  For taxiways and runup areas sufficiently distant from runways, the Part 77 constraints may allow  structures or barriers of sufficient height to provide effective shielding.  If a barrier cannot be placed close to the noise source, its effectiveness will be greatest if it can be  placed close to the receiver location. This means that a high wall built adjacent to residences providing  acoustic blockage, may result in visual or aesthetic intrusion to these residents. In such cases, the  community would need to balance the visual intrusion against the expected noise benefits of such a  structure.  Airport Improvement Program Funding and Requirements  In accordance with Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects” of the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) Order 5100.38D Airport Improvement Program Handbook7 (AIP Handbook), a  noise barrier must be able to reduce aircraft noise levels by at least 5 dB8. If construction of a noise  barrier is funded through the Part 150 program, any residences receiving a 5 dB reduction in DNL would  be considered mitigated and would likely not maintain eligibility for other mitigation measures such as  sound insulation or acquisition.  Advantages   Provides noise relief to those adjacent to wall   Provides a visible barrier between the residential area and the airport property     Disadvantages   Properties which benefit from barrier are not eligible for other types of mitigation    Expensive measure which benefits a few and will delay implementation of other programs                                                                            7 FAA Order 5100.38D “Airport Improvement Program Handbook”, Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects”,  effective date September 30, 2014.  8   FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, m. “Noise Mitigation  Measures – On‐airport Noise Barriers” Paragraph (4): “The project must reduce noise to a land use noncompatible with aircraft  noise by at least 5 dB.”         Page 7       3.0 Noise Compatibility Program With No Change in Land Use  Sales Assistance Program9   Objective  The objective of a Sales Assistance Program is to provide eligible property owners who wish to relocate  outside the noise impact area with technical and financial assistance in the sale of their home on the  open market.  The Airport sponsor will not acquire the property and is responsible for closing costs.  The  property owner is not eligible for relocation benefits.  There will not be any change to the underlying  land use.     Implementation  The property owner(s) will enter into an agreement with the Airport sponsor agreeing to participate in  the voluntary Sales Assistance Program. The property owner(s) will be responsible for the marketing and  selling their home through a licensed real estate agent, including listing the property on the open  market.  The listing price will be based on the Fair Market Value (FMV) as established by appraisal  following federal appraisal guidelines10.  If the property does not sell at the FMV within a reasonable  timeframe, the Airport sponsor may provide a differential payment that shall not exceed a percentage  of the FMV.  Prior to the sale of the home, the owner will record an avigation easement in exchange for  sales assistance.  It is typical for these programs to pay the realtor commission on the sale of the  property.  This will encourage the local realtors to participate in the program and help to ensure the  market remains stable. Policies regarding length of time on market, appraisals and market absorptions  will be developed as part of the program’s policy and procedures process.  Once a property sells through the Sales Assistance Program, the property is then considered noise  compatible under FAA criteria and a subsequent property owner will not be eligible for any of the other  programs under the Noise Compatibility Program.  Typical Appraisal Process The appraisal process shall follow federal guidelines.  FMV of a property shall be determined by an  appraisal of the property by a certified appraiser. This appraisal will be reviewed by a certified  appraiser ("review appraiser") and the FMV will be determined11.  The FMV will be used as the sale  price for the home on the open market.                                                               9 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, f. “Acquire Easement for  Noise Compatibility”  10 49 CFR part 24, the current version of FAA Order 5100.37, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects,  and the current version of Advisory Circular 150/5100‐17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement  Program Assisted Projects. 11 Appraisals and review’s determinations must be prepared and performed in accordance with: 42 USC Chapter 61, "Uniform  Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs; 49 CFR Part 24,  "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally‐Assisted Programs"; the Uniform  Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP"); and all state, local and FAA standards.         Page 8       Neighborhood Stability To maintain neighborhood stability, the airport sponsor will conduct a market absorption study  during program implementation to determine the expected rate at which homes can be sold  without affecting the pricing of the housing market in the area.    Avigation Easement  An avigation easement is required in exchange for assisting in the sale of the property.  This easement  will run with the property.  Once easement is recorded, the property is then considered noise  compatible under FAA criteria.  Timeline  The sale of a property will depend upon market conditions and the sponsor’s current noise grant  funding.  Based on current market conditions, sales could occur within 3 months based upon grant  availability.  Advantages   Allows the property owner to relocate outside the project area   Maintains the residential neighborhood   Stabilizes market by limiting sales to market absorption   Airport sponsor obtains an easement which makes property Part 150 land use compatible   Owner is guaranteed fair market value for property   Avoids vacant properties   Maintains the jurisdiction(s)’ tax base   Is an alternative for individuals who do not qualify for sound insulation  Disadvantages   Does not guarantee sale of home   Depending on market conditions process can be slow   Typically very low participation in this type of program   Developing policies regarding differential payment to ensure market stability can by difficult         Page 9       Purchase Assurance Program12  Objective  The objective of a purchase assurance program is to provide property owners who wish to relocate  outside the noise impact area with the ability to sell their property directly to the Airport sponsor in  exchange for an avigation easement.  Homeowners will not be eligible for relocation benefits.  Funds  received from the sale of the property must be reinvested in the noise mitigation program. There is no  change to the underlying land use.  Implementation  The Airport sponsor will purchase an eligible property from the owner in exchange for an avigation  easement.  The home is purchased based upon the FMV as established through the FAA’s appraisal  process13.  Upon sale and recording of the easement, the Airport sponsor will sound insulate the home  and then sell it on the open market. The Airport sponsor will be responsible for closing costs associated  with the acquisition of the property.    Avigation Easement  An avigation easement is required in exchange for purchasing the property.  This easement will run with  the property.  Once the easement is recorded, the property is then considered noise compatible under  FAA criteria.  Timeline  It is estimated that after the Airport sponsor takes possession of these properties, it would be required  to maintain these properties for a minimum of 18 months while the property undergoes the sound  insulation process and is placed on the open market for sale.   Advantages   Allows property owners to sell to the sponsor immediately, pending available funding   Allows for sound insulation of property along with current property owner’s ability to move  from neighborhood                                                                 12 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, f. “Acquire Easement for  Noise Compatibility”  13 Appraisals and review’s determinations must be prepared and performed in accordance with: 42 USC Chapter 61, "Uniform  Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs; 49 CFR Part 24,  "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally‐Assisted Programs"; the Uniform  Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP"); and all state, local and FAA standards.            Page 10       Disadvantages   Depending on how long it takes to sell the property, maintenance and protection costs could be  excessive   The jurisdiction(s) would lose ad valorem tax revenue during Airport sponsor ownership of  property   The Airport sponsor obtains ownership of the property, which would result in costly  maintenance to prevent deterioration including: lawn maintenance, securing from vandalism  and theft, ensuring buildings remain mold‐free, securing and maintaining swimming pools,  providing routine inspections, which increases administrative costs to the project   The market absorption and foreclosure market may result in long term vacancies and destabilize  the neighborhood and property values for remaining residents   The Program has excessive costs and timeline which will detract funding from strategies such as  Sound Insulation and Sales Assistance   The Airport  sponsor absorbs all the risk  Purchase of Avigation Easement14  Objective  The objective of an easement acquisition is to provide eligible property owners who wish to remain in  their home, and do not qualify for sound insulation the ability to obtain a cash payment in exchange for  the easement. There will not be any change to the underlying land use.    Implementation  Property owners who do not qualify for sound insulation and would like to remain in their home, may be  able to obtain a one‐time cash payment in exchange for an avigation easement.  Easement values are  typically in the $2,000 ‐$2,500 range.  Avigation Easement  This easement will run with the property.  Once easement is recorded, the property is then considered a  compatible land use under FAA criteria.  Timeline  The purchase of the avigation easement is dependent upon the sponsor’s current noise grant funding.                                                                 14 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, f. “Acquire Easement for  Noise Compatibility”            Page 11       Advantages   Allows the property owner to remain in their home   Maintains the residential neighborhood   Sponsor obtains an easement which makes property Part 150 land use compatible   Property owner is guaranteed a cash payment in exchange for the easement   Maintains the jurisdiction(s)’ tax base   Is an alternative for individuals who do not qualify for sound insulation  Disadvantages   Typically very low participation in this type of program  4.0 Noise Compatibility Program with a Change in Land Use  For those homes located within the highest DNL noise contours, where other noise mitigation programs  are not feasible, a land acquisition and relocation may be offered to obtain land use compatibility.   Land Acquisition and Relocation   Objective  The objective of a land acquisition and relocation program15 is to provide owners of properties located  in areas of high noise exposure (75 dB DNL), where other mitigation programs are not feasible, the  ability to sell their property and relocate outside the noise impact area.  The Airport sponsor will  purchase the property at FMV from the owner.  The occupants will be provided relocation benefits to  allow them to move to an area outside the noise impact area. The sponsor will raze the structure upon  acquisition and work with the local jurisdiction to rezone the land to a compatible land use.  Implementation  The land acquisition and relocation program is comprised of two transactions, the purchase of the  property from the owner and the relocation of the occupants.  The Airport sponsor will purchase an  eligible property from the owner following federal requirements16.  The home is purchased based upon  the FMV as established through the FAA’s appraisal process17.  The occupants of the home will be                                                               15 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, e. “Acquire Land for Noise  Compatibility and 49 CFR part 24, the current version of FAA Order 5100.37, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for  Airport Projects, and the current version of Advisory Circular 150/5100‐17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for  Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects. 16 FAA Order 5100.37B “Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects” and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100‐17  “Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Project (Consolidated through Change  7)”  17 Appraisals and review’s determinations must be prepared and performed in accordance with: 42 USC Chapter 61, "Uniform  Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs; 49 CFR Part 24,          Page 12       eligible for a package of relocation benefits that are designed to provide new housing in a manner that is  similar in size and function.    After the Airport sponsor has taken possession of the property, they will arrange for the structure to be  razed.  The Airport sponsor will include the acquired land on the Noise Land Inventory Map and Noise  Land Reuse Plan.  The Airport sponsor will continue to care for and manage the property until such time  as it can rezoned or designated for a compatible use.18  Avigation Easement  An avigation easement will be placed on the property after the purchase of the property.  The easement  will run with the property and the new owners will be subject to the easement.  Any proceeds derived  from the future sale of the land must be utilized for noise mitigation purposes.  Timeline  The acquisition and relocation process takes 12‐18 months depending upon the relocation needs of the  occupants.  Advantages   Allows property owners to sell to the sponsor immediately, pending available funding   There are no other viable mitigation options for homes located in the highest noise levels  Disadvantages   Jurisdiction(s) would lose ad valorem tax revenue   The Airport sponsor obtains ownership of the property, which would result in costly  maintenance to prevent deterioration including: lawn maintenance, securing from vandalism  and theft, which increases administrative costs to the project      [END OF MEMORANDUM]                                                                                                                                                                                                   "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally‐Assisted Programs"; the Uniform  Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP"); and all state, local and FAA standards.  18 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R‐6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, e. “Acquire Land for Noise  Compatibility”, (2) The land must be included on (2) Noise Land Inventory Map and the Noise Land Reuse Plan. APP‐400  maintains current guidance on noise land inventory and reuse plans.     BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM UPDATE TECHNICAL PAPER – RESIDENTIAL SOUND INSULATION PROGRAMS JANUARY 9, 2017 Residential Sound Insulation Programs The purpose of a Residential Sound Insulation Program (RSI Program) is to reduce interior noise levels in a home. This is accomplished by applying acoustical treatments designed to reduce aircraft noise. The treatments include, but are not limited to, upgrading windows, doors and ventilation systems. While sound insulation cannot reduce the noise in the surrounding area, it does provide a place for individuals to be able to enjoy their home and children to be able to study. The process for designing and implementing a sound insulation program is defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects” of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 5100.38D Airport Improvement Program Handbook1 (AIP Handbook) The RSI Program offers a selection of treatments that are tailored specifically to each dwelling. Acoustical treatments include standard door and window styles and finishes, as well as alternative modifications, when required. Owner’s selections, which will be incorporated into the proposed modifications, include choice of style, color and finish from available manufacturer’s offerings. Post- construction average interior noise levels should not exceed a measurable 45-decibel (dB) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in the habitable portions of the dwelling. A 5-dB improvement relative to pre-construction levels is also a stated objective of the RSI Program. 1.0 Determining Eligibility 1.1 Federal Requirements An airport sponsor may implement a RSI Program if it is contained in an approved 14 CFR part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). The identified eligible properties must be within the 65 dB DNL noise level or higher for which the land use is not considered to be compatible (49 USC § 47502, as implemented by Table 1 of Appendix A in 14 CFR part 150). Properties located below this threshold will not be eligible for mitigation funding unless a lower local standard is adopted by the jurisdiction or the FAA has approved “block rounding” in the NCP. Prior to the implementation of the RSI Program, the airport sponsor must comply with the eligibility criteria and program requirements set forth in Appendix R. 1 FAA Order 5100.38D “Airport Improvement Program Handbook”, Appendix R “Noise Compatibility Planning/Projects”, effective date September 30, 2014. Page 2 1.2 Developing an Acoustical Test Plan The first step in developing an RSI Program is for the program sponsor to develop an Acoustical Testing Plan (ATP) for FAA review. The ATP is to include protocols for the initial testing, FAA review of initial testing results, special circumstances and the final testing phase. Testing methods for determining interior noise levels are outlined in the FAA’s adopted guidance2 per Advisory Circular 150/5000-9A, Announcement of Availability – Report No. DOT/FAA/PP/92-5, Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residents Exposed to Aircraft Noise, issued in 1992. The key steps in an ATP for a residential sound insulation program are:  Neighborhood Surveys: Housing surveys are first conducted to characterize neighborhood homes by type (e.g. age, size, construction type, etc.), and a representative sample of the various types identified is then selected to be included in the initial testing phase3.  Pre-construction Acoustical Testing: Measurements of existing acoustical performance of the structure are conducted using either an artificial noise source or actual in-situ aircraft noise events, for determining the existing interior DNL.  Determine Compatible and Non-Compatible Structures: Analyze test data to determine if the average of the aircraft interior noise levels in all habitable rooms is greater than, equal to or less than 45 dB DNL.  Determine Required Sound Insulation Improvement: Determine the improvement in outdoor-to- indoor noise level reduction (NLR) needed to provide an interior noise level that meets FAA requirements.  Design Full Sound Insulation Package for Eligible Structures: Design primary acoustical treatments that will meet FAA noise reduction goals for non-compatible structures. Separate sound insulation packages are required for residences constructed with siding and residences constructed with brick4. In addition to lowering average interior noise levels from aircraft to below 45 dB DNL, acoustical treatment packages must also be designed to achieve an improvement in the NLR of at least 5 dB5.  Design Alternate Treatment Package for Eligible Structures: Design secondary treatment packages for compatible structures that are eligible for purposes of “neighborhood equity” or that require 2 “Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations”, which is attached to FAA Advisory Circular AC150/5000-9a 3 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R-4 “Pre- and Post-Testing Criteria for Noise Insulation Projects”, c. “First Step – Initial Testing” Paragraph (3): “Once the sponsor has characterized the diversity of the residences in the noise contour, it will select a representative sample of each type of similarly-constructed residences for testing, which based on industry review is typically 10% to 30%. Testing in this case means that the sponsor develops and installs a sound insulation package that the sponsor believes will reduce the interior noise level in the residence for each type of construction.” 4 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R-4 “Pre- and Post-Testing Criteria for Noise Insulation Projects”, c. “First Step – Initial Testing” Paragraph (4): “In a neighborhood where the residences are made of either brick or wood siding, the sponsor will develop two different packages – one for the brick residences and one for the siding residences.” 5 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R-6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, g. “Noise Mitigation Measures for Residences” Paragraph (4): “The sound insulation package must provide a reduction in indoor noise level of at least 5 dB and bring the average interior noise level below 45 dB.” Page 3 the installation of continuous positive ventilation in order to receive the benefits of the structure’s existing sound insulation by having windows and doors always closed.  Install Sound Insulation Packages: Once approved by the FAA, the designed primary sound insulation packages are installed at the sample set of eligible structures.  Post-Construction Acoustical Testing: Following the installation of sound insulation packages, structures that had primary acoustical treatments installed are re-tested to determine if noise reduction goals are met as required by the FAA. 1.3 Eligibility Testing/Pre-testing Process 1.3.1 Eligibility Criteria When an owner applies to participate in an RSI Program, a property title search may be completed to verify ownership and to make sure there are no tax liens, easements or other encumbrances associated with the property which would cause it to be ineligible. Additional conditions of the RSI Program follow current FAA guidelines, as currently described in Appendix R, Table R-6 of the AIP Handbook:  Structures typically must have been constructed prior to October 1, 1998  Structures typically must be located within the current FAA-approved DNL 65 dB noise contour  Structures must be experiencing a logarithmic (energy) average interior DNL of 45 dB or greater in habitable rooms with all prime and storm windows and doors closed The AIP Handbook allows some specific exceptions to the first two guidelines above that, if needed, would be coordinated with FAA including block rounding.6 1.3.2 Pre-construction Testing Process Outdoor-to-indoor NLR measurements are conducted using either an artificial noise source e (i.e. loudspeaker) or actual aircraft noise events. Artificial noise source testing has a number of practical advantages over aircraft overflight noise testing, which have resulted in it becoming the most commonly employed test method. The artificial source method, compared to the actual aircraft method, limits interruption to the property owners and inhabitants/users of the tested interior spaces. An artificial noise source allows measurements to be made at the properties during a brief measurement period, independent from the reliance on aircraft overflights and without the need for multiple sound level meters to simultaneously measure aircraft noise in all habitable rooms. The aircraft overflight method generally requires that no persons be present inside the home for the several hour of the test duration. 6 Appendix R of the AIP Handbook allows some exceptions as discussed in Section R-9 “Block Rounding,” R-10 “Neighborhood Equity.” In addition, Table R-6, g(7) and i(6) states “The structure must have been built prior to October 1, 1998 unless the sponsor has demonstrated to the ADO that no published noise contours existed at that time. New non- compatible land uses created by subsequent airport development may also be eligible for funding consideration. The October 1, 1998 date is based on the FAA Final Policy on Part 150 Approval of Noise Mitigation Measures: Effect on the Use of Federal Grants for Noise Mitigation Projects, 63 Federal Register 16409 (April 3, 1998).” Page 4 During an artificial noise source test, an acoustical consultant uses a specialized field monitoring kit that includes a signal generator and public announcement (PA) type loudspeaker to produce a noise source of equal energy in each octave band or one-third octave band (known in the acoustics field as “pink noise”) at an approximate overall sound level of 90 to 100 dB as measured at the exterior building façade under test. The loudspeaker is vertically positioned either on a tripod or placed on the ground unless there is compelling evidence that the roof/ceiling element of the room under test has the potential to contribute to the interior sound level from aircraft operations. Examples of compelling reasons include: existence of weak elements within the roof/ceiling structure, such as sky lights; relatively light weight materials to make up the roof structure; limited airspace between the roof and ceiling, e.g., vaulted ceilings and flat roofs; and limited or no use of insulation in the space between the roof and ceiling. In these instances, the speaker will be lifted above the roofline of the home to obtain both exterior façade and roof exposure through the use of an industrial grade hoisting device, such as a bucket truck, scissors lift or mobile crane. With the loudspeaker placed to provide sufficiently uniform sound across the façade, room, or element, octave band or one-third octave band sound level measurements are made both on the exterior and in the interior of the structure using both time and spatial averaging of sound levels. Additional measurements are conducted without the loudspeaker in operation to provide background or ambient sound levels. 2.0 Development of Policy and Procedures Upon FAA approval of the ATP, the airport sponsor will develop a policy and procedures manual (PPM) which will describe the RSI Program’s purpose, goals and typical modifications, project planning and management, construction contract bid and award cycle, the construction process, eligible spaces, architectural, mechanical, electrical and other types of treatments, and building code requirements. 2.1 Prioritization of Homes The PPM will define how to prioritize homes beginning with the homes in the highest noise levels and working outward to the RSI Program boundary. Many programs also use the following criteria:  Length of residency  Ownership vs. rental property  Contiguous blocks vs. by noise level 2.2 Pace of Program The pace of the RSI Program is defined by the airport sponsor’s ability to match grant funding from the FAA as well as the FAA’s ability to provide grant funding. The airport sponsor will work with the FAA’s Airports District Office (ADO) to develop a capital programs work plan. Sound insulation programs are often developed based upon FAA grant cycles. Typically, a grant is issued for the design and bidding of a group of homes. A second grant is issued for the construction of the homes based upon the lowest responsible bid received by the airport sponsor. A typical design, bid and construction cycle is approximately 12-18 months depending upon the size of the construction contract. Page 5 2.3 Building Code Compliance Understanding the local and state building code is a key component to the implementation. Appendix R is very specific on the types of treatments that are eligible for grant reimbursement.7 Understanding what, if any items, may need to be undertaken to meet code compliance is necessary to inform the program participants who may be responsible for these costs. Examples of the types of items that may be required by code but are not necessary to the reduction of interior noise levels are:  Smoke detectors  Carbon Monoxide monitors  Electrical upgrades  Egress Working with the local building officials, the airport sponsor can determine what will be required in order to obtain a building permit. Any potential issues can be discussed with the owner during the design phase of the process. 2.4 Types of Treatments Per Appendix R of the AIP Handbook, allowable sound insulation measures include the replacement of windows and doors, the addition or replacement of caulking and weather stripping, and the installation of central air-conditioning or ventilation systems in structures without an existing system8. Central air- conditioning or ventilation systems are a necessary component in sound insulated structures, as they allow for windows to remain closed year-round. Additional measures may be included as part of the treatment package with approval from the local FAA ADO. Additional treatment measures that may be employed following ADO approval include:  Addition of attic and/or wall insulation  Addition of extra layers of wall and/or ceiling board  Removal or treatment of through-wall A/C units  Removal of mail slots, pet doors, milk chutes  Treatment of chimneys, fireplaces, exhaust vents 2.5 By Noise Contour Level The sound insulation measures included in a treatment package are selected in order to achieve a target NLR value based on the DNL to which a structure is exposed. The exterior DNL value assigned to a residence is the upper end of the corresponding DNL interval, as outlined in Section 3.4.1 of the 1992 Guidelines (FAA 1992). For example, residences in the DNL 65 to 70 dB interval are assigned an exterior DNL of 70 dB. 7 FAA Order 5100.38D, Appendix R, Table R-6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, g. “Factors to Consider For Justification and Eligibility” Paragraph (6): “The following measures are allowable: window and door replacement, caulking, weather- stripping, and installing central air ventilation so that the windows can be kept closed only if the structure does not already have a central air ventilation system. The use of other measures is not allowable unless the ADO has approved the use of the measures in advance.” 8 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R-6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, g. “Factors to Consider For Justification and Eligibility” Paragraph (6): “The following measures are allowable: window and door replacement, caulking, weather- stripping, and installing central air ventilation so that the windows can be kept closed only if the structure does not already have a central air ventilation system. The use of other measures is not allowable unless the ADO has approved the use of the measures in advance.” Page 6 Sound insulation programs generally target a post-construction NLR value of approximately 30 dB for residences exposed to DNL between 65 and 70 dB, and a 35 dB NLR for residences exposed to DNL between 70 and 75 dB. Achieving a post-construction NLR of 35 dB and higher generally requires that treatment packages include at least some of the additional measures mentioned in Section 3.1. Sound insulating residences exposed DNL greater than 75 dB (i.e. target NLR values of 40 dB and higher) may be infeasible in some neighborhoods. When it is feasible, the materials and measures required to achieve very high NLR values may be impractical to implement and/or aesthetically undesirable to homeowners. 65 to 70 dB DNL treatment package: A treatment package for a residence exposed to a DNL between 65 and 70 dB (i.e. target NLR of 30 dB) would typically include:  Triple pane assembly windows and sliding glass doors (i.e. double-glazed prime with single glazed storm)  Solid-core wood prime exterior doors with a single-pane storm door  Additional ceiling insulation where existing insulation is insufficient  Treatment or removal other sound infiltration weak points such as through-wall A/C units, mail slots, exhaust vents, etc. 70 to 75 dB DNL treatment package: A treatment package for a residence exposed to a DNL between 70 and 75 dB (i.e. target NLR of 35 dB) would include measures similar to the 30 dB NLR package, but would require materials with increased sound insulation performance. The level of performance required to achieve an NLR of 35 dB is near the upper limit for many residential products, and commercial or custom made product may have to be used. The treatment of exterior walls and ceilings with an additional interior gypsum board layer may also be required to achieve the target NLR. 75 dB DNL and greater treatment package: In most cases, treatment packages for residences exposed to DNL greater than 75 dB (i.e. target NLR values of 40 dB and higher) require the use of high performance commercial products and the addition of either multiple layers of gypsum board to wall and ceiling surfaces or double wall construction. Available commercial products which meet the performance requirements may be aesthetically less desirable to some homeowners than the residential products used in treatment packages targeting lower NLR values. Double wall construction increases wall thickness by several inches, thus somewhat reducing the total area of rooms with treated walls. Sound insulation treatments are not recommended for homes in this noise level. The preferred noise mitigation method is the acquisition of the property and the relocation of the residents. 2.6 Secondary Treatments For those homes which do not have continuous positive ventilation and when acoustically tested have an interior noise level less than 45 dB DNL, the FAA allows for installation of secondary treatments in Page 7 order to provide neighborhood equity and to allow the residents to have proper air circulation while they have the doors and windows closed. If these types of homes are identified during the ATP process, the airport sponsor will work with the FAA to obtain approval for a positive ventilation package as described in Appendix R.9 3.0 Implementation of Program The airport sponsor will develop a grant application for the design of a group of homes. Upon receipt of the grant funding, the airport’s consultant team will begin the sound insulation process. 3.1 Overall Timeframe The sound insulation process for a typical package of 50 homes takes approximately 12 -18 months from initial homeowner outreach to completion of the construction contract. This timeframe can vary depending upon the number of homes included in the construction package and the timing of the grant cycle. 3.2 Design The design process is comprised of a number steps including homeowner outreach, assessment visits, design of an acoustical treatment package for each home and development of construction documents.  Application: Eligible property owners, will be sent a Program Application Package explaining the sound insulation process and an application for participation.  Assessment Visit: The assessment visit is conducted by the program team at the property. During the visit, the program team will explain the RSI Program in detail, document the home’s existing conditions, draw floor plans and measure all windows and doors. The mechanical/electrical engineer will conduct a detailed evaluation of the home, including existing heating and air conditioning systems, electrical service, and potential safety or code issues.  Design Phase: The program team will meet with the owners either at their home or at the RSI Program office to review the recommended construction plans and scope of work for the property. This will include floor plans of the home, recommended treatment package, and homeowner pre- work, if any.  Homeowner Participation Agreement: Once the owners have agreed to the recommended scope of work, they will execute the homeowner participation agreement. The homeowner participation agreement is a contract between the airport sponsor and the property owner describing the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of each party. This may also include the execution of an avigation easement, if required.  Development of Construction Documents: All participating properties are placed into a construction package. The program team will develop a set of bid documents that conform to FAA, 9 FAA Order 5100.38D Appendix R, Table R-6 “Noise Compatibility Planning/Project Requirements”, h. “Noise mitigation Measures for Residences (Positive Ventilation Package Only)” Paragraph (3): “A Continuous Positive Ventilation System is the allowable package for these residences. The sponsor must also provide detailed information about the ventilation package including costs of the package compared to the cost of a standard noise insulation package. The sponsor may recommend an air conditioning system in lieu of ventilation- only.” Page 8 state and local bidding requirements. These documents will be sent to the FAA for concurrence and permission to bid the construction contract. 3.3 Bid The final design and construction package is released to interested contractors for public bidding by the airport sponsor. The bids are evaluated and the work will be awarded to the most responsive, responsible qualified contractor. A grant application for the construction of these homes is submitted to the FAA along with the successful contractor’s bid. 3.4 Construction Upon receipt of a grant for the construction of the homes, the program team will begin the construction process.  Pre-Construction Activities: The selected contractor and the RSI Program team members will schedule an appointment with each property owner to review the specific scope of work for your home. The contractor will measure each window and door opening. The contractor will develop a construction schedule and provide product submittals and shop drawings. Upon approval of these submittals by the program team, the contractor will order the customized products. The contractor will pull construction permits for each of the homes.  Pre-Construction Walk-Through: The contractor and program team will visit the home 48 hours before the start of construction. During this visit, the contractor will review with owner the scope of work for the home, take pre-construction photographs, and ensure the property has been prepared for construction.  Construction Process: The program team will notify the owner of their construction start date. The construction process takes approximately 30 days. The contractor will need access to the property during normal business weekday hours. There will not be any work on weekends, holidays or in the evening. The contractor will be required to reach substantial completion of the scope of work for the property within 10 days. After substantial completion, the contractor will be given additional time to finalize the scope of work and conduct the necessary permit inspections.  Final Construction Inspection: The program team and the property owner will conduct a final inspection of the residence. Upon final inspection and approval, the homeowner will receive a warranty package for all work performed. 3.5 Post Testing The noise reduction goals for residential sound insulation programs are outlined in Appendix R of the AIP Handbook:  Provide an exterior-to-interior NLR improvement of at least 5 dB  Reduce the average interior DNL sound level to 45 dB or below The 5-dB improvement goal exists to provide a noticeable reduction of aircraft noise levels to residents. Page 9 Post-construction acoustical testing is conducted on a sampling of structures that had acoustical treatments installed. The use of random sampling to select homes for the testing may be augmented with selection of specific individual homes based on their acoustically significant interior and exterior features. The acoustical consultant analyzes the testing results to determine if the installed treatments meet the RSI Program’s acoustical goals. Any instances where these goals are not met are investigated and adjustments to the acoustical treatments may be recommended to ensure that the RSI Program goals are ultimately met. Overall, the post-construction acoustical testing is intended to provide quality control and assurance. Furnishings such as sofas, beds, carpeting, and curtains have some effect on the amount of sound absorption within a home, and can therefore impact interior noise level measurements. As such, homeowners should not modify furnishings between the occurrence of pre-construction and post- construction noise testing. The AIP Handbook (Appendix R, Table R-4, c.5) also requires that: “The sponsor will then measure the interior noise levels and prepare a summary report detailing the effectiveness of the design package, make recommendations for any changes to the package, lists the before and after interior noise level data, and submits the package to the ADO”. Therefore, a post-construction acoustical testing summary report documenting the achieved noise level reductions and post-construction interior aircraft noise levels, noting any unique circumstances, is prepared and submitted to the ADO. 3.6 Closeout Upon completion of the work and verification of the acoustical goals being met by the RSI Program, the airport sponsor will close out the construction contract and the grant. [END OF MEMORANDUM] BTV NCP UPDATE – AVIGATION EASEMENTS AVIGATION EASEMENTS Overview FAA’s AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38D), Appendix R sets forth the guidelines for obtaining avigation easement. The FAA encourages airport sponsors to obtain a noise easement in return for mitigation. The regulations state “An easement may be conveyed by the property owner in exchange for the sound insulation improvements provided. However, an AIP grant may not include a requirement that a property owner convey an easement or other interest in the property to the sponsor in exchange for sound insulation. The FAA encourages sponsors to work out such voluntary property agreements locally.” Communities should be aware that while the easement is not required, if an approved noise compatibility plan includes language stating there will be an easement in exchange for sound insulation or other mitigation measure then all eligible property owners would be required to convey the easement as a condition of participation. Easement Definition An avigation easement is a conveyance of a specified property interest for a particular area that restricts the use by the owner of the surface yet assures the owner of the easement the right and privilege of a specific use contained within the easement document. Avigation easements, which are conveyed by a property owner to the airport owner, are often used in noise mitigation programs in exchange for sound insulation, sales assistance, and purchase assurance. The easement may consist of right-of-flight of aircraft; right to cause noise, dust, etc.; and the right to remove all objects protruding into the airspace together (typically trees) with the right to prohibit future obstructions in the airspace. The easement may also contain any number of additional restrictions as the airport owner deems necessary. Reasons to Require an Easement An easement provides notice to future owners that property is located in an aircraft noise impacted area and those impacts have been mitigated. The easement rights run with the land and will apply to all future owners of the property. Additionally, the easement helps to establish the property is now compatible with the recommended land use. BTV NCP UPDATE – AVIGATION EASEMENTS Examples of Easement Language Three avigation easements are being provided as examples of language that has been used on noise mitigation programs in the FAA New England region; Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, CT; T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, RI; and Tweed- New Haven Airport in New Haven CT. The language in these can help in developing easement language for Burlington International Airport and understand the variations at different airports. Easement for Public Buildings Our research indicates that when an easement is given in exchange for mitigation to a public building (school, church, etc.) the easement language is the same easement as used for residential buildings. In some cases, no easement is given since the entity with jurisdictional authority of the public building also has authority over the airport. AVIGATION EASEMENT BRADLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT THIS EASEMENT granted this day of , 2011, by Name, Street Address, City or Town, CT Zip Code and their successors or assigns hereinafter referred to as the "Grantors", to the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation and Ports, and their successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, "Grantee" is charged with the operation, administration, improvement, regulation and protection of state-owned airports; and WHEREAS, Bradley International Airport is a state owned airport located in the Town of Windsor Locks, Connecticut, hereinafter referred to as the "Airport"; and WHEREAS, certain real estate is owned by "Grantors", in fee simple, more particularly described in Book ___ Page ____ of the records of the Town of _____, CT and by this reference made a part hereof, and referred to hereinafter as the "Property"; also known as Street Address, City or Town, CT Zip Code and WHEREAS, "Grantee" is undertaking a residential sound insulation program to grant certain relief regarding aviation noise to property owners residing near the "Airport" and whose property lies within certain noise zones more commonly referred to as those areas above DNL 65 dB as shown upon the 2008 Noise Exposure Map from the FAA approved 14 CFR Part 150 Study, in return for which the "Grantors" must convey to "Grantee" an avigation and noise easement; and WHEREAS, "Grantee" has agreed to provide "Grantors" sound insulation, and "Grantors" have elected to participate in this program. NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, Grantors hereby grant and convey unto Grantee, for the use and benefit of the grantee and the public, a perpetual easement on, over, across, and upon the Property for the unobstructed use and passage of all types of aircraft (as hereinafter defined), in and through the airspace above Grantors’ property, more particularly described as follows: 1) Said easement to run on, over, across, and upon the above described real property encompasses the air space above the surface of Grantors’ Property having the same boundaries as the above described property and extending from the surface upwards to the limits of the atmosphere of the earth. Grantor further agrees that no structures, improvements or vegetation exceeding 320 feet elevation shall be permitted to be located, constructed or remain on the Property. Grantor further grants to the Grantee the right to enter upon the Property to trim any trees or other vegetation which exceed the above elevation at no cost or expense to Grantor. Any such entry by the Grantee shall be at reasonable hours and with reasonable notice to Grantor and the Grantee shall remove any limbs, wood or other debris generated by its entry so as not to interfere with Grantor’s continuing use of the Property. 2) To have and to hold said easement in perpetuity unto the said Grantee, and its successors and assigns, until said Airport shall be abandoned and shall cease to be used for airport purposes. 3) Said easement shall run with the land and be appurtenant to and for the benefit of all of the real property comprising and known as Bradley International Airport and such other additional property or interest therein as shall be subsequently acquired or designated from time to time by Grantee or its successors and assigns as constituting a part of the Airport, and the easement shall be in gross for the benefit of Grantee and all other persons and entities who directly or indirectly use the easement as a result of any type of use of the property and facilities constituting the Airport, including aviation ground and flight operations. 4) Said easement shall encompasses all things which may be alleged to be incident to or resulting from the use and enjoyment of said easement, including, but not limited to the right to cause in all airspace above or in the vicinity of the surface of Grantors’ Property such noise, vibrations, fumes, deposits of dust or other particulate matter, fuel particles (which are incidental to the normal operation of said aircraft), fear, interference with sleep and communication and any and all other effects that may be alleged to be incident to or caused by the operation of aircraft over or in the vicinity of Grantors’ Property or in landing at or taking off from, or operating at or on said Bradley International Airport; and Grantors do hereby fully waive, remise, and release for themselves and their heirs, administrators and executors, successors and assigns, any right or cause of action which they may now have or which they may have in the future against Grantee, its successor and assigns, due to such noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel particles and all other effects that may be caused or may have been caused by the normal operation of aircraft landing at, or taking off from, or operating at or on said Airport, now and in the future, while recognizing that the quantity of such operations may increase in the future. 5) All of the uses provided for in this easement shall be without any liability of Grantee or of any other person or entity entitled to the benefits of this easement for emotional injury to persons, animals or any other living thing, the diminution in value of any personal or real property, and discomfort or interference with the audio portion of television and/or radio by, from, or arising from, noise generated from the normal operation of aircraft. This grant expressly does not exclude claims by the Grantor or those claiming under it for physical or personal injury caused by any air traffic utilizing the easement, which does actual physical damage to the property or persons located therein. 6) The Grantors for their heirs, successors, and assigns, do hereby covenant that they are lawfully seized of an indefeasible estate in the herein described property; and they have the right to grant and convey the estate, interest and easement herein conveyed; and that they will specially warrant and defend unto the Grantee and its assigns, forever, the quiet and peaceable use and enjoyment of the herein granted easement. 7) As used herein, the term “aircraft” shall mean any and all types of aircraft, whether now in existence or hereafter manufactured and developed, to include, but not limited to, jet aircraft, propeller driven aircraft, civil aircraft, military aircraft, commercial aircraft, helicopters and all types of aircraft or vehicles now in existence or hereafter developed for the purpose of transporting persons or property through the air, by whoever owned or operated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is duly executed on the day and year first above written, by the parties hereto, intending themselves to be legally bound hereby. HOMEOWNER(S) By: By: STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF HARTFORD On this ______ day of _____________, 2011, before me personally appeared ______________________________________________________________ to me known and known by me to be the parties executing the foregoing instrument, and they acknowledged said instrument, by them executed, to be their free act and deed. ______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF CONNECTICUT Department of Transportation Bureau of Aviation and Ports Approved as to form: Deputy Commissioner Albert Martin Date ______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: AVIGATION EASEMENT CONSENT WHEREAS, Mortgagee, Address, City or Town, State Zip Code is the Mortgagee of a certain deed mortgage dated 3/30/10 from Homeowner Name Mortgagor (s), which mortgage encumbers the real property at Address, City or Town, State Zip Code and which mortgage is recorded at Town Clerk’s Office, Town of Suffield, CT, Volume XXX, Page XXX. Recorder’s Office (Town Clerk) of Suffield, CT; WHEREAS, the Connecticut Department of Transportation / Bradley International Airport (Authority), has proposed to acquire from the said mortgagor(s) an Avigation Easement over the said encumbered real property in exchange for the said mortgagor(s) participation in Bradley International Airport’s Residential Sound Insulation Program; and WHEREAS, the said Authority requests the consent of mortgagees to the granting by their mortgagors of such Avigation Easements; Now, therefore for valuable considerations paid, Mortgagee by and through its hereby consents to the (Name) (Title) granting of an Avigation Easement by Homeowner Name to the Connecticut Department of Transportation and Bradley International Airport, which said Avigation Easement shall encumber the above-referenced real property, which is more particularly described in the Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Further, the mortgagee consents to the filling of this consent instrument with the said Avigation Easement as evidence of such consent to grant. Signed this day of , 20 . Signed in the presence of: Witness (Company) by Witness (Name) its (Title) State of :ss County of : The foregoing was acknowledged me by , (Name) on behalf of (Title) (Company) as the date last set forth above. Notary Public My Commission Expires DEED OF EASEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this day of , 2015, by and between ________________________________________ of Warwick, Rhode Island, and their successors or assigns hereinafter referred to as the "Grantors", and Rhode Island Airport Corporation and its successors or assigns any current or future owners or operators of Theodore France Green State Airport, including, without limitation, the State of Rhode Island, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Grantee". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantee is charged with the operation, administration, improvement, regulation and protection of state-owned airports; and WHEREAS, Theodore Francis Green State Airport is a state owned airport located in the City of Warwick, Rhode Island, hereinafter referred to as the "Airport"; and WHEREAS, certain real estate is owned by Grantors, in fee simple, more particularly described as _________________________, Plat ___, Lot___ , in Book Page , and referred to as the "Property"; WHEREAS, Grantee is offering a residential sound insulation program that will make changes to Grantor’s property to reduce aircraft noise experienced by Grantor in the interior of the structure located on the Property to make the Property compatible with the noise environment created by the Airport; WHEREAS, Grantor’s Property meets certain interior noise level criteria and lies within certain noise zones commonly referred to as those areas above Day Night Average Sound Level of 65 decibels. The areas are depicted on the Federal Aviation Administration accepted noise contour map prepared by VHB/Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, the Official Noise Contour Map of the Airport dated (“2010 Official Noise Contour Map”) and publicly available for review and inspection at RIAC’s administrative offices, 2000 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; and, WHEREAS, Grantor has elected to receive, and Grantee has agreed to provide, sound insulation, more particularly described in Exhibit "A", (attached hereto and made a part hereof); and, NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties signatures below, Grantors hereby grant and convey and assign to Grantee, for the use and benefit of the Grantee and the public, a perpetual easement on, over, across, and upon the Property, “the Easement” more particularly described as follows: 1) The Easement herein granted on, over, across, and upon the above described real property encompasses the air space above the surface of Grantor’s Property having the same boundaries as the Property and extending from the surface upwards to the limits of the atmosphere of the earth. 2) The Easement is granted in perpetuity unto the said Grantee, and its successors and assigns, until said Airport shall be abandoned and shall cease to be used for airport purposes. 3) The Easement shall run with the land and be appurtenant to and for the benefit of all of the real property comprising and known as the Airport and such other additional property or interest therein, as may be subsequently acquired or designated from time to time by Grantee, or its successors and assigns, as constituting a part of the Airport. The Easement shall be in gross for the benefit of Grantee and all other persons and entities who directly or indirectly use the easement as a result of any type of use of the Airport, including aviation ground and flight operations. 4) The Easement grants the privilege of passage of all lawful flight operations and all noise, and vibration, discomfort, inconvenience, interference with use and enjoyment, and any consequent reduction in market value, all due to noise caused directly or indirectly by the lawful operation of aircraft, recognizing that such use and passage is unlimited as to frequency, type of aircraft, and proximity, and that the quantity of such operations at the Airport may increase in the future. 5) The uses provided for in this Easement shall be without any liability of Grantee, or of any other person or entity entitled to the benefits of this Easement, for all lawful flight operations and all noise, or other intrusions associated with the passage of lawful flight operations associated with Airport noise, which may be alleged to be incident to or to result from flights of aircraft over or in the vicinity of the Property, including the landing at or taking-off from the Airport. Grantor furthermore waives all claims for damages caused or alleged to be caused by or incidental to such use including emotional injury to persons, animals or any other living thing associated with Airport noise, the diminution in value of any personal or real property, and discomfort or interference with the audio portion of television and/or radio by, from, or arising from, the normal operation of aircraft. This Easement does not exclude claims by the Grantor, or those claiming under the Grantor, for physical or personal injury caused by any air traffic utilizing the easement which does actual physical damage to the Property or persons located therein by coming into direct physical contact with the Property or persons located therein. This Easement also does not exclude the Grantor from seeking to participate in any future Federal Aviation Administration noise mitigation programs offered by Grantee for which Grantor may be eligible due to changes to the 2010 Official Noise Contour Map. 6) The Grantors for their heirs, successors, and assigns, do hereby covenant that they are lawfully seized of an indefeasible estate in the Property; and they have the right to grant and convey the Easement; and that Grantors will warrant and defend unto the Grantee and its assigns, forever, the quiet and peaceable use and enjoyment of the Easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have set their hands and seals this day of , 2015. _________________________________ _________________________________ STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COUNTY OF KENT In Warwick, Rhode Island on the day of , 2015, before me personally appeared to me known and known by me to be the party executing the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged said instrument, by them executed, to be their free act and deed. Notary Public Printed Name: _____________________ My commission expires: _____________ After recording, return to: Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. 265 Church Street - 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Attention: Hugh I. Manke, Esq. 891386 EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT made this ____ day of ______________, 2016, by and between _____________of New Haven/East Haven, Connecticut, and their successors or assigns hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor(s)", and Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority, a public instrumentality and political subdivision of the State of Connecticut created under Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 15-120g et seq., as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantee is charged with the management and operation of Tweed New Haven Airport; and WHEREAS, certain real property is owned by Grantor(s), in fee simple, commonly known as Address, City, Connecticut and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, and referred to as the "Property"; WHEREAS, the Property meets certain interior noise level criteria and lies within certain noise zones commonly referred to as those areas above Day Night Average Sound Level of 65 decibels, as depicted on the Official Noise Contour Map of the Airport (“2017 Future DNL Contour”) dated November, 2012 and available for review and inspection at the Airport’s administrative offices, 155 Burr Street, New Haven, CT 06512; and WHEREAS, Grantee is offering a residential sound insulation program for the Property to reduce aircraft noise experienced by Grantor(s) in the interior of the structure located on the Property; and WHEREAS, Grantor(s) have elected to receive, and Grantee has agreed to provide, sound insulation on the Property, more particularly described in Schedule 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof; and NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor(s), Grantor(s) hereby grant and convey and assign to Grantee, a perpetual easement more particularly described as follows: 1) The real property subject to the grant of easement hereinafter described is an airspace parcel (“Airspace Parcel”) above the surface of the Property having the same boundaries as the Property and extending from the surface upwards to the limits of the atmosphere. 2 2) Grantor(s) hereby grant to Grantee a perpetual easement (“Easement”) in and across the Airspace Parcel for passage of lawful flight operations, including take-offs and landings, and for all sound, vibration, discomfort, inconvenience, intrusion, interference with use and enjoyment, and any consequent reduction in market value, all due to noise caused directly or indirectly by the lawful operation of aircraft at or near the Airport, regardless of frequency, time of day, type of aircraft, or proximity to the Property. 3) The Easement is granted in perpetuity unto said Grantee and its successors and assigns, until said Airport shall be abandoned and shall permanently cease to be used for airport, heliport or helipad purposes. For purposes of the preceding sentence, no temporary suspension or cessation of aviation operations because of adverse weather conditions, natural or man-made disaster, war, war-like or terroristic acts or conditions, interruption in the availability of navigational, radar, air traffic control, electrical or communications utilities, construction or maintenance and repair operations or similar circumstance shall be construed as an abandonment of use for airport, heliport or helipad purposes. 4) The Easement shall run with the land and be appurtenant to and for the benefit of all of the real property comprising and known as the Airport. The Easement shall also be in gross for the benefit of Grantee, its successors and assigns, and all other persons and entities that directly or indirectly use the Easement as a result of any type of use of or activity at the Airport, but do not own an interest in land with respect to the Airport. 5) This Easement does not exclude the making of claims by the Grantor(s), or those claiming under the Grantor(s), for physical or personal injury caused by any air traffic utilizing the Easement which does actual physical damage to the Property or persons located therein by coming into direct physical contact with the Property or persons located therein. This Easement also does not exclude the Grantor(s) from seeking to participate in any future Federal Aviation Administration noise mitigation programs offered by Grantee for which Grantor(s) may be eligible due to changes to the 2017 Future DNL Contour. 6) The Grantor(s), for their heirs, successors, and assigns, do hereby covenant that they are lawfully seized of an indefeasible estate in the Property; and they have the right to grant and convey the Easement; and that Grantor(s) will warrant and defend unto the Grantee and its assigns, forever, the quiet and peaceable use and enjoyment of the Easement. 7) In the event any section, paragraph, sentence or clause of this Easement shall be found to be illegal or unenforceable under the laws of Connecticut, such defect shall not be construed as invalidating any other section, paragraph, sentence or clause of this Easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor(s) have executed this instrument this _____ day of ________________ , 2016. 3 In the presence of: ______________________________ _________________________________ Name: Name: ______________________________ _________________________________ Name: Name: STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) ss. at _______________ , 2016 COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN ) Then and there, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared _________________and ____________________, to me known (or adequately proven) to be the party or parties executing the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his/her/their free act and deed. By: ______________________________________ Printed Name: ______________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _____________ Commissioner of the Superior Court EXHIBIT A [Legal Description] SCHEDULE 1 [Schedule of sound insulation work] Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update4/6/2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JKPUBN Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  4/6/18 End‐of‐trip bicycle & pedestrian  facilities Specifies bike rack standards and requires showers in certain new  or renovated buildings 100% Complete Modifications  Adopted 4/2/18 Planned Rights of Way –  Williston Road, Market Street Williston Road planned ROW to 100'; Market Street established at  80'100% Complete Adopted Affordable housing in SEQ NRN  and reference corrections Adds SEQ‐NRN to allowable districts for bonus; clarifies no TDRs  required for bonus affordable units 100% Complete Adopted Street connection & cul‐de‐sac  standard clarifications Updates language how to determine when streets should connect;  clarifies cul‐de‐sacs in the SEQ 100% Complete Adopted Clarification of uses permitted  in the Municipal, Parks &  Recreation, R7‐Neighborhood  Commercial, and Institutional‐ Agricultural districts Removes redundant list of uses from articles 4 & 7, clarifies table  of uses 100% Complete Adopted Allowance for front porches in  the R4 District Allows unenclosed front porches to extend into primary building  setback in R4 100% Complete Adopted Administration & Enforcement –  streamline Planning  Commission, Development  Review Board, and Advisory  Committee authorization,  powers & duties, and  membership to refer to State  Law Streamlines authority provisions for Planning Commission & DRB,  Changes "design review committee" to "advisory committees"100% Complete Adopted Agricultural Use Amendments  not related to Agricultural  Enterprise Cleans up agricultural uses & definitions to match state law,  establishes "food hub" as a new use 100% Complete Adopted Street connections in T3 –  Barrett Street to San Remo  Drive Changes required connection to recreation path; shows Barrett  Street north connector as a Neighborhood Narrow, allows as a  dead‐end street 100% Complete Adopted Technical corrections Non‐substantive changes to various sections 100% Complete Adopted Zoning Amendment requests Requests from the public to consider amendments N/A Per Commission Reviewed 9 requests  to date in FY 18 Interstate Highway Overlay  applicability in FBC Consider having the FBC supersede the ICO provisions 75% Review draft  language PC reviewing draft  on 4/10 Heights in T4 District Consider allowance for taller buildings in the T4 75% Review draft  language PC reviewing draft  on 4/10 Allow Radio/TV studios in IO Allow Radio/Tv Studio as a permitted use in the IO district 100% Complete Adopted Footprint Lots Examine how to address footprint lot incongruity in the LDRs 50% Staff to follow up  with legal counsel Staff to follow up  with Legal Counsel 1 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update4/6/2018 1 JKPUBN Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  4/6/18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Housing Replacement standards Requirement for housing that is removed to be replaced or  compensated. Will likely include some revisions to the definition of  affordability, and some small zoning boundary changes. 100% Complete Adopted 4/2/2018 Urban Design Overlay District  (Shelburne & Williston Roads) Establish basic standards for parking, setbacks, heights, door  location, window minimums along Shelburne Road and C1‐R12;100% Complete Adopted 4/2/2018 Building Heights along  Shelburne & Williston Roads;  minor rooftops apparatus Establish maximum height of 5 stories in C1‐R12, C1‐R15, and C1‐ Auto Districts; remove minor rooftop devices from calculations 100% Complete Adopted 4/2/2018 Williston Road Network Study (1) Define short & medium term street profile for Williston Road  (2) set ROW for long‐term street profile, (3) set/ revise location of  planned supporting streets, (4) revise FBC & Official Map to match,  (5) possibly revise how buildings and streets are related in the FBC 80% Review Proposed  Official Map  Streets Scheduling meeting  with SBBA per PC  guidance Develop annual work plan Prepare annual work plan and review with committees, council at  leadership meeting 100% Discuss approach Scheduled for May  2018 Form Based Code district minor  changes T3 buildings, T3 descriptions, streets, materials 100% Complete Adopted 4/2/2018 FBC phasing, conflicts, technical  corrections Conflicts between standards, phasing of projects, accessory  structures, banking of open space, off‐site landscaping 100% Complete Adopted 4/2/2018 Organizing for managing larger  projects, including developing a  policy for support committees  providing draft policies Development of Commission policies and procedures for how to  farm projects out to Committees of the City 75% Consider draft Committee annual  work plans April  2018 Tilley / Kimball / Community  Drive Transportation & Land  Use Study Iterative development of a transportation & land use plan for this  part of the City: (1) presentation of current conditions and  anticipated amount of development; (2) review and approve  Purpose & Need; (3) discuss future transportation / land use  scenarios to study; (4) review recommended approach & projects;  (5) set table for future project to update zoning to reflect priorities  and coordinate with transportation plan 50% Review next draft Updated Scope of  Work developed by  CCRPC; next step is  to refine plan &  present Master Plan / Planned Unit  Developments (& related) Would set new standards for most new large scale development,  including revised Master Plan thresholds & procedures and  Planned Unit Development Types. Includes (1) creating clear  Master Plan process, thresholds, & benefits, (2) creating 4‐8  Planned Unit Development types with clear review criteria &  standards for development, (3) clean‐up of related LDR language ‐  subdivisions, PUDs, Site Plan, building heights, etc., and (4)  significant public outreach 70% Master Plan  summary & outline  of which elements  are reviewed at  which stage come  next PC has reviewed  street & open space  types & conditions;  Fixes to zoning and LDRs per  PUD project Development of PUD regulations has highlighted areas for  adjustments to underlying zoning as well as technical and policy  adjustments to the LDRs in support of PUD provisions 45%Commission to  review drafts Staff working on  underlying  standards 2 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update4/6/2018 1 JKPUBN Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  4/6/18 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Transportation Overlay District  Update Replace the existing traffic overlay district that sets a cap on rush‐ hour vehicle trips along major roadways with new tools to  encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes.  Includes providing consultants & project team with broad direction  for desired outcomes 50% Review drafts consultant work  ongoing Traffic Impact Fee Update Replace the existing ordinance with new tools to encourage multi‐ modal investment and changes in travel modes 30% Initial presentation consultant work  ongoing Meet with DRB Annual meetings with DRB 100% schedule joint  meeting Annual meeting took  place 1/30 River Corridor Standards Would update the City's stream buffer requirements to be  consistent with river corridor planning 40%Presentation of  findings Standards were sent  to river corridors  person at State Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped Projects Prepare scoping studies of four city‐led projects identified by the  Bike Ped Committee 35% Initiate project Existing conditions  report completed by  consultant City Center guidance & direction Provide guidance on design / planning priorities in City Center in  support of the City Council as needed Ongoing Cottage Housing ‐ Affordable  Housing Would explore how to allow and incentivize Cottage Housing types  (such as Kirby Cottages). Project was initiated by a subcommittee  in 2012 but went to back‐burner. Members of that group have  offered to re‐initiate ongoing Committee likely  to provide  recommendations  spring 2018 AH Committee  examining cottage  housing and other  mechanisms Scenic Views Establish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology,  analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground,  and background 10% Staff to update  Commission in  Spring Staff performing  initial field visits  April 2018 Linking City's efforts together Coordinate committee & staff work. This is underway with the  Leadership committee & upgraded CIP/Budget process.Underway Leadership  meeting in April Leadership Cmte  met in Feb and again  in April R4 District front setback  standards Would evaluate and possibly lower front setback standards in the  R4 district 70% Review and  consider next  steps no change South Village Zoning Request for  neighborhood commercial Request for South Village Communities to establish a small retail /  neighborhood commercial component. PC gave direction to South  Village to work with the neighborhood and come back at a future  time. 80% Review draft PC has provided  outline; staff to  provide full draft  April/May 3 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 MARCH 2018 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 March 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; B. Gagnon (via phone), T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; R. Jeffers, S. Dopp, Mr. and Mrs. Valastro 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Conner provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Agenda item #5 will be postponed. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: Ms. Valastro expressed concern about “air b&b’s.” She noted there is one next door, which is OK because the owner is living there. Now that owner is talking about buying the house next door to that, and the concern is it would be like a hotel because the owner would not be living in it. Her concern is with the loss of a “sense of community” and with potential safety issues. Mr. Mittag asked if there is a homeowners’ association. Mr. Valastro said there is not. Mr. Mittag said that is too bad, because an association could make rules as to the use of property. Mr. Valastro said that in some communities “air b&b’s” are not allowed in certain districts, and some have a length of stay restriction. Ms. Valastro noted further concern because the backyards are all connected, and there are woods behind the properties. Mr. Gagnon suggested this as a future discussion topic. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to provide a briefing on what neighboring communities are doing and how South Burlington could deal with it. Mr. Riehle felt this goes along with people renting homes to students and issues such as parking on lawns. Ms. Dopp noted that Mr. Conner had come to a South Burlington Land Trust meeting recently. She asked if there are any particular “sustainability” issues that he is working on. Mr. Conner said there is a lot going on with the city management ream, particularly how to review work in a quantifiable way (e.g., affordability, energy, etc.). They are also moving forward with projects. Recently, lights were swapped out at the Public Works garage using funds from the savings from the landfill solar project. 2 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Mittag noted that the South Burlington Land Trust had its annual meeting on Saturday. Bill Keaton made a presentation on the importance of urban forests and woodlands in the area. He zeroed in on the Farrell Park area and its importance for wildlife and Potash Brook. He expressed a willingness to speak to the Commission. Ms. Ostby said she and Ms. Dooley are working on cottage housing and are on target for late spring. She also noted that the City Council continued the LDR amendments to 2 April, 8 p.m. Discussion focused on preservation of housing standards. The Council will be getting a legal opinion on some issues. There was also discussion during a presentation on the Noise Ordinance about dog barking from a business on Hinesburg Road, which is an approved use (dog care). Mr. Conner suggested it may be a good idea to look into where this use should be permitted. He acknowledged that this is a difficult circumstance. Mr. Conner: noted that the Council had no issues with the other LDR amendments. Met with the Affordable Housing Committee last week and provided them with a briefing on staff’s perspective. He, Mr. Dorn, Mr. Rabidoux, and the Fire Chief are looking at the city’s fee structure, some of which relates to affordability. The city is talking with firms around the country regarding digitizing all of its documents. A lot of time is being spent on open space standards as they relate to PUD standards. Reminded the Commission that they will be reviewing the work plan in May. 5. Initial review: requests to (1) change zoning of parcel at 1225 Dorset Street from SEQ-Natural Resource Protection to SEQ-Neighborhood Residential, (2) modify Official Map in indicate accurate location of golf course across a portion of the parcel: Members agreed to postpone this item until the next meeting as the applicant was unable to attend this meeting. 6. First discussion of concepts for city-wide open space standards: Ms. LaRose showed a slide of potential concepts to address. She noted that as staff was going through the regulations, the saw the need for a base set of standards which has not historically been done well. With those base standards, they could then mold the standards for different applications. Concepts and questions that are being considered include: a. Park Requirement in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ): Issues include: 3 i. A minimum number of acres to align with population numbers ii. The difference between a 10-acre and a 200-acre development iii. Is there a national standard and whether it applies equally to urban and rural development. Ms. LaRose noted that there have been some good outcomes in the past, but there is never certainty as to what is repeatable. b. PUD Types: Issues include: i. Different open space types could be tied to different PUD types (similar to what is done with T-zones) ii. Could there be a pallet of what is/what is not acceptable? c. Changes to Existing Built Areas: Issues include: i. How do people look at their spaces: In the past, the consideration was “pervious vs. non-pervious.” ii. Is there an opportunity to convert some of the pervious surface to something more attractive/higher quality in exchange for some “carrots”? Ms. LaRose iii. cited the UMall property where it is hard to tell where the “open space” area is. How could that be converted to higher quality space? Mr. Riehle asked how you would deal with something like the K-Mart Plaza. Ms. LaRose said the first step would be to talk to landowners as what they are considering, then set an acceptable level of quality open space. Ms. LaRose added that “quality” may be different in different places. Ms. Ostby suggested starting with a city-wide view, specifically where the canopies are and where there are scenic views. Ms. LaRose said some of that was started in the Open Space Report. The Commission will have to decide what they want to have in place (i.e., what can be implemented) until they can get to the issue in the future. Mr. Mittag suggested that if a pervious area is used, another one would have to be provided nearby. Ms. Ostby suggested some sort of “acreage moratorium” where used acreage would have to be balanced out somewhere. Ms. LaRose stressed that some of these ideas are legally very challenging and can involve “down-zoning.” She felt that requiring replacement of the tree canopy was possible. Mr. Conner explained how the State deals with stormwater facilities on a “watershed basis,” and suggested that the city might be able to do something like that. This could be difficult with a park, the question being how far from a development you want to locate a park. Mr. Riehle said he always feels it is a “race for time.” He asked what is needed to address the biggest need before the opportunity is gone. 4 Mr. Conner said his response would be to set clear amounts of what is expected in different types of environments. Expectations should be clear and measurable. Ms. LaRose stressed that pervious vs. impervious is the worst measure of open space. Mr. Conner said that in talking about Traditional Neighborhood Development, percentages for open space should be “usable/buildable” land. Unbuildable land (e.g., wetlands) would not count as open space. Ms. LaRose noted that South Village has an area of dry, wooded land. The Commission could decide how much of that could count as open space because those woods could be cut down and the land could be built on. Mr. Conner added that South Village built out very compactly so there is a lot of open space. Ms. LaRose asked what members want to pursue in the short term. Mr. Riehle said the SEQ as you get the biggest “bank for the buck” with PUD types. Mr. Conner suggested building a “typology of open space types” to include the amount of open space in each PUD type. Ms. LaRose stressed that this is a work in progress and involves translating what was done in City Center to other areas of the city. She asked how member would like to incorporate committee work into this project. Members suggested the Natural Resource and Bike/Ped Committees. Staff summarized what they heard as takeaways: use buildable land for open space minimums; general approval of the typologies; seeking feedback from committees on the types and the work done in the open space report and pursuing SEQ park standards and qualifying open spaces in new developments. The Commission agreed. 7. Discuss small-scale commercial uses/structures adjacent to residential districts: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted the request for small commercial potential in South Village which the Commission was supportive of. He noted that staff feels some things should be codified: scale/size, uses, where such uses should be placed in a neighborhood (near an entrance to the neighborhood), and applicability to the city generally. Mr. Riehle suggested passing this for new development and then spending more time on older neighborhoods. Mr. Conner asked what makes the South Village request appealing to members. Mr. Mittag said neighborhood support and the location of the soccer field behind the suggested location. Ms. Ostby felt that every resident should be able to walk somewhere to get milk. She did add that the business has to have the potential to make money. 5 Mr. Conner suggested allowing the use in a neighborhood with a master plan where the use could be tied to a minimum scale with certain characteristics. Mr. Gagnon suggested making it a PUD standard. Mr. Conner thought that was possible, but he would still want a size threshold. Ms. LaRose added that existing PUDs would be very different from new PUDs build under the new PUD standards. Mr. Conner noted that members seemed to favor allowing this in newer neighborhoods. Mr. Gagnon agreed. He also suggested the possibility of an amendment to an existing PUD standard and then working it into the new PUD standards. Ms. LaRose asked if members would be comfortable with the use in Dorset Farms and/or Butler Farms. Mr. Gagnon said he would as they’re fairly large. Mr. Conner noted that one of them has an organizational structure and the other does not. Members felt there would have to be a neighborhood association. Ms. Ostby felt that if the use were on a major road, there would have to be consideration for existing residences. Ms. Dopp said she couldn’t see 5 or 6 of these being successful. Mr. Gagnon said the intent is just to make it allowable. Ms. Jeffers suggested considering location on a collector street and a required density within a certain walkable radius. Members were OK with the size parameters set at the last meeting and with design standards to fit it in with the neighborhood character (including a limited number of stories). Ms. LaRose felt there should be no curb cut onto an arterial. Mr. Conner said that would have to be defined more clearly and noted that Dorset St. is not an arterial. As to uses, Ms. Ostby suggested child care, no b&b, no general office. Mr. Gagnon said he was OK with everything except general office. Members were OK with personal instruction as long as there was adequate space. Mr. Conner read written comments provided by Mr. Klugo. Ms. LaRose noted Mr. Klugo’s concern with serving alcohol. Mr. Conner said that could eliminate a café/restaurant use or require control of hours of operation. 8. Update on Airport Noise Compatibility Plan: Mr. Conner reported that the Airport has funding for the noise exposure maps to include the basing of F-35s. The noise compatibility plan currently being worked on will be suspended until there are new noise maps. However, if this is done the Airport could miss the 2019 funding time for mitigation. The first draft of the noise study is due in August with the final draft in October/November. 6 9. Meeting Minutes of 27 February 2018: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 27 February 2018 as written. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Other Business a. Petition of Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. and Vermont Transco, LLC, requesting issuance of a certificate of public good from the VT Public Utilities Commission, 10 Central Avenue in South Burlington and 74 University Road in Burlington: Mr. Conner noted the Commission had already seen this request at an earlier stage. b. Public Hearing announcement for Draft amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance: Mr. Conner said staff has reviewed this and has no issues to report. c. Update on proposed telecommunications structure at 366 Dorset Street: Mr. Conner said Landworks will do a study of what could be improved there. They have submitted some ideas including landscaping (trees on the west side of Dorset St. or in the median - staff prefers the median). d. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Louisos, Mr. Mittag and Ms. Ostby cannot attend the 10 April meeting. He will wait for Mr. Klugo’s confirmation that he can attend before scheduling that meeting. Members had no problem meeting during school vacation week (24 April meeting). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ___________________________________, Clerk