HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-14 - Supplemental - 0197 Autumn Hill Road (21)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-24-14 197 Autumn Hill Road
DATE: September 4, 2024 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-24-14 of Christoper & Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 13.5
acre lot developed with two barns, a single family home, and accessory shed into two lots of 1.9
acres containing the two existing barns (Lot 1) and 11.6 acres containing the existing single family
home and shed (Lot 2), 197 Autumn Hill Rd.
CONTEXT
The Board reviewed the application on August 6, 2024. There were a number of issues discussed,
many focused on the lack of clarity on the planned use of the subdivided land. The applicant has
provided an updated sketch showing the development potential of the proposed subdivision. Staff
has accordingly updated the previous report to reflect this revised submission. Criterion that are
no longer applicable have been removed from the review.
City Council has warned the draft regulations for public hearing on September 16. Pursuant to 24
VSA 4449, the draft amendments are in effect for complete applications following notice of the
Council’s public hearing (8/22). Because the next stage of review would comprise the “complete
application”, Staff has updated this report to reflect the draft regulations.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner,
hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the revised plans submitted by the applicant and offer
the following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
15.C.02 Applicability
C. Required Planned Unit Development.
PUD review and approval by the DRB under this Article is required for any subdivision and
development of a tract or parcel with a total area of four (4) or more acres within any zoning district
listed for CON PUD and TND PUDs under Table 15.C-1. General PUDs are not mandatory in any
district.
As a 13.5 acre parcel in the SEQ-VR, SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NRP, a Conservation PUD is required by this
provision except in the case of a carve out under two acres. In the draft LDR, the conservation PUD
is removed therefore the carve out provision is no longer relevant, and the SEQ-VR and SEQ-NRT
are consolidated into a single new “Low Scale Neighborhood” zoning district.
B) MASTER PLAN
15.B.02 Applicability
In the draft LDR, master plan review is required for lots over 2 acres with clear development
potential beyond what is presented in an application. However, there is a provision which
exempts lots over four acres from article 15.C Master Plan when the proposed subdivision consists
of a two or fewer acre carve-out. Therefore it is still relevant for the applicant to propose a
subdivision where one of the lots is less than two acres as such a proposal exempts them from
article 15.C Master Plan at this time. The applicant is proposing a subdivision of approximately 1.0
acres therefore the application would be exempt from Master Plan review. Instead of a Master
Plan, an applicant must only demonstrate that the remainder of the property can accommodate
roadway, right-of-way, open space, stormwater, and minimum density.
A large portion of the Board’s discussion on August 6 focused on the lack of a proposed
conceptual development plan for the parcels. Staff wants to emphasize, as the Board did on
August 6, that the expectation is not to require the applicant provide a Master Plan as defined in
the LDR, but to require the applicant to provide a concept of how the lots could be developed to
ensure that the proposed subdivision results in parcels which can be developed in compliance
with the LDR.
For the carve-out, there is no minimum density under the draft LDR.
For the remainder, the draft LDR requires a minimum density of 4 units per acre for half of the
buildable area and 8 units per acre for the other half, therefore the applicant’s plan should show
how their proposed subdivision could meet this requirement while also meeting access and
environmental protection standards.
C) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Buildable area is defined as the total area of the lot to be subdivided, less the area of hazards, level
1 resources, existing and planned street and railroad rights-of-way, and transmission line corridors
or easements.
Staff considers the buildable area of Lot 1 to be 0.22 acres based on wetland area information
provided by the applicant.
The applicant has indicated there are 6.15 acres of buildable area on the proposed Lot 2. Staff
considers it appears the applicant has over-calculated buildable area, potentially by incorrectly
included the roadway right-of-way in the computation. Staff notes the applicant will be required to
“show the math” of their computation at the next stage of review.
The portion of Lot 2 within the NRP contributes towards buildable area but may not be built upon.
Based on the applicant’s provided buildable area for Lot 2, the minimum required density should
the applicant propose to develop Lot 2 would be 36.9 units pursuant to the calculation provided in
draft regulation 15.A.08(G) requiring 8 units an acre on 50% of the buildable area and 4 units per
acre on the remaining 50% of contiguous buildable area.
Within the draft zoning district (“Low Scale Neighborhood,” or LSN), the following residential uses
are permitted
• Single unit building – min lot size 5,000 sf
• Duplex – min lot size 5,000 sf
• Divided duplex (side by side) – min 2,500 sf lot per unit
• Townhouses (3-4 units) – min lot size 5,000 sf
• Small muti-unit building (3-4 units) – min lot size 5,000 sf
Up to three buildings are permitted on a lot of two or fewer acres. Multiple structures on lots
greater than 2 acres are not permitted.
A large portion of the Board’s discussion on August 6 focused on the proposed use of the lands of
the subdivision, both Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Lot 1: The applicant has provided a letter from the property owner to the north, Elise Ameigh and
Colin Blanchard, indicating their intention to purchase the proposed Lot 1 and make improvements
to the existing barn structures to convert one to an accessory structure for the existing home at
1700 Dorset Street and the other to a small multi-unit residential building. The draft LDR states
there is no minimum density for the carve out.
Lot 2: The applicant has provided a conceptual plan showing 24 units within the buildable area
and a roadway to access them. The conceptual roadway is greater than 200-ft long, which is the
maximum allowable length for a private road. It is proposed to extend to the adjacent lot to the
south, which would meet the roadway standards of 15.A.10. They have also shown a conceptual
access easement to the property to the north east which was the subject of concluded sketch plan
application #SD-24-151.
1. As many as 36.9 units may be required depending on buildable area, and certainly more than
he 24 the applicant has shown. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate
that the provided conceptual layout could accommodate the higher number of required units
and still meet required access and natural resource protection standards.
D) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
The subject property is encumbered by habitat block overlay district, river corridor overlay district,
Class II wetland, and Class II wetland buffer. Habitat block is considered a Level 1 resource while
the remaining resources are considered hazards.
12.04 Habitat Block Overlay District
Pursuant to 12.04F, all lands within a Habitat Block must be left in an undisturbed, naturally
vegetated condition. Building envelopes may not include lands within habitat blocks.
The habitat block on this site is located in the north east corner and is relevant for computation of
buildable area, but Staff considers it to have relatively little impact on the proposed subdivision of
the property.
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
The applicant has identified Class II wetlands and the associated 100-ft buffers on their plans. The
wetland and buffer is proposed to be bifurcated by the subdivision boundary.
On August 6, the applicant expressed their intent to apply under a provision of subdivision
permitting subdivision of natural resources in order to meet minimum lot size. This provision has
1 When the final plat application is submitted for the property to the north east, Staff will be
recommending the proposed access easement does not interfere with development potential on
the property that is the subject of this application.
been eliminated from the draft regulations and is therefore no longer relevant.
Development within wetlands and buffers is still generally prohibited, as is subdivision of hazards
and level 1 resources. 15.A.09(B) requires that contiguous hazard and level 1 resource areas be
subdivided onto their own lots and be identified on the subdivision plat.
E. Exemptions
(1) Maintenance of Pre-Existing Gardens, Landscaped Areas/Lawns, Structures, and Impervious
Surfaces.
Gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures, and impervious surfaces located within a wetlands
buffer that were legally in existence as of the effective date of these regulations shall be
considered non-conforming development. Non-conforming development within a wetlands buffer
may not be expanded and may be maintained, but is still considered to be wetland buffer. The
existing barns and surrounding lawn area are considered non-conforming development.
In addition, redevelopment of existing non-conforming development may be permitted within a
Class II wetland buffer as a modification if the applicant specifically requests a modification and
demonstrates compliance with the following criteria.
F. Modifications.
(1) Types of Development. An applicant may request a modification, in writing, from the rules of
this section for any development in the following areas only:
(b) Re-development of pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, public infrastructure,
structures, and impervious surfaces within a Class II wetland buffer in any zoning district if;
(i) The resulting total area of lands within the wetland buffer that will be in a
naturally vegetated condition is increased;
(ii) The applicant submits an evidence-based professional opinion by a wetland scientist
that the re-development will have a net positive effect on the health and functioning of
the wetland; and
(iii) The project results in no increase in total impervious surface within the Class II wetland
buffer.
Any modification must meet the following four standards:
(3) Modification Standards
(a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
development;
(b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned character
of the area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the
project is located, or on public health and safety;
(c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the
property to adequately treat stormwater from the site; and,
(d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland
functions and values identified in the field delineation.
The regulations governing modification of wetland standards apply to all projects, whether they
involve subdivision of land or not.
The applicant has updated their plan to propose a subdivision which reduces the wetland and
wetland buffer proposed for subdivision, as follows.
• To the east, the applicant has set the boundary of Lot 1 to result in the minimum required
setback for the existing structure.
2. The provided plan appears to be based on aerial imagery. Staff recommends the Board direct
the applicant to update the subdivision line to continue to match the required minimum setback
once a ground survey of the land is undertaken.
• The western boundary of proposed Lot 1 is outside of the wetland and buffer.
• The northern boundary of proposed Lot 1 is the edge of the property.
• The southern boundary of proposed Lot 1 is 34 ft from the existing structure and within the
wetland buffer. The maximum required setback for the permitted uses is only 10 ft.
3. Staff considers the Board may permit creation of a lot that complies with the provision of 12.06E
that permits maintenance and redevelopment of the existing structures by allowing subdivision
of a lawn area equal to the required minimum setback and recommends the Board discuss
whether they will accept this recommendation.
4. Assuming the Board accepts the above recommendation, Staff recommends the Board ask the
applicant to explain why they have provided more than the required setback in the south of the
proposed lot. If there is no reason supported by the regulations, Staff recommends the Board
direct the applicant to reduce the lot size to provide only the required setback from the existing
structure.
5. Alternatively, if the Board determines the subdivision of land which contains protected natural
resources is prohibited under 12.06E, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to submit
a proposal for how they propose to meet the standards of 15.A.09B pertaining to resource
protection for wetlands. Areas that are then determined to be outside the development (or re-
development area) must be excluded from the development parcel.
E) SUBDIVISION REVIEW
15.A.02 Subdivision Applicability
A. Applicability.
Any subdivision of land subject to these Regulations must meet applicable subdivision
standards under this Article unless modified or waived by the DRB under Section 15.A.01(E).
(1) The DRB, in determining compliance with these standards, may require:
(a) Disclosure of the intended use and development of all land to be subdivided,
including subsequent development plans for any retained portion of the existing lot to
be subdivided.
This criterion was a major point of discussion on August 6. The applicant has provided a concept
plan, discussed above.
15.A.03 Classification
(1) A Minor Subdivision is limited to:
(a) The subdivision of one lot into two lots if both lots have either the required street frontage
or share highway access via a permanent legal right-of-way; or
(b) A lot line adjustment or small lot merger which does not create a new lot but does not
meet the criteria for lot line adjustment or small lot merger below.
(c) A minor amendment to an approved subdivision defined under 15.A.09
Staff considers, under the draft regulations, that this subdivision may be a minor subdivision. This
determination would be made if the draft regulations are adopted.
15.A.08 General Standards
A. Development Suitability.
(1) Physical Site Constraints. For any land proposed to be subdivided for development, the
applicant must mitigate any physical site constraints caused by periodic flooding, poor
drainage, shallow soils, landslides, environmental site contamination, or other known
physical hazards or constraints as necessary to allow the proposed development.
This criterion is proposed to be subtly modified as shown here insofar as it is simplified to not
overlay natural resource protection standards, which are now broken out separately in 15.A.09
below.
E. Development Connectivity.
(1) The applicant must demonstrate the subdivision is configured and laid out to:
(a) Maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods
(b) Avoid creating disconnected development areas except to separate incompatible land uses or
to avoid undue adverse impacts to Article 12 resources, to the extent physically feasible
(c) Connect with and extend existing and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, transit
routes, and utility and greenway corridors located adjacent to or within ½-mile of the subdivision,
or as indicated on the City’s Official Map.
(d) Off-site improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision must be provided in
accordance with 15.A.14.
The current plan demonstrates that these criteria can be met with future development on Lot 2, but
since minimum density is not met, Staff considers the applicant may need to revise the conceptual
connectivity when they demonstrate compliance with required minimum density.
15.A.10 Street Network
At this time, no streets are proposed. As noted above, Staff considers the street network to
generally be compatible with these criteria, subject to modifications to meet required minimum
density.
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
B. Resource Protection.
(1) Article 12 protects specific natural resources. A subdivision shall not physically fragment, legally
subdivide, or develop Hazards and Level I resources contrary to the protections of Article 12. A
subdivision shall be configured to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on Level II resources protected
by Article 12.
(2) Contiguous Hazard and Level I resource areas that exceed the minimum lot size for the applicable
district must be subdivided onto their own lot or lots and be identified on the subdivision plat.
(a) These areas must be labeled in associated legal documents as “Conservation Lots” to be
maintained and managed in single or common ownership or under a conservation easement held
by the City or qualified third party, such as an established land trust.
(b) As a condition of subdivision approval, future subdivision of conservation lots shall be
prohibited except where all land is being conveyed for conservation purposes. This restriction must
noted on the subdivision plat.
(3) Contiguous Hazard, Level I, or Level II resource areas that are less than the required minimum lot
size for the zoning district can be incorporated into a building lot if the application and subdivision plan
include a delineation of a building envelope that excludes the resource area.
(4) Encroachments.
(a) A building lot may extend into a Hazard or Level I resource area up to 10% of the minimum lot
size and only to the extent necessary to meet minimum lot size or frontage requirements for the
relevant zoning district.
(b) Other encroachments within Hazard, Level I, or Level II Resource areas regulated under Article 12 are limited to those allowed, subject to DRB review and approval, under Article 12.
(c) An Article 12 resource area may be improved to serve as green infrastructure (e.g., for
stormwater management or flood control) or as a civic space serving the subdivision as described
in these regulations.
(5) Site Features shall be identified and incorporated into subdivision design. Physical fragmentation
or legal subdivision shall be minimized;
(6) Scenic resources are protected by scenic view overlay districts.
As alluded to above under zoning district and dimensional standards, Staff considers the Board
may prohibited limited subdivision of the wetland under (4) above. Staff has included these
standards in their entirety to familiarize the Board with them since they differ from those in the
current LDR.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Staff
considers either a continuation or a new sketch plan application to be necessary to address the
identified issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner