HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-08 - Supplemental - 0850 Hinesburg Road#SD-24-08
CITY OF SOUTH
BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-08_850 Hinesburg Rd_WGM Asso_PP_2024-07-
26_SC
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 9, 2024
Plans received: May 22, 2024
850 Hinesburg Road – WGM Associates
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-24-08
Meeting Date: July 16, 2024
Owner/Applicant
WGM Associates
PO Box 2352
South Burington, VT 05403
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information Tax Parcel ID: 0860-00896
Industrial & Open Space Zoning District
Parcel size: 10 acres
Location Map
#SD-24-08
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-24-08 of WGM Associates for phase one of a concurrent master
plan for a development consisting of eleven single family homes and an existing non-conforming
commercial or private parking facility. The phase consists of the creation of seven lots, three
containing existing single family homes, two to contain new homes, one to contain an existing
non-conforming commercial or private parking facility and new home, and one civic space lot, 850
Hinesburg Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this application (#SD-24-02) was reviewed by the Boad on January 17, 2024.
The Board is concurrently reviewing master plan application #MP-24-03 for three phases, of which
this preliminary plat represents the first phase.
CONTEXT
This project consists of Phase 1 of concurrent master plan #MP-24-03, as allowed under the LDR.
The preliminary plat (and, in the future, the final plat) application seeks approval as a General
PUD for a subdivision of land consisting of creation of a future right of way, three lots to contain
existing homes, three development lots, and one utility lot.
The master plan includes a context analysis evaluating the compatibility of the subject PUD with
the surrounding built environment.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner,
hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the
following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
I/O Zoning District Required Existing Proposed1
# Min. Lot Size 2 3 acres 10.05 0.26 ac min
√ Max. Building Height 40 ft pitched roof Unknown 28 ft max
@ Max. Building Coverage 30% 2.6% 20% max
@ Max. Overall Coverage 50% 11.4% 40% max,
51.5%
proposed3
^ Min. Front Setback 50 ft < 1 ft 30 ft max
^ Min. Side Setback 35 ft 10 ft 10 ft max
^ Min. Rear Setback 50 Ft > 650 ft 30 ft max
1. The applicant has proposed to adhere to the dimensional standards for the R4 zoning
district, with the exception of lot size for which specific values are proposed. The Board is
required by State Statute to accept the proposed density therefore Staff recommends the Board
grant the requested dimensional standards, as discussed as part of concurrent master plan
#SD-24-08
3
application #MP-24-03.
2. Minimum lot size is reduced to 8,712 sf (0.20 acres) by Act 47
3. The applicant is requesting an overall coverage waiver for Lot 1B, which is proposed to contain
the existing non-conforming commercial parking facility. Staff recommends the Board approve
the requested coverage waiver due to it being an existing condition.
B) PUD & GENERAL PUD STANDARDS
The applicant is proposing a General PUD.
15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed PUD must conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of
application. Conformance with the plan in this context means that the proposed PUD must:
1) Advance any clearly stated plan policies and objectives specific to the type and location
of the proposed development;
The proposed project is located within the Commercia/Industrial with Supporting Uses
future land use category of the 2024 City Plan. However, Staff considers the adoption of
Act 47 requires the Board to approve additional subdivision and housing in this location
due to the allowance of residential uses in the Industrial/Open Space Zoning District.
Goals for this location include:
• Goal 80: Reduce commuting distance and daytime vehicle travel by integrating
supporting services to commercial areas
• Goal 81: Make commercial areas more diverse in spaces, styles, and uses to
enable more nimble commercial use
In addition, applicable goals to the type of development include
• Goal 1: Anticipate and prepare for an average annual population growth rate of
approximately 1 – 1.5% and a housing growth rate of 1.5 – 2%,
• Goal 3: Increase rental vacancy rate to 5% as a proxy for a healthy and well-
supplied rental housing market
The City Plan broadly supports both economic development and housing. In this area, the
Plan largely envisions commercial/industrial uses, however Act 47 provides allowances for
compact housing in residentially-enabled districts served by water & sewer. Staff
considers that in this intervening time between the enactment of Act 47 and alignment of
local regulations consistent with the Act and the City Plan, the application should be
viewed in a broad light under this criterion.
1. Staff notes the regulations are set up to require an urban form, and the applicant’s
proposal is unusual in that it takes advantage of the dichotomy between the existing
zoning and Act 47 to propose a density lower than would otherwise be permitted for
residential development. Fundamentally, the Board needs to decide how it wants to deal
with this dichotomy. If they find the applicant’s proposal broadly acceptable, the
applicant’s requests for modification of various standards should be approvable. If they
find it to be unacceptable, the project as proposed may not be viable. Staff recommends
the Board discuss.
#SD-24-08
4
2) Incorporate preferred settlement patterns, including future land uses, densities and
intensities of development referenced in the land use plan, as implemented through
planned unit development provisions specific to each PUD type.
Future land use for this area is identified as Commercia/Industrial with Supporting Uses.
This area specifically calls out the need to allow limited residential uses to enhance and
support the future of commercial areas. However, as discussed above, Act 47 enables
densities of 5 dwelling units per acre in residentially-enabled districts served by water and
sewer.
3) Incorporate, as applicable, planned facilities, services and infrastructure identified in the
utilities and facilities plan, as implemented under the City’s adopted Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and Official Map.
The City Plan contemplates a planned shared use path along VT 116 in this area. Given
the location of the existing homes and the proposal to develop this lot below the full
development potential, Staff has recommended in concurrent master plan MP-24-04 that
the Board not require additional right-of-way for the future path. Staff considers the
Board must make consistent findings between the master plan and this preliminary plat.
B. Conformance with the Master Plan
Each phase of a PUD developed in one or more phases must conform to the PUD Master Plan, as
approved or amended by the DRB under Article 15.B, including the approved development plan,
phasing schedule, buildout budget, management plan, and any associated development
agreements or conditions of master plan approval.
Staff considers the Board must not approve this preliminary plat until the concurrent master plan
is also approved.
C. Compliance with Regulations
The provisions and standards specific to a PUD under this Article supersede underlying zoning
district, subdivision, and site plan standards. In no case, however, shall the provisions or
standards specific to a PUD supersede the Environmental Protection Standards of Article 12.
Notwithstanding the supersession of the underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan
standards, any application that indicates a density increase that exceeds the Assigned Density of
a parcel shall require a TDR under Article 19.
Natural resource impacts are discussed under Article 12 below.
(3) Alternative Compliance. One or more PUD dimensional and design standards under this
Article may be modified at applicant request for an alternative form of compliance,
subject to separate DRB review and approval, to provide the flexibility necessary to
address unique site conditions or constraints; to enable compatibility with existing or
planned development in the vicinity; or to allow for exceptional and innovative design.
Note that alternative compliance does not constitute an exemption from a PUD standard.
Allowed modifications include proposed functional or design alternatives that may be
considered in place of a specific requirement under this Article, only if the intent of the
requirement is met or exceeded. In approving a request for alternative compliance, the
DRB must find that the proposed alternative:
As noted in concurrent master plan #MP-24-03, the applicant is proposing a neighborhood
narrow street.
• Description: Narrow Streets are a special residential street type within the local
street network that provides for greater intimacy and ambiance as well as traffic
#SD-24-08
5
calming because of its limited width. Its application should be targeted to areas
where through trips are undesirable or unlikely and where parallel alternative
routes are accessible
• 5-ft Sidewalk required on one side. Sidewalk may be integrated with the street on
dead-end streets.
• 6-ft greenbelt required on each side
• On-street parking is prohibited
• 2 drive lanes at 9 – 10 ft width with a total pavement width of 20 – 22 ft is required
(1-ft shoulders on each side)
• 40-ft right of way width
• Vertical faced curb required
The applicant has requested the following alternative approaches.
i. Substitution of a crushed stone surface in lieu of a bituminous concrete wearing
surface & increased rate of change in vertical alignment
ii. Substitution of a swale in lieu of curbing and enclosed drainage system.
iii. Consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a shared
use design for low volume roadways.
Staff understands the intention of the applicant is to develop Phase 1 quickly and
inexpensively, and to reserve major improvements for Phase 2 and 3. However, the
purpose of the required master plan is to ensure that approved development plans for and
accommodates future development potential of the subdivided land. Staff considers the
most straightforward course of action is to require the applicant to construct the roadway
as paved and include a sidewalk along (or integrated within) the Phase 1 roadway as part
of Phase 1. However, an alternative approach may be warranted. See discussion below.
Before reviewing the specifics of the applicant’s proposal, Staff calls the Board’s attention
to several challenges:
• Phase 1 includes three of the eight proposed homes, and requiring improvement
of the Phase 1 roadway in future phases would place a disproportionate burden on
the cost of those homes.
• Functionally, there is no way to include an integrated sidewalk for a gravel
roadway. An integrated sidewalk is one for which it is distinguished from the
vehicular way by a change in surface treatment.
• An increased vertical rate of change would not be something that could be
corrected in a future phase. Therefore the future public street would not meet
Public Works standards.
• Similarly, a waiver of curb and gutter to allow sheet flow and open drainage would
not be something that could be changed in a future phase, therefore the future
public street would not be strictly consistent with Public Works standards in that
regard either.
The applicant has included a comprehensive narrative for each of the alternative
compliance criteria of review in support of their requests, paraphrased below.
(a) Conforms to the intent, description, and defining characteristics of the selected PUD
type(s);
#SD-24-08
6
i. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that the street will
not be public until it is connected and will only be used by the general public
for emergency access. The required width is proposed to be retained. The
applicant argues the increase vertical rate of change is appropriate for lower
speed roadways.
ii. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the City has approved swales
in other neighborhoods. Staff notes the provided examples were approved
under older regulations. The standards for neighborhood narrow streets
require vertical faced curbs.
iii. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that VTrans standards consider that for
roadways with a design number of trips less than 100 per day, pedestrian and
bicycle traffic can be accommodated within the roadway surface.
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified;
i. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues the intent of the
bituminous surface is to reduce infiltration and provide a more durable surface.
They argue that the annualized cost of a low volume gravel surface will be less
than the annualized cost of a bituminous surface. They propose a 3% crown to
remove surface water. They argue the increased vertical rate of change
continues to provide a safe roadway under the design conditions.
ii. ii. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the intent of curbing is to
delineate boundaries between road and sidewalk and to control stormwater.
The applicant is requesting that the sidewalk be integrated into the roadway and
to have an open drainage system.
iii. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that the intent is to provide pedestrian and
bicycle safety, and their safety can be accommodated within the roadway.
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function,
design, and quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and
i. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that not paving the
surface is a lower cost alternative and more aesthetic. The applicant argues that
the use of an increased vertical rate of change is more consistent with the very
low speed desired for the roadway.
ii. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the use of curbing and closed
drainage is an urban form.
iii. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that a “share the road” approach reduces
impervious surfaces and reduces the materials needed for construction and
maintenance.
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the
vicinity of the planned development (e.g., regarding walkability, traffic, parking,
drainage).
i. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that the low speed will
mitigate issues with dust generation or disturbance of the surface, and
stormwater runoff will be managed in the same way as a paved road. The
applicant argues the increased vertical rate of change will by its nature not have
any impact on adjoining properties.
#SD-24-08
7
ii. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that there will be no impact to
parking, as parking is prohibited on neighborhood narrow streets. There will
not be impacts to abutting properties and it will enhance stormwater treatment.
iii. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that the disconnected nature of the roadway
has no impact on abutting properties. Staff considers the absence of a sidewalk
will impact adjoining properties that may connect to the roadway in the future,
and recommends the Board include a condition that their waiver of a sidewalk
is only applicable to Phase 1 and shall be reconsidered for future phases.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the project on August 26, 2024. Some of these
comments are more applicable to concurrent master plan #MP-24-03 but are instead
provided here so that discussion of the roadway can occur in one place.
• The proposed project does not appear to accommodate the City's future ownership of
infrastructure. If this is the applicant's intent, or a future requirement, then we
recommend further discussions to clarify what is necessary.
• Sidewalk location must be shown and included in the ROW.
• Any infrastructure in a future City owned ROW, must be constructed in accordance
with the South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications. My
understanding is that the applicant is currently proposing a gravel road that would be
reconstructed to become a paved road if / when the road becomes public in the future.
The South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications do not include an
approved standard for gravel roads. If the DRB were to approve a gravel road it would
need to be reconstructed such that it fully meets the established road specification for
paved roads (including drainage, sub-base, etc) if /when the road becomes public. This
would be highly disruptive to residents then living on the street. DPW would also need
to review the proposed gravel road specification closer to make sure that it could
support emergency vehicles. Under no circumstances will the City accept
responsibility for a gravel road in the future. I do not recommend approval of a gravel
road.
• The "Neighborhood Street - Narrow" street typology requires a minimum ROW of 40'.
The applicant should consider providing more than the minimum required ROW.
• It is unclear if proposed infrastructure including driveway culverts, ditches, water
lines, and sewer pipes are within the proposed 40' wide road ROW. A future
submission needs to show this information on a single sheet. Any infrastructure
proposed for future city ownership must be within the ROW and have sufficient space
on either side of the infrastructure to repair / replace / maintain it in the future. This
typically means 10' on either side pipes. Sections of pipe outside the ROW will require
sufficient easements.
• The applicant will need to obtain an appropriate wastewater allocation to
accommodate the project.
• The applicant will need to obtain an appropriate drinking water allocation to
accommodate the project.
• The "Neighborhood Street - Narrow" street typology does not accommodate on-street
parking. Applicant will need to provide signage to this effect.
• The application should review the City's stormwater ordinance to ensure that policies
related to the future acceptance of stormwater infrastructure are clear.
The Deputy Director of Capital Projects reviewed the project on July 5, 2024 and offers the
#SD-24-08
8
following additional comments pertaining to the proposed street.
• Does the sidewalk need to be shown at the Master Plan level to indicate which side it
will be on? I don’t see it on the plans or cross-sections of the road, but I’d like to see
what they are thinking since homes will eventually be on both side of Maxine’s Way.
2. Staff acknowledges the dichotomy in the proposal. With that in mind, if the Board is
inclined to accept an alternative compliance approach to the roadway design, they tie it
directly to phasing and be clear on both short term and longer-term expectations. Namely:
that improving the full roadway length and providing pedestrian infrastructure is a
requirement of future phases, and that until and unless the road and associated
infrastructure are fully built to public standards, they will not be considered for acceptance
as public infrastructure
3. Staff recommends the Board review the above paragraphs pertaining to alternative
compliance and the comments of the Director of Public Works and discuss each of the
applicant’s requests.
i. Substitution of a crushed stone surface in lieu of a bituminous concrete wearing
surface & increased rate of change in vertical alignment – Staff recommends the
Board consider approving the crushed stone surface for Phase 1 but require
paving for future phases. Staff considers the Board may request the applicant
meet with the Director of Public Works on the vertical alignment or request an
independent technical review if no agreement can be reached.
ii. Substitution of a swale in lieu of curbing and enclosed drainage system – Based
on the comments of the Stormwater Division, provided below under site plan
review standards, Staff recommends the Board consider accepting this
modification for Phase 1 and future phases.
iii. Consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a shared
use design for low volume roadways. – Staff recommends the Board consider
accepting this request only if the applicant provides a demonstration of how the
integrated sidewalk will be distinguished from the vehicular way by a change in
surface treatment. If it cannot be integrated, the Phase 1 roadway should be
redesigned to accommodate a separate sidewalk in future phases.
In addition, 15.A.14(C) below provides an alternative pathway for the Board to permit
modifications to roadway standards that Staff recommends the Board take into
consideration when evaluating this request for alternative compliance.
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as
necessary to ensure compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a
proposed alternative.
4. If the Board considers it potentially feasible to accept a portion of the applicant’s requests
for alternative compliance for Phase 1 but require the standards to be met in full for future
phases, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to present a proposal that
provides reasonable surety that the pavement and sidewalk be constructed, such as a
bond lasting the duration of the master plan.
Further, if the Board considers it to be acceptable to place the burden of improving the
roadway within Phase 1 on a later phase, Staff considers the Board must include a clear
condition of the master plan indicating with which phase the roadway must be improved
to meet City standards, and require the applicant to provide a design demonstrating an
approvable configuration for the improved roadway as part of the concurrent master plan
application. Any additional findings of the Board that affect the master plan as a whole or
#SD-24-08
9
future phases should be incorporated into the findings of the master plan.
D. Development Density
(1) Intent. A Planned Unit Development is intended to accommodate within a designated
Development Area typically higher effective densities of development than the
underlying zoning district may allow, as necessary to accommodate:
(a) The clustering of development to conserve resources identified for protection;
(b) A more efficient and cost-effective use of land, facilities, services, and infrastructure;
(c) Densities that support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented pattern of development; or
(d) Transit-supportive densities of development along existing and planned transit
routes.
(2) Within a PUD, the overall density and intensity of development shall be determined
based on the total Buildable Area included within designated Development Areas, as
shown on the PUD Master Plan; and land use allocations, PUD density and dimensional
standards, and allowed building types and standards as specified by PUD type.
(3) Buildable Area.
(4) Land Use Allocations
(5) Minimum (Base) Density.
(6) Nonresidential Base Density
(7) Maximum Development Density.
Overall density, buildable area, and land use allocations are discussed at length in concurrent
master plan #MP-24-03 and are recommended for vesting.
E. Transition Zone. A PUD may also incorporate one or more transition zones along PUD or
property boundaries, as indicated on the PUD Master Plan and delineated on preliminary and final
subdivision plans, to include the minimum land area necessary to either extend and integrate
compatible, complementary forms of planned development, or to separate and buffer conflicting,
incompatible forms of planned development, in relation to existing and planned development in the
vicinity of the PUD.
As discussed in associated master plan #MP-24-03, Staff considers that no transitions are needed.
F. Allowed Uses. All proposed uses are allowed.
G. PUD Dimensional Standards. Dimensional standards, and modifications thereof, are
discussed above.
H. Street, Building, and Civic Space Types. There are no restrictions on these types for a
general PUD.
I. Solar Siting Preferences. The applicant has indicated their intention to meet renewable
energy requirements using a ground mounted photovoltaic system.
J. PUD Design Standards. PUD design standards are discussed under 15.C.07 below.
15.C.07 General PUD
#SD-24-08
10
A. Authority and Limitations
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, to
approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01.
(2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply.
(3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary:
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized via use of
Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning.
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as applicable.
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each zoning
district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of Transferrable
Development Rights.
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that Article.
(e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized within
that Section.
F. General PUD Compatibility and Context Analysis
(3) Context Analysis. The applicant must submit a written Analysis of the Development
Context within the Planning Area, which, at minimum, includes the information required
for Master Plan review under 15.B.04(C) and:
a. Hazards, and Level I and Level II Resources regulated under Article 12.
b. Prevalent pattern of land subdivision and development in the Planning Area, as
defined by block lengths; lot size and front lot line lengths; front, side, and rear
setbacks; building height and coverage; and existing parking arrangements.
c. Streetscape elements, including the placement, orientation, and spacing of buildings
along the street, existing and planned sidewalks, and existing or planned
landscaping, street furniture, and lighting.
d. Building types and styles, including any prevalent or character-defining architectural
features.
The context analysis is discussed in conjunction with master plan application #MP-24-03.
G. General PUD Dimensional Standards
1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district
dimensional standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall
apply unless modified, reduced, or waived by the DRB under (2) below.
a. The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in
order to modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site
Plan application requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using
15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or
(K).
b. The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3).
#SD-24-08
11
c. Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived as allowed in underlying
zoning districts identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below. The standards
of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply.
d. The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3).
2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the
DRB may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as
necessary to:
a. Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or
redevelopment, that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional
standards; or
b. Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that
advances the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly in response to existing site limitations that
cannot be eliminated; or
c. Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with
existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under
15.C.07(F) and to Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or
d. Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building
design, or otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution
on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017.
3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the
Planning Area under Section 15.C.07(F).
As discussed above, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the roadway.
H. Development Density
1) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall
apply to General PUDs.
2) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development
density in the underlying zoning district, except as follows.
a. Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts;
b. Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning
and application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically
authorized by and as regulated by Section 18.01 or Article 19.
The Board’s findings on MP-24-03 will determine the maximum development
density within the PUD achievable without inclusionary zoning or TDRs.
I. General PUD Design Standards
1) Design Standards. Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing
Site Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for
variations from applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development
context within the Planning Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section
15.C.07(G).
Additional design standards beyond the applicable sections of the LDR include those
established for the entire master plan in 15.B.04H Design Standards. Comments
pertaining to the overall master plan design standards are included in the review of that
application. Staff considers it unlikely that the Board will impose any design standards as
#SD-24-08
12
part of the master plan that are incompatible with this, Phase 1, of that master plan.
Other design standards are discussed herein.
2) Streets. Streets within a General PUD must be compatible with and connect to existing
and planned public street, sidewalk, and path networks in the Planning Area.
a. Street and block pattern requirements of the Subdivision regulations shall apply
unless waived by the DRB under Section 15C.09(G)(4).
Street and block patterns are addressed discussed under 15.A.16 below.
3) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying
zones and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section
14.06(A)(2).
Parking requirements are discussed in conjunction with site plan review below.
4) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be
compatible with the development context in the Planning Area as described under
Section 15.C.07(F) and (G).
Staff considers the findings of MP-24-03 will govern whether this criterion is met.
5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible
with the existing or planned development context.
The applicant is proposing a community garden type civic space. This type is required to
include a group of garden plots and may also include accessory facilities/structures such
as a water source or equipment shed. Parking is to be limited or none. It must be at least
5,000 sf and accessible from a public street. As part of MP-24-03, the Board is considering
under what conditions a stormwater treatment will be permitted to be included in the civic
space. Staff considers the Board may review consistency of the stormwater practice with
the findings of the master plan at the final plat stage of review.
Site amenities are discussed in association with site plan review criteria below.
6) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix
of two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must
be provided as described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated
by either housing type under Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more
than four (4) dwelling units, by number of bedrooms per unit.
Phase 1 includes construction of three homes and an ADU. This criterion is not applicable
to Phase 1.
C) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
15.C.04C, pertaining to compliance with regulations for all PUD types, states that the provisions
specific to a PUD supersede underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan standards.
Therefore only standards not directly superseded by PUD standards are discussed herein.
15.A.04 Classification
A. Subdivision Classes.
This application will be considered a Major Subdivision.
#SD-24-08
13
15.A.11 General Standards
A. Development Suitability. The applicant must demonstrate that the land to be subdivided
is physically suited for its intended use and the proposed density or intensity of development, and
that the proposed subdivision will not result in undue adverse impacts to public health and safety,
environmental resources as identified and regulated under Article 12, neighboring properties and
uses, or public facilities and infrastructure located on or within the vicinity of the land to be
subdivided.
(1) Physical Site Constraints. Land that is physically unsuited for development, including land
that is characterized by periodic flooding, poor drainage, shallow soils, landslides,
environmental site contamination or other known physical hazards or constraints, must not
be subdivided for development unless the applicant can demonstrate that such limitations can
be overcome, remediated, or mitigated as necessary to allow for subsequent development.
Physical constraints include potential wetland buffer on the southeast corner of the site. This
land is not proposed for subdivision.
(2) Buildable Area.
(3) Buildable Area Calculations. The allowed number of building lots or dwelling units within the
subdivision shall be calculated based on the Buildable Area of the parcel or tract to be
subdivided except as otherwise specified for a Transect Zone Subdivision under Article 8, a
Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and as provided for the transfer of development
rights under Article 19, or affordable housing offsets, bonuses, or incentives under Article 18.
Calculation of buildable area is addressed in concurrent master plan MP-24-01 and is
recommended as a vested right under that master plan.
C. Development Context
(1) Overlay Districts
The project is not located in any overlay districts.
(2) Multiple Districts
The project is located in only one zoning district.
(3) Compliance with Other Regulations. Subdivisions, including building lots, dwelling units,
and supporting facilities and infrastructure, must also be designed, configured, and
constructed to comply with other relevant standards under these Regulations and other city
ordinances and standards in effect at the time of application, including those listed below. • Official Map, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4421
There are no official map features in the vicinity of the project. • Capital Improvement Program, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4430
There are no capital improvements planned in the vicinity of the project. • Department of Public Works Standards
The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed plans on July 9, 2024 and
August 23, 2024. Those comments are incorporated above. • Fire Prevention and Safety Ordinance • Water and Cross Connection Ordinances • Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Ordinance • Impact Fee Ordinance
Impact fees will be required for construction of each new home.
#SD-24-08
14
• E-911 Ordinance
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain Planning Commission
approval for a proposed road name prior to submitting the final plat.
(4) Compliance with an Approved Master Plan
Staff considers the Board must not approve this preliminary plat until the concurrent
master plan is also approved.
D. Development Connectivity
The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision, to the extent physically feasible, is
configured and laid out to maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, and
to avoid creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development, except where necessary to
separate incompatible land uses, or to avoid undue adverse impacts to resources identified for
protection under Article 12. Accordingly, the applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision is
laid out to connect with and extend existing and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths,
transit routes, and utility and greenway corridors located adjacent to or within ½-mile of the
subdivision, or as indicated on the City’s Official Map. Off-site improvements necessary to serve
the proposed subdivision must be provided in accordance with 15.A.18.
Staff considers the proposed master plan to address this criterion.
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
A. Resource Protection.
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has been configured and laid out
to:
(1) Incorporate significant natural, historical, and scenic features located on the parcel or tract to
be subdivided;
(2) Avoid and exclude Hazard and Level I Resources identified for protection under Article 12 from
parcelization, physical fragmentation, and development; and,
(3) Minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of land subdivision and development on Level
II Resources identified for protection under Article 12.
Staff considers these criteria met.
15.A.13 Subdivision Design Process
A. Design Process
The design process to be followed by the applicant under this Subsection, in preparing subdivision
plans and draft plats included with the application, includes the following steps in order of
preference:
(1) Delineate and set aside resource areas identified for protection, and other existing site
features for consideration under 15.A.12 above.
The applicant is proposing community garden spaces within the potential wetland buffer.
Wetland impacts are discussed under 12.06 below.
(2) Layout and configure the proposed street network to:
(a) connect with and extend existing streets;
#SD-24-08
15
(b) define one or more contiguous blocks that meet applicable block standards under
15.A.16 or as otherwise specified for the Zoning District, Transect Zone, or type of
Planned Unit Development in which the subdivision is located); and to
(c) incorporate allowed Street Types and design standards under 15.A.14, including
existing and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, and transit stops.
Street type and block layout are addressed in concurrent master plan MP-24-03.
(3) Delineate building lots that front on and are oriented to the abutting street or civic space,
and that meet applicable lot size and dimensional requirements by Zoning District,
Transect Zone or type of Planned Unit Development or Building Type under Article 11.C,
as applicable.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Designate within each block, or as otherwise provided within the subdivision, required
civic spaces, parking lots or facilities, and infrastructure and utility corridors or easements
that meet the requirements of these Regulations, which are to be retained in common or
single ownership or dedicated to the City.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(5) Incorporate within block configurations, as applicable, one or more alleys or service
lanes, and midblock pedestrian passages as necessary to provide rear, side or shared
vehicular and pedestrian access to fronting building lots, civic spaces and designated
parking areas or facilities.
Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
15.A.14 Street Network
B. Street Layout
Layout of the street network is considered as part of concurrent master plan MP-24-03 and is
recommended for vesting.
C. Street Design
The applicant’s requested modifications from the required street geometry and cross section are
discussed under alternative compliance above.
If the Board finds alternative compliance for the street cross section to not be approved, there is
an alternative path forward for the applicant to request DRB approval for modification of street
standards, which includes demonstration of the following.
(a) The stated reasons why a cited standard or specification cannot be achieved;
(b) The estimated cost of construction to meet the cited standard in relation to the total
project cost, and the cost of any proposed alternative, if cost is cited as a factor in the
request;
(c) Projected traffic volumes, including projected truck, pedestrian and bicyclist traffic,
and the minimum standards necessary to accommodate the stated design vehicle(s);
(d) The compatibility of a requested modification with present and anticipated
improvements to adjacent street sections or connections;
(e) Accident data for the area, to determine the potential impact of a proposed
modification on safety and accident rates; and any proposed countermeasures that will
#SD-24-08
16
be employed to reduce the frequency and severity of future accidents;
(f) Recommendations of the Director of Public Works with respect to the proposed street
design in relation to its development context, functional classification, and maintenance.
(g) Any other information the Board deems necessary to render a decision.
While Staff is not necessarily recommending the Board deny the request for alternative
compliance, Staff does consider applicant’s modification request may be more cleanly approvable
under the above criteria (a) through (f) than under the alternative compliance criteria of
15.C.04(C)(3) above.
5. Staff therefore, at minimum, recommends the Board consider these criteria when
deliberating on the applicant’s request for alternative compliance.
D. Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development
The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an
overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of
the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through
movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed master plan will generate 11 PM peak hour trips,
therefore Staff considers the Board need not require a traffic study for this, Phase 1, of the master
plan. Furthermore, Staff is recommending the traffic generation for vesting in concurrent master
plan application #MP-24-03.
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Recreation Paths
The applicant has made their request to include the sidewalk within the roadway cross section for
Phase 1, discussed above.
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots
These elements are discussed in conjunction with concurrent master plan MP-24-01 and are
recommended for vesting.
15.A.17 Mix of Dwelling Unit Types
This is addressed under PUD standards above.
15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services
A. Capacity of Community Facilities, Utilities and Services. The applicant must demonstrate
that the proposed subdivision and development will not exceed the existing or planned capacity
of, or cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on City facilities, utilities and services,
including:
• Public schools,
• Police, fire protection and ambulance services,
• Street infrastructure and maintenance,
• Parks and recreation facilities, and
#SD-24-08
17
• Water supply, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management systems and infrastructure.
Comments of the relevant departments have been included in the applicable sections of this
report.
B. Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Systems. The applicant must demonstrate that
adequate potable water supply and wastewater facilities exist to serve the subdivision at buildout,
and for each phase of development.
The project is proposed to be connected to the City’s water supply and wastewater system.
The comments of the South Burlington Water Director are included in concurrent master plan #MP-
24-03.
The applicant has obtained recent approval to connect to municipal wastewater, and the Deputy
Director of Water Quality reviewed the plans associated with that connection with this proposed
project in mind.
C. Fire Protection. The subdivision must be laid out to ensure that adequate fire protection
can be provided in accordance with City specifications.
The Fire Marshal reviewed the provided plans on July 3, 2024 and offers the following comments.
The required fire hydrants shall be installed and operational and tested by CWD prior to the
beginning of any combustible construction. Hydrant flow data shall be forward to SBFD-FMO
prior to any combustible construction.
6. As noted in concurrent master plan #MP-24-03, Staff recommends the Board address the
conflicting comments of the Suth Burlington Water Director and the Fire Marshal
pertaining to the means of fire protection for the proposed homes, either sprinkler or fire
hydrant.
D. Stormwater Facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that stormwater management
system serving the subdivision has been designed to meet City standards and specifications under
Article 13 of these regulations and the South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the use of Public
and Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems.
(1) Planned Unit Developments. For the purposes of determining applicability in Section
13.05B of these regulations, in the instance of a Planned Unit Development, the applicant
shall calculate the impervious coverage on the entire PUD, rather than lot or parcel. The
stormwater management requirements will apply to all PUDs within the City of South
Burlington where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed
to exist.
The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the plans on July 8,
2024 and offers the following comments.
1. Please provide the HydroCAD model for review. Also please note that the
HydroCAD print-outs included in the application do not include any routing
from the drainage areas to the gravel wetland and therefore do not provide any
information on how the gravel wetland will perform during any storm event.
2. Sheet SW-1:
a. How will the applicant ensure that all runoff from the road enters the gravel
wetland system through the pre-treatment forebay? Note in particular that
runoff from the hammerhead will be able to flow freely into the gravel
wetland without receiving pre-treatment.
b. This is quite a steep road. How will the applicant prevent runoff from the
south side of the road from scouring the adjacent land and causing erosion
#SD-24-08
18
issues? Staff recommends the inclusion of a stone-lined swale on the south
side in addition to the one on the north.
c. Grading is insufficient to determine routing of runoff from the proposed
driveways and buildings. How will the applicant ensure that all runoff from
the driveways and homes makes it into the gravel wetland system?
d. Staff recommends increasing the size of the driveway culverts from 12” to
15”.
7. Staff considers the comments of the Stormwater Superintendent, while significant, will
not require a complete reconfiguration of the proposed stormwater management system
and therefore recommends the Board require them to be addressed at the final plat stage
of review.
E. Utilities and Services.
The applicant must demonstrate that subdivision design has been coordinated with utility
companies serving the proposed subdivision, as necessary for the DRB to determine that adequate
service capacity exists and that the areas identified for utility installation, on subdivision plans and
plat, meet the requirements of these Regulations.
(1) Utility connections must be provided to each building lot, and to other subdivision lots on
which service is necessary or required.
(2) Utilities must be located within street rights-of-way, or within permanent utility access and
maintenance easements identified on subdivision plans and plats.
(3) New electrical, natural gas, telephone, internet, cable television, and outdoor lighting systems
must be installed underground, unless prevented by ledge or other physical constraints that
make burying utility lines impractical.
(4) Utility lines or corridors must be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with
the extension of utilities and services to adjacent properties.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring utility lines to be underground.
F. Street and Sidewalk Lighting.
Where provided along local and collector streets, street and sidewalk lighting must be pedestrian-
scaled (e.g., 12 to 14 feet in height) to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the development patterns and character of
the neighborhood, with smooth levels of illumination (rather than hotspots) and light trespass
minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
The applicant is not proposing street or sidewalk lighting.
G. Renewable Energy Facilities.
The applicant must demonstrate that, to the extent physically feasible, reasonable, and as
appropriate to its development context, the subdivision has been designed to incorporate best
practices that maintain access to and use of renewable energy resources, e.g., to include one or
more of the following as indicated on subdivision plans and plats:
(1) Street and building lots that are oriented to maximize solar access and gain, for passive solar
construction or rooftop solar installations.
(2) Parking lots or structures that are designed and constructed to accommodate electric vehicle
infrastructure, including charging stations and solar canopies or rooftop solar installations.
#SD-24-08
19
(3) One or more suitable open areas (“solar lots”) within the subdivision that are specifically
designated for a ground-mounted community or neighborhood solar installation.
(4) Solar access easements, as necessary to maintain solar access across adjoining building lots
or properties.
(5) Covenants, deed restrictions or other legal mechanisms that require “solar-ready”
construction within the subdivision.
The property has an existing ground mounted solar array that is located in a corner of the proposed
Civic Space. Staff considers these criteria to be met.
D) SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW STANDARDS
As a PUD, these criteria are applicable.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas. The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along
the street.
The applicant has requested a front setback waiver to 30 ft.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the
street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s
existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
The applicant’s conceptual plans indicate future buildings oriented to the street. 13.17
requires buildings to face the street. Staff considers this criterion met.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
Staff considers the proposed single family homes to be consistent with existing
development.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
The applicant has requested alternative compliance for the standard requiring a sidewalk
along the proposed street.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
8. Staff recommends the Board consider whether they will include a condition requiring
solar orientation given the existing ground mounted solar array.
(2) Parking.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public
street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
#SD-24-08
20
Single family homes and duplexes are exempt from this criterion.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area
1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
The applicant has provided a document describing the characteristics proposed for
buildings on Lots 1C and 1D. They have argued that the proposed building on Lot 1B is
exempt from building design requirements due to the lot size being over 1 acre. However,
there is no such lot size exemption from this criterion therefore Staff recommends the Board
apply the same characteristics to the proposed construction on Lot 1B.
The proposed characteristics are as follows. These would be in addition to dimensional
standards.
• Front Door facing the street
• Front Porch facing south
• Higher proportion of glazing facing south
• Ridge Line running east-west
• Dark color roof
• Recessed Garage façade
• Garage width <40% of Total Building street façade length
• Yard area of >100 SF
2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
Staff considers the above criterion and the layout of the site to result in compliance with
this criterion.
3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
a. Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of
development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations,
position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached
building types.
Staff considers the street and block configurations and position of buildings to be
consistent with the setting.
b. Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural
features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular
architectural style.
Staff considers the above commitments to result in compliance with this criterion.
c. Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including
side and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Staff considers privacy to adjoining properties to not be an issue in this setting.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
#SD-24-08
21
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross floor
area.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
For the proposed 11 homes in the master plan, 935 sf site amenity is required.
(4) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site Amenity area if
the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or public park
that is accessible by the general public and located within five-hundred (500) feet of at least one
pedestrian access point for each building on the lot via a walking route and/or pedestrian way. A
“safe, walkable connection” shall not include or require crossing a four-lane road.
(a) The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Site Amenity area if some
but not all the buildings on the lot have pedestrian access points located within five-hundred
(500) feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section 14.06(D)(4), above.
(b) The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the Site Amenity area.
The applicant has provided a Civic Space in Phase 1, which is within 500-ft of and accessible
to each of the proposed homes. In addition, each home will have a private yard space, which
the applicant has above committed to being at least 100 sf. Staff considers this criterion met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards
All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12,
Environmental Protection Standards.
Discussion of specific requirements for environmental protection is included under Article 12
below.
B. Site Design Features.
All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking
and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other
applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
These standards are discussed elsewhere in this report.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and
circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
15.A.14 is discussed above.
D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban
#SD-24-08
22
Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to
the standards contained therein.
There are no supplemental building standards beyond those discussed under 14.06 above.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an
existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D)
within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be
required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.)
to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as
necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
Required streetscape improvements are discussed pertaining to subdivision standards above.
G. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb
cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes,
or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
The applicant has included on their proposed plat a 40-ft easement to be converted to a future 40-
ft right of way with development of phase 2. Staff considers this criterion met.
H. Utility Services.
Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and
Services, shall also be met.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition that all wire served utilities are required to be
underground.
I. Disposal of Wastes.
All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling,
composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque
fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended
for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to
be fenced or screened.
Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable for the proposed residential development.
E) ARTICLE 12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to encapsulate the wetland buffer within the required
Civic Space. This area is currently maintained as lawn.
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection.
(4) Pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures and impervious surfaces.
(a) 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
#SD-24-08
23
shall be considered non-conforming development. Non-conforming development within
a wetlands buffer may not be expanded.
E. Exemptions.
The following activities are not required to meet the standards in this section and do not require a
local permit:
(1) Maintenance of Pre-Existing Gardens, Landscaped Areas/Lawns, Structures and
Impervious Surfaces. Maintenance of pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures
and impervious surfaces located within a wetlands buffer, and that were legally in existence as
of the effective date of these regulations, does not require a permit.
(2) Invasive Species, Nuisance Plants, and Noxious Weeds Removal. Hand removal (e.g.
non-motorized or non-mechanized) of invasive species, nuisance plants, and noxious weeds, as
identified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets, within Class I, Class II, and
Class III wetlands, and their associated buffers, is exempt from these regulations.
(3) Trails. Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails, and
associate puncheons and boardwalks, not to exceed ten (10) feet in width located within the
buffer area of a Class I, Class II or Class III wetland. All trails located within this buffer area should
be constructed to meet the best practices outlined in the Recreational Trail Building Guidance
document developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
9. Staff recommends the Board consider whether these criteria permit the applicant to
convert the existing lawn area to a community garden or whether it must be maintained
as lawn. The applicant may also revert it to an unmaintained wetland area at their
choosing.
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.
If the Board determines conversion to community garden from lawn is not permitted under
E(1) above, Staff considers the proposed impacts to be potentially eligible for modification,
though additional documentation would be needed.
(3) Modification Standards. The Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer, as
applicable, may grant a modification from the rules of this Section only if a modification
application meets all the following standards:
(a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
development;
#SD-24-08
24
(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.
10. If the Board considers that the rules must be modified for conversion from lawn to
community garden, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit the
wetland delineation report enumerating the specific functions and values, enumerate the
area of impact, and demonstrate that the area of impact has been minimized.
E) OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS
3.18 Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards
A. Applicability.
This section shall apply to the receipt of a zoning permit for the construction and subsequent
alteration of all new principal buildings beginning December 1, 2015, or the date that this Section
3.17 becomes effective, whichever is later.
B. Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES).
Residential buildings, as defined by 30 V.S.A. section 51(a)(2), that are principal building, shall comply
with the Stretch Code, as defined by 30 V.S.A. section 53)a). Such buildings for which the RBES
Certificate certifying compliance with the Stretch Code is not recorded in the South Burlington Land
Records shall be deemed land development without a zoning permit in violation of these Regulations.
This standard applies to this project.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
There is no minimum required landscaping budget for this project. The applicant is proposing
fourteen (14) street trees installed at 2.5 – 3” caliper of three maple species. The City of South
Burlington Public Works specifications require no more than 50% of any one species. This is
proposed to be met. Staff will request City Arborist review of the proposed species at the final
plat stage of review.
The applicant has also provided a tree protection plan.
13.05 Stormwater Management
This chapter includes application requirements and design requirements for on-site treatment and
for impacts to the municipal system. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on July 8,
2024 and the comments are provided above.
13.12 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures
This section pertains to utility cabinets on their own lot. The applicant is proposing to locate an
#SD-24-08
25
existing silo containing cell tower equipment on a 6,100 square foot (0.14 acre) lot. Assuming the
Board accepts the silo as a utility cabinet or similar structure as part of concurrent master plan
#MP-24-03, the following criterion are applicable.
A. General Requirements.
In any district, the Development Review Board may grant site plan approval for the construction
of a utility cabinet or similar structure according to the following regulations.
B. Specific Standards for Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures.
(1) The facility shall serve the City of South Burlington and/or immediately adjacent
communities.
Based on verbal information provided by the applicant, Staff understands this to be true.
(2) The minimum required lot for a public utility cabinet, substation, or communication relay
station on its own parcel may be reduced from the zoning district requirements, at the
discretion of the Development Review Board. In the event that the facility shall be erected on
property not owned by the utility, the Development Review Board shall require that the
facility be located unobtrusively.
The minimum lot size in the zoning district is modified by Act 47 to 8,712 sf, since the zoning
district permits single family homes.
(3) If the parcel containing the facility is landlocked, there shall be a recorded easement or
permission granting access to the utility or owner of the facility.
11. The utility exists therefore Staff assumes there is adequate access. Under proposed
conditions, the parcel will be directly adjacent to the project roadway. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion by providing
documentation of existing access at the final plat stage of review.
(4) There shall be sufficient landscaping or fencing of sufficient height and opacity to screen
effectively the facility year-round from streets and abutting unaffiliated properties.
Staff recommends the Board waive this requirement. The silo is an important element of the
South Burlington skyline as seen when looking towards Mt. Mansfield from Wheeler Nature Park.
(5) The location of the facility shall be shown on all relevant site plans.
This criterion is met.
(6) Utility cabinets and similar structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all
existing or planned public roads or rights-of-way.
This criterion is met.
C) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
I/O Zoning District Required Existing Proposed1
# Min. Lot Size 2 3 acres 10.05 0.26 ac min √ Max. Building Height 40 ft pitched
roof
Unknown 28 ft max
@ Max. Building
Coverage
30% 2.6% 20% max
@ Max. Overall Coverage 50% 11.4% 40% max,
51.5%
#SD-24-08
26
proposed3
^ Min. Front Setback 50 ft < 1 ft 30 ft max
^ Min. Side Setback 35 ft 10 ft 10 ft max
^ Min. Rear Setback 50 Ft > 650 ft 30 ft max
1. The applicant has proposed to adhere to the dimensional standards for the R4 zoning
district, with the exception of lot size for which specific values are proposed. The Board is
required by State Statute to accept the proposed density therefore Staff recommends the Board
grant the requested dimensional standards, as discussed as part of concurrent master plan
application #MP-24-03.
2. Minimum lot size is reduced to 8,712 sf (0.20 acres) by Act 47
3. The applicant is requesting an overall coverage waiver for Lot 1B, which is proposed to contain
the existing non-conforming commercial parking facility. Staff recommends the Board approve
the requested coverage waiver due to it being an existing condition.
F) PUD & GENERAL PUD STANDARDS
The applicant is proposing a General PUD.
15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed PUD must conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of
application. Conformance with the plan in this context means that the proposed PUD must:
4) Advance any clearly stated plan policies and objectives specific to the type and location
of the proposed development;
The proposed project is located within the Commercia/Industrial with Supporting Uses future land
use category of the 2024 City Plan. However, Staff considers the adoption of Act 47 requires the
Board to approve additional subdivision and housing in this location due to the allowance of
residential uses in the Industrial/Open Space Zoning District.
Goals for this location include:
• Goal 80: Reduce commuting distance and daytime vehicle travel by integrating
supporting services to commercial areas
• Goal 81: Make commercial areas more diverse in spaces, styles, and uses to
enable more nimble commercial use
In addition, applicable goals to the type of development include
• Goal 1: Anticipate and prepare for an average annual population growth rate of
approximately 1 – 1.5% and a housing growth rate of 1.5 – 2%,
• Goal 3: Increase rental vacancy rate to 5% as a proxy for a healthy and well-
supplied rental housing market
The City Plan broadly supports both economic development and housing. In this area, the Plan
largely envisions commercial/industrial uses, however Act 47 provides allowances for compact
housing in residentially-enabled districts served by water & sewer. Staff considers that in this
intervening time between the enactment of Act 47 and alignment of local regulations consistent
with the Act and the City Plan, the application should be viewed in a broad light under this
#SD-24-08
27
criterion.
12. Staff notes the regulations are set up to require an urban form, and the applicant’s
proposal is unusual in that it takes advantage of the dichotomy between the existing
zoning and Act 47 to propose a density lower than would otherwise be permitted for
residential development. Fundamentally, the Board needs to decide how it wants to deal
with this dichotomy. If they find the applicant’s proposal broadly acceptable, the
applicant’s requests for modification of various standards should be approvable. If they
find it to be unacceptable, the project as proposed may not be viable. Staff recommends
the Board discuss.
5) Incorporate preferred settlement patterns, including future land uses, densities and
intensities of development referenced in the land use plan, as implemented through
planned unit development provisions specific to each PUD type.
Future land use for this area is identified as Commercia/Industrial with Supporting Uses. This
area specifically calls out the need to allow limited residential uses to enhance and support the
future of commercial areas. However, as discussed above, Act 47 enables densities of 5 dwelling
units per acre in residentially-enabled districts served by water and sewer.
6) Incorporate, as applicable, planned facilities, services and infrastructure identified in the
utilities and facilities plan, as implemented under the City’s adopted Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and Official Map.
The City Plan contemplates a planned shared use path along VT 116 in this area. Given the
location of the existing homes and the proposal to develop this lot below the full development
potential, Staff has recommended in concurrent master plan MP-24-04 that the Board not require
additional right-of-way for the future path. Staff considers the Board must make consistent
findings between the master plan and this preliminary plat.
B. Conformance with the Master Plan
Each phase of a PUD developed in one or more phases must conform to the PUD Master Plan, as
approved or amended by the DRB under Article 15.B, including the approved development plan,
phasing schedule, buildout budget, management plan, and any associated development
agreements or conditions of master plan approval.
Staff considers the Board must not approve this preliminary plat until the concurrent master plan
is also approved.
C. Compliance with Regulations
The provisions and standards specific to a PUD under this Article supersede underlying zoning
district, subdivision, and site plan standards. In no case, however, shall the provisions or
standards specific to a PUD supersede the Environmental Protection Standards of Article 12.
Notwithstanding the supersession of the underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan
standards, any application that indicates a density increase that exceeds the Assigned Density of
a parcel shall require a TDR under Article 19.
Natural resource impacts are discussed under Article 12 below.
(3) Alternative Compliance. One or more PUD dimensional and design standards under this
Article may be modified at applicant request for an alternative form of compliance, subject to
separate DRB review and approval, to provide the flexibility necessary to address unique site
conditions or constraints; to enable compatibility with existing or planned development in the
vicinity; or to allow for exceptional and innovative design. Note that alternative compliance
does not constitute an exemption from a PUD standard. Allowed modifications include
#SD-24-08
28
proposed functional or design alternatives that may be considered in place of a specific
requirement under this Article, only if the intent of the requirement is met or exceeded. In
approving a request for alternative compliance, the DRB must find that the proposed alternative:
As noted in concurrent master plan #MP-24-03, the applicant is proposing a neighborhood narrow
street.
• Description: Narrow Streets are a special residential street type within the local
street network that provides for greater intimacy and ambiance as well as traffic
calming because of its limited width. Its application should be targeted to areas
where through trips are undesirable or unlikely and where parallel alternative
routes are accessible
• 5-ft Sidewalk required on one side. Sidewalk may be integrated with the street on
dead-end streets.
• 6-ft greenbelt required on each side
• On-street parking is prohibited
• 2 drive lanes at 9 – 10 ft width with a total pavement width of 20 – 22 ft is required
(1-ft shoulders on each side)
• 40-ft right of way width
• Vertical faced curb required
The applicant has requested the following alternative approaches.
i. Substitution of a crushed stone surface in lieu of a bituminous concrete wearing surface &
increased rate of change in vertical alignment
ii. Substitution of a swale in lieu of curbing and enclosed drainage system.
iii. Consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a shared use design for
low volume roadways.
Staff understands the intention of the applicant is to develop Phase 1 quickly and inexpensively,
and to reserve major improvements for Phase 2 and 3. However, the purpose of the required
master plan is to ensure that approved development plans for and accommodates future
development potential of the subdivided land. Staff considers the most straightforward course of
action is to require the applicant to construct the roadway as paved and include a sidewalk along
(or integrated within) the Phase 1 roadway as part of Phase 1. However, an alternative approach
may be warranted. See discussion below.
Before reviewing the specifics of the applicant’s proposal, Staff calls the Board’s attention to
several challenges:
• Phase 1 includes three of the eight proposed homes, and requiring improvement
of the Phase 1 roadway in future phases would place a disproportionate burden on
the cost of those homes.
• Functionally, there is no way to include an integrated sidewalk for a gravel
roadway. An integrated sidewalk is one for which it is distinguished from the
vehicular way by a change in surface treatment.
• An increased vertical rate of change would not be something that could be
corrected in a future phase. Therefore the future public street would not meet
Public Works standards.
• Similarly, a waiver of curb and gutter to allow sheet flow and open drainage would
#SD-24-08
29
not be something that could be changed in a future phase, therefore the future
public street would not be strictly consistent with Public Works standards in that
regard either.
The applicant has included a comprehensive narrative for each of the alternative compliance
criteria of review in support of their requests, paraphrased below.
(b) Conforms to the intent, description, and defining characteristics of the selected
PUD type(s);
iv. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that the street will
not be public until it is connected and will only be used by the general public
for emergency access. The required width is proposed to be retained. The
applicant argues the increase vertical rate of change is appropriate for lower
speed roadways.
v. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the City has approved swales
in other neighborhoods. Staff notes the provided examples were approved
under older regulations. The standards for neighborhood narrow streets
require vertical faced curbs.
vi. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that VTrans standards consider that for
roadways with a design number of trips less than 100 per day, pedestrian
and bicycle traffic can be accommodated within the roadway surface.
(b) Achieves the intent of the PUD standard to be modified;
iv. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues the intent of the
bituminous surface is to reduce infiltration and provide a more durable
surface. They argue that the annualized cost of a low volume gravel surface
will be less than the annualized cost of a bituminous surface. They propose
a 3% crown to remove surface water. They argue the increased vertical rate
of change continues to provide a safe roadway under the design conditions.
v. ii. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the intent of curbing is to
delineate boundaries between road and sidewalk and to control stormwater.
The applicant is requesting that the sidewalk be integrated into the roadway
and to have an open drainage system.
vi. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that the intent is to provide pedestrian and
bicycle safety, and their safety can be accommodated within the roadway.
(c) Results in development that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design,
and quality to that required under the standard to be modified; and
iv. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that not paving the
surface is a lower cost alternative and more aesthetic. The applicant argues that
the use of an increased vertical rate of change is more consistent with the very
low speed desired for the roadway.
v. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that the use of curbing and closed
drainage is an urban form.
vi. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that a “share the road” approach reduces
impervious surfaces and reduces the materials needed for construction and
maintenance.
(d) Does not adversely impact properties, uses or facilities within, adjacent to, or in the
vicinity of the planned development (e.g., regarding walkability, traffic, parking, drainage).
#SD-24-08
30
iv. Road surface & vertical alignment: The applicant argues that the low speed will
mitigate issues with dust generation or disturbance of the surface, and
stormwater runoff will be managed in the same way as a paved road. The
applicant argues the increased vertical rate of change will by its nature not have
any impact on adjoining properties.
v. Swale & no curbing: The applicant argues that there will be no impact to
parking, as parking is prohibited on neighborhood narrow streets. There will not
be impacts to abutting properties and it will enhance stormwater treatment.
vi. Sidewalk: The applicant argues that the disconnected nature of the roadway has
no impact on abutting properties. Staff considers the absence of a sidewalk will
impact adjoining properties that may connect to the roadway in the future, and
recommends the Board include a condition that their waiver of a sidewalk is only
applicable to Phase 1 and shall be reconsidered for future phases.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the project on August 26, 2024. Some of these comments
are more applicable to concurrent master plan #MP-24-03 but are instead provided here so that
discussion of the roadway can occur in one place.
• The proposed project does not appear to accommodate the City's future ownership of
infrastructure. If this is the applicant's intent, or a future requirement, then we
recommend further discussions to clarify what is necessary.
• Sidewalk location must be shown and included in the ROW.
• Any infrastructure in a future City owned ROW, must be constructed in accordance
with the South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications. My
understanding is that the applicant is currently proposing a gravel road that would be
reconstructed to become a paved road if / when the road becomes public in the future.
The South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications do not include an
approved standard for gravel roads. If the DRB were to approve a gravel road it would
need to be reconstructed such that it fully meets the established road specification for
paved roads (including drainage, sub-base, etc) if /when the road becomes public. This
would be highly disruptive to residents then living on the street. DPW would also need
to review the proposed gravel road specification closer to make sure that it could
support emergency vehicles. Under no circumstances will the City accept
responsibility for a gravel road in the future. I do not recommend approval of a gravel
road.
• The "Neighborhood Street - Narrow" street typology requires a minimum ROW of 40'.
The applicant should consider providing more than the minimum required ROW.
• It is unclear if proposed infrastructure including driveway culverts, ditches, water
lines, and sewer pipes are within the proposed 40' wide road ROW. A future
submission needs to show this information on a single sheet. Any infrastructure
proposed for future city ownership must be within the ROW and have sufficient space
on either side of the infrastructure to repair / replace / maintain it in the future. This
typically means 10' on either side pipes. Sections of pipe outside the ROW will require
sufficient easements.
• The applicant will need to obtain an appropriate wastewater allocation to
accommodate the project.
• The applicant will need to obtain an appropriate drinking water allocation to
accommodate the project.
#SD-24-08
31
• The "Neighborhood Street - Narrow" street typology does not accommodate on-street
parking. Applicant will need to provide signage to this effect.
• The application should review the City's stormwater ordinance to ensure that policies
related to the future acceptance of stormwater infrastructure are clear.
The Deputy Director of Capital Projects reviewed the project on July 5, 2024 and offers the
following additional comments pertaining to the proposed street.
• Does the sidewalk need to be shown at the Master Plan level to indicate which side it
will be on? I don’t see it on the plans or cross-sections of the road, but I’d like to see
what they are thinking since homes will eventually be on both side of Maxine’s Way.
13. Staff acknowledges the dichotomy in the proposal. With that in mind, if the Board is
inclined to accept an alternative compliance approach to the roadway design, they tie it
directly to phasing and be clear on both short term and longer-term expectations. Namely:
that improving the full roadway length and providing pedestrian infrastructure is a
requirement of future phases, and that until and unless the road and associated
infrastructure are fully built to public standards, they will not be considered for acceptance
as public infrastructure
14. Staff recommends the Board review the above paragraphs pertaining to alternative
compliance and the comments of the Director of Public Works and discuss each of the
applicant’s requests.
iv. Substitution of a crushed stone surface in lieu of a bituminous concrete wearing
surface & increased rate of change in vertical alignment – Staff recommends the
Board consider approving the crushed stone surface for Phase 1 but require
paving for future phases. Staff considers the Board may request the applicant
meet with the Director of Public Works on the vertical alignment or request an
independent technical review if no agreement can be reached.
v. Substitution of a swale in lieu of curbing and enclosed drainage system – Based
on the comments of the Stormwater Division, provided below under site plan
review standards, Staff recommends the Board consider accepting this
modification for Phase 1 and future phases.
vi. Consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a shared
use design for low volume roadways. – Staff recommends the Board consider
accepting this request only if the applicant provides a demonstration of how the
integrated sidewalk will be distinguished from the vehicular way by a change in
surface treatment. If it cannot be integrated, the Phase 1 roadway should be
redesigned to accommodate a separate sidewalk in future phases.
In addition, 15.A.14(C) below provides an alternative pathway for the Board to permit
modifications to roadway standards that Staff recommends the Board take into consideration
when evaluating this request for alternative compliance.
The DRB in approving an alternative form of compliance may attach conditions as necessary to
ensure compliance, or to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from a proposed alternative.
15. If the Board considers it potentially feasible to accept a portion of the applicant’s requests
for alternative compliance for Phase 1 but require the standards to be met in full for future
phases, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to present a proposal that
provides reasonable surety that the pavement and sidewalk be constructed, such as a
bond lasting the duration of the master plan.
Further, if the Board considers it to be acceptable to place the burden of improving the roadway
#SD-24-08
32
within Phase 1 on a later phase, Staff considers the Board must include a clear condition of the
master plan indicating with which phase the roadway must be improved to meet City standards,
and require the applicant to provide a design demonstrating an approvable configuration for the
improved roadway as part of the concurrent master plan application. Any additional findings of
the Board that affect the master plan as a whole or future phases should be incorporated into the
findings of the master plan.
D. Development Density
(1) Intent. A Planned Unit Development is intended to accommodate within a designated
Development Area typically higher effective densities of development than the underlying zoning
district may allow, as necessary to accommodate:
(a) The clustering of development to conserve resources identified for protection;
(b) A more efficient and cost-effective use of land, facilities, services, and infrastructure;
(c) Densities that support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented pattern of development; or
(d) Transit-supportive densities of development along existing and planned transit routes.
(2) Within a PUD, the overall density and intensity of development shall be determined
based on the total Buildable Area included within designated Development Areas, as shown on
the PUD Master Plan; and land use allocations, PUD density and dimensional standards, and
allowed building types and standards as specified by PUD type.
(3) Buildable Area.
(4) Land Use Allocations
(5) Minimum (Base) Density.
(6) Nonresidential Base Density
(7) Maximum Development Density.
Overall density, buildable area, and land use allocations are discussed at length in concurrent
master plan #MP-24-03 and are recommended for vesting.
E. Transition Zone. A PUD may also incorporate one or more transition zones along PUD or
property boundaries, as indicated on the PUD Master Plan and delineated on preliminary and
final subdivision plans, to include the minimum land area necessary to either extend and
integrate compatible, complementary forms of planned development, or to separate and buffer
conflicting, incompatible forms of planned development, in relation to existing and planned
development in the vicinity of the PUD.
As discussed in associated master plan #MP-24-03, Staff considers that no transitions are needed.
F. Allowed Uses. All proposed uses are allowed.
G. PUD Dimensional Standards. Dimensional standards, and modifications thereof, are
discussed above.
H. Street, Building, and Civic Space Types. There are no restrictions on these types for a
general PUD.
I. Solar Siting Preferences. The applicant has indicated their intention to meet renewable
energy requirements using a ground mounted photovoltaic system.
J. PUD Design Standards. PUD design standards are discussed under 15.C.07 below.
#SD-24-08
33
15.C.07 General PUD
A. Authority and Limitations
(1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review,
to approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01.
(2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply.
(3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary:
(a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized via
use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning.
(b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as
applicable.
(c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each zoning
district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of Transferrable
Development Rights.
(d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that
Article.
(e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized
within that Section.
F. General PUD Compatibility and Context Analysis
(4) Context Analysis. The applicant must submit a written Analysis of the Development
Context within the Planning Area, which, at minimum, includes the information required
for Master Plan review under 15.B.04(C) and:
a. Hazards, and Level I and Level II Resources regulated under Article 12.
b. Prevalent pattern of land subdivision and development in the Planning Area, as
defined by block lengths; lot size and front lot line lengths; front, side, and rear
setbacks; building height and coverage; and existing parking arrangements.
c. Streetscape elements, including the placement, orientation, and spacing of
buildings along the street, existing and planned sidewalks, and existing or
planned landscaping, street furniture, and lighting.
d. Building types and styles, including any prevalent or character-defining
architectural features.
The context analysis is discussed in conjunction with master plan application #MP-24-03.
G. General PUD Dimensional Standards
4) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district
dimensional standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall
apply unless modified, reduced, or waived by the DRB under (2) below.
a. The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in
order to modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site
Plan application requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using
15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or
(K).
#SD-24-08
34
b. The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3).
c. Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived as allowed in underlying
zoning districts identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below. The standards
of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply.
d. The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3).
5) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the
DRB may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as
necessary to:
a. Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or
redevelopment, that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional
standards; or
b. Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that
advances the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly in response to existing site limitations that
cannot be eliminated; or
c. Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with
existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under
15.C.07(F) and to Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or
d. Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building
design, or otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution
on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017.
6) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the
Planning Area under Section 15.C.07(F).
As discussed above, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the roadway.
H. Development Density
3) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall
apply to General PUDs.
4) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development
density in the underlying zoning district, except as follows.
a. Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts;
b. Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning
and application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically
authorized by and as regulated by Section 18.01 or Article 19.
The Board’s findings on MP-24-03 will determine the maximum development density within the
PUD achievable without inclusionary zoning or TDRs.
I. General PUD Design Standards
7) Design Standards. Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing
Site Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for
variations from applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development
context within the Planning Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section
15.C.07(G).
Additional design standards beyond the applicable sections of the LDR include those established
for the entire master plan in 15.B.04H Design Standards. Comments pertaining to the overall
#SD-24-08
35
master plan design standards are included in the review of that application. Staff considers it
unlikely that the Board will impose any design standards as part of the master plan that are
incompatible with this, Phase 1, of that master plan.
Other design standards are discussed herein.
8) Streets. Streets within a General PUD must be compatible with and connect to existing
and planned public street, sidewalk, and path networks in the Planning Area.
a. Street and block pattern requirements of the Subdivision regulations shall apply
unless waived by the DRB under Section 15C.09(G)(4).
Street and block patterns are addressed discussed under 15.A.16 below.
9) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying
zones and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section
14.06(A)(2).
Parking requirements are discussed in conjunction with site plan review below.
10) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be
compatible with the development context in the Planning Area as described under
Section 15.C.07(F) and (G).
Staff considers the findings of MP-24-03 will govern whether this criterion is met.
11) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible
with the existing or planned development context.
The applicant is proposing a community garden type civic space. This type is required to include
a group of garden plots and may also include accessory facilities/structures such as a water
source or equipment shed. Parking is to be limited or none. It must be at least 5,000 sf and
accessible from a public street. As part of MP-24-03, the Board is considering under what
conditions a stormwater treatment will be permitted to be included in the civic space. Staff
considers the Board may review consistency of the stormwater practice with the findings of the
master plan at the final plat stage of review.
Site amenities are discussed in association with site plan review criteria below.
12) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix
of two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must
be provided as described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated
by either housing type under Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more
than four (4) dwelling units, by number of bedrooms per unit.
Phase 1 includes construction of three homes and an ADU. This criterion is not applicable to
Phase 1.
G) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
15.C.04C, pertaining to compliance with regulations for all PUD types, states that the provisions
specific to a PUD supersede underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan standards.
Therefore only standards not directly superseded by PUD standards are discussed herein.
15.A.04 Classification
A. Subdivision Classes.
#SD-24-08
36
This application will be considered a Major Subdivision.
15.A.11 General Standards
A. Development Suitability. The applicant must demonstrate that the land to be subdivided
is physically suited for its intended use and the proposed density or intensity of development,
and that the proposed subdivision will not result in undue adverse impacts to public health and
safety, environmental resources as identified and regulated under Article 12, neighboring
properties and uses, or public facilities and infrastructure located on or within the vicinity of the
land to be subdivided.
(2) Physical Site Constraints. Land that is physically unsuited for development, including
land that is characterized by periodic flooding, poor drainage, shallow soils,
landslides, environmental site contamination or other known physical hazards or
constraints, must not be subdivided for development unless the applicant can
demonstrate that such limitations can be overcome, remediated, or mitigated as
necessary to allow for subsequent development.
Physical constraints include potential wetland buffer on the southeast corner of the site. This land
is not proposed for subdivision.
(4) Buildable Area.
(5) Buildable Area Calculations. The allowed number of building lots or dwelling units within
the subdivision shall be calculated based on the Buildable Area of the parcel or tract to be
subdivided except as otherwise specified for a Transect Zone Subdivision under Article 8,
a Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and as provided for the transfer of
development rights under Article 19, or affordable housing offsets, bonuses, or incentives
under Article 18.
Calculation of buildable area is addressed in concurrent master plan MP-24-01 and is
recommended as a vested right under that master plan.
C. Development Context
(5) Overlay Districts
The project is not located in any overlay districts.
(6) Multiple Districts
The project is located in only one zoning district.
(7) Compliance with Other Regulations. Subdivisions, including building lots, dwelling
units, and supporting facilities and infrastructure, must also be designed, configured,
and constructed to comply with other relevant standards under these Regulations
and other city ordinances and standards in effect at the time of application, including
those listed below. • Official Map, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4421
There are no official map features in the vicinity of the project. • Capital Improvement Program, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4430
There are no capital improvements planned in the vicinity of the project. • Department of Public Works Standards
The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed plans on July 9, 2024 and August 23, 2024.
Those comments are incorporated above.
#SD-24-08
37
• Fire Prevention and Safety Ordinance • Water and Cross Connection Ordinances • Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Ordinance • Impact Fee Ordinance
Impact fees will be required for construction of each new home. • E-911 Ordinance
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain Planning Commission approval for a
proposed road name prior to submitting the final plat.
(8) Compliance with an Approved Master Plan
Staff considers the Board must not approve this preliminary plat until the concurrent master plan
is also approved.
D. Development Connectivity
The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision, to the extent physically feasible, is
configured and laid out to maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, and
to avoid creating isolated and disconnected enclaves of development, except where necessary to
separate incompatible land uses, or to avoid undue adverse impacts to resources identified for
protection under Article 12. Accordingly, the applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision is
laid out to connect with and extend existing and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths,
transit routes, and utility and greenway corridors located adjacent to or within ½-mile of the
subdivision, or as indicated on the City’s Official Map. Off-site improvements necessary to serve
the proposed subdivision must be provided in accordance with 15.A.18.
Staff considers the proposed master plan to address this criterion.
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
A. Resource Protection.
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has been configured and laid out
to:
(1) Incorporate significant natural, historical, and scenic features located on the parcel or
tract to be subdivided;
(2) Avoid and exclude Hazard and Level I Resources identified for protection under Article 12
from parcelization, physical fragmentation, and development; and,
(3) Minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of land subdivision and development on Level
II Resources identified for protection under Article 12.
Staff considers these criteria met.
15.A.13 Subdivision Design Process
A. Design Process
The design process to be followed by the applicant under this Subsection, in preparing
subdivision plans and draft plats included with the application, includes the following steps in
order of preference:
#SD-24-08
38
(3) Delineate and set aside resource areas identified for protection, and other existing site
features for consideration under 15.A.12 above.
The applicant is proposing community garden spaces within the potential wetland buffer.
Wetland impacts are discussed under 12.06 below.
(4) Layout and configure the proposed street network to:
(a) connect with and extend existing streets;
(b) define one or more contiguous blocks that meet applicable block standards under 15.A.16
or as otherwise specified for the Zoning District, Transect Zone, or type of Planned Unit
Development in which the subdivision is located); and to
(c) incorporate allowed Street Types and design standards under 15.A.14, including existing
and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, and transit stops.
Street type and block layout are addressed in concurrent master plan MP-24-03.
(6) Delineate building lots that front on and are oriented to the abutting street or civic
space, and that meet applicable lot size and dimensional requirements by Zoning
District, Transect Zone or type of Planned Unit Development or Building Type under
Article 11.C, as applicable.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(7) Designate within each block, or as otherwise provided within the subdivision, required
civic spaces, parking lots or facilities, and infrastructure and utility corridors or
easements that meet the requirements of these Regulations, which are to be retained in
common or single ownership or dedicated to the City.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(8) Incorporate within block configurations, as applicable, one or more alleys or service
lanes, and midblock pedestrian passages as necessary to provide rear, side or shared
vehicular and pedestrian access to fronting building lots, civic spaces and designated
parking areas or facilities.
Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
15.A.14 Street Network
B. Street Layout
Layout of the street network is considered as part of concurrent master plan MP-24-03 and is
recommended for vesting.
C. Street Design
The applicant’s requested modifications from the required street geometry and cross section are
discussed under alternative compliance above.
If the Board finds alternative compliance for the street cross section to not be approved, there is
an alternative path forward for the applicant to request DRB approval for modification of street
standards, which includes demonstration of the following.
(a) The stated reasons why a cited standard or specification cannot be achieved;
(b) The estimated cost of construction to meet the cited standard in relation to the total project
cost, and the cost of any proposed alternative, if cost is cited as a factor in the request;
#SD-24-08
39
(c) Projected traffic volumes, including projected truck, pedestrian and bicyclist traffic, and the
minimum standards necessary to accommodate the stated design vehicle(s);
(d) The compatibility of a requested modification with present and anticipated improvements to
adjacent street sections or connections;
(e) Accident data for the area, to determine the potential impact of a proposed modification on
safety and accident rates; and any proposed countermeasures that will be employed to reduce
the frequency and severity of future accidents;
(f) Recommendations of the Director of Public Works with respect to the proposed street design
in relation to its development context, functional classification, and maintenance.
(g) Any other information the Board deems necessary to render a decision.
While Staff is not necessarily recommending the Board deny the request for alternative
compliance, Staff does consider applicant’s modification request may be more cleanly approvable
under the above criteria (a) through (f) than under the alternative compliance criteria of
15.C.04(C)(3) above.
16. Staff therefore, at minimum, recommends the Board consider these criteria when
deliberating on the applicant’s request for alternative compliance.
D. Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development
The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an
overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of
the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each
through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full
buildout.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed master plan will generate 11 PM peak hour trips,
therefore Staff considers the Board need not require a traffic study for this, Phase 1, of the master
plan. Furthermore, Staff is recommending the traffic generation for vesting in concurrent master
plan application #MP-24-03.
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Recreation Paths
The applicant has made their request to include the sidewalk within the roadway cross section for
Phase 1, discussed above.
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots
These elements are discussed in conjunction with concurrent master plan MP-24-01 and are
recommended for vesting.
15.A.17 Mix of Dwelling Unit Types
This is addressed under PUD standards above.
15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services
A. Capacity of Community Facilities, Utilities and Services. The applicant must demonstrate
that the proposed subdivision and development will not exceed the existing or planned capacity
of, or cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on City facilities, utilities and services,
#SD-24-08
40
including:
• Public schools,
• Police, fire protection and ambulance services,
• Street infrastructure and maintenance,
• Parks and recreation facilities, and
• Water supply, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management systems and
infrastructure.
Comments of the relevant departments have been included in the applicable sections of this
report.
B. Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Systems. The applicant must demonstrate that
adequate potable water supply and wastewater facilities exist to serve the subdivision at
buildout, and for each phase of development.
The project is proposed to be connected to the City’s water supply and wastewater system.
The comments of the South Burlington Water Director are included in concurrent master plan
#MP-24-03.
The applicant has obtained recent approval to connect to municipal wastewater, and the Deputy
Director of Water Quality reviewed the plans associated with that connection with this proposed
project in mind.
C. Fire Protection. The subdivision must be laid out to ensure that adequate fire protection
can be provided in accordance with City specifications.
The Fire Marshal reviewed the provided plans on July 3, 2024 and offers the following comments.
The required fire hydrants shall be installed and operational and tested by CWD prior to the
beginning of any combustible construction. Hydrant flow data shall be forward to SBFD-FMO
prior to any combustible construction.
17. As noted in concurrent master plan #MP-24-03, Staff recommends the Board address the
conflicting comments of the Suth Burlington Water Director and the Fire Marshal
pertaining to the means of fire protection for the proposed homes, either sprinkler or fire
hydrant.
D. Stormwater Facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that stormwater management
system serving the subdivision has been designed to meet City standards and specifications
under Article 13 of these regulations and the South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the use of
Public and Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems.
(2) Planned Unit Developments. For the purposes of determining applicability in Section
13.05B of these regulations, in the instance of a Planned Unit Development, the
applicant shall calculate the impervious coverage on the entire PUD, rather than lot or
parcel. The stormwater management requirements will apply to all PUDs within the
City of South Burlington where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists
or is proposed to exist.
The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the plans on July 8, 2024 and offers
the following comments.
3. Please provide the HydroCAD model for review. Also please note that the HydroCAD print-
outs included in the application do not include any routing from the drainage areas to the
gravel wetland and therefore do not provide any information on how the gravel wetland
#SD-24-08
41
will perform during any storm event.
4. Sheet SW-1:
a. How will the applicant ensure that all runoff from the road enters the gravel
wetland system through the pre-treatment forebay? Note in particular that runoff
from the hammerhead will be able to flow freely into the gravel wetland without
receiving pre-treatment.
b. This is quite a steep road. How will the applicant prevent runoff from the south
side of the road from scouring the adjacent land and causing erosion issues? Staff
recommends the inclusion of a stone-lined swale on the south side in addition to
the one on the north.
c. Grading is insufficient to determine routing of runoff from the proposed driveways
and buildings. How will the applicant ensure that all runoff from the driveways and
homes makes it into the gravel wetland system?
d. Staff recommends increasing the size of the driveway culverts from 12” to 15”.
18. Staff considers the comments of the Stormwater Superintendent, while significant, will
not require a complete reconfiguration of the proposed stormwater management system
and therefore recommends the Board require them to be addressed at the final plat stage
of review.
E. Utilities and Services.
The applicant must demonstrate that subdivision design has been coordinated with utility
companies serving the proposed subdivision, as necessary for the DRB to determine that
adequate service capacity exists and that the areas identified for utility installation, on
subdivision plans and plat, meet the requirements of these Regulations.
(1) Utility connections must be provided to each building lot, and to other subdivision lots
on which service is necessary or required.
(2) Utilities must be located within street rights-of-way, or within permanent utility access
and maintenance easements identified on subdivision plans and plats.
(3) New electrical, natural gas, telephone, internet, cable television, and outdoor lighting
systems must be installed underground, unless prevented by ledge or other physical constraints
that make burying utility lines impractical.
(4) Utility lines or corridors must be located and designed in a manner that is compatible
with the extension of utilities and services to adjacent properties.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring utility lines to be underground.
F. Street and Sidewalk Lighting.
Where provided along local and collector streets, street and sidewalk lighting must be
pedestrian-scaled (e.g., 12 to 14 feet in height) to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from
public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the development patterns
and character of the neighborhood, with smooth levels of illumination (rather than hotspots) and
light trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
The applicant is not proposing street or sidewalk lighting.
G. Renewable Energy Facilities.
The applicant must demonstrate that, to the extent physically feasible, reasonable, and as
appropriate to its development context, the subdivision has been designed to incorporate best
#SD-24-08
42
practices that maintain access to and use of renewable energy resources, e.g., to include one or
more of the following as indicated on subdivision plans and plats:
(1) Street and building lots that are oriented to maximize solar access and gain, for passive
solar construction or rooftop solar installations.
(2) Parking lots or structures that are designed and constructed to accommodate electric
vehicle infrastructure, including charging stations and solar canopies or rooftop solar
installations.
(3) One or more suitable open areas (“solar lots”) within the subdivision that are specifically
designated for a ground-mounted community or neighborhood solar installation.
(4) Solar access easements, as necessary to maintain solar access across adjoining building
lots or properties.
(5) Covenants, deed restrictions or other legal mechanisms that require “solar-ready”
construction within the subdivision.
The property has an existing ground mounted solar array that is located in a corner of the
proposed Civic Space. Staff considers these criteria to be met.
H) SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW STANDARDS
As a PUD, these criteria are applicable.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas. The DRB shall consider the following:
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along
the street.
The applicant has requested a front setback waiver to 30 ft.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the
street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s
existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
The applicant’s conceptual plans indicate future buildings oriented to the street. 13.17 requires
buildings to face the street. Staff considers this criterion met.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
Staff considers the proposed single family homes to be consistent with existing development.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
The applicant has requested alternative compliance for the standard requiring a sidewalk along
the proposed street.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
#SD-24-08
43
19. Staff recommends the Board consider whether they will include a condition requiring
solar orientation given the existing ground mounted solar array.
(2) Parking.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
Single family homes and duplexes are exempt from this criterion.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area
4) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
The applicant has provided a document describing the characteristics proposed for buildings on
Lots 1C and 1D. They have argued that the proposed building on Lot 1B is exempt from building
design requirements due to the lot size being over 1 acre. However, there is no such lot size
exemption from this criterion therefore Staff recommends the Board apply the same
characteristics to the proposed construction on Lot 1B.
The proposed characteristics are as follows. These would be in addition to dimensional
standards.
• Front Door facing the street
• Front Porch facing south
• Higher proportion of glazing facing south
• Ridge Line running east-west
• Dark color roof
• Recessed Garage façade
• Garage width <40% of Total Building street façade length
• Yard area of >100 SF
5) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
Staff considers the above criterion and the layout of the site to result in compliance with this
criterion.
6) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
a. Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of
development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations,
position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached
building types.
Staff considers the street and block configurations and position of buildings to be consistent with
the setting.
b. Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural
features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular
architectural style.
#SD-24-08
44
Staff considers the above commitments to result in compliance with this criterion.
c. Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties,
including side and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Staff considers privacy to adjoining properties to not be an issue in this setting.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross
floor area.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
For the proposed 11 homes in the master plan, 935 sf site amenity is required.
(5) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site Amenity
area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or
public park that is accessible by the general public and located within five-hundred (500)
feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building on the lot via a walking route
and/or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not include or require crossing
a four-lane road.
(a) The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Site Amenity area if
some but not all the buildings on the lot have pedestrian access points located within five-
hundred (500) feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section 14.06(D)(4), above.
(b) The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the Site Amenity
area.
The applicant has provided a Civic Space in Phase 1, which is within 500-ft of and accessible to
each of the proposed homes. In addition, each home will have a private yard space, which the
applicant has above committed to being at least 100 sf. Staff considers this criterion met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards
shall apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards
All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12,
Environmental Protection Standards.
Discussion of specific requirements for environmental protection is included under Article 12
below.
B. Site Design Features.
All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking
and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other
applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
These standards are discussed elsewhere in this report.
#SD-24-08
45
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and
circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
15.A.14 is discussed above.
D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)]
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban
Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall
adhere to the standards contained therein.
There are no supplemental building standards beyond those discussed under 14.06 above.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an
existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section
8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts,
shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees,
benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building
Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for
additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
Required streetscape improvements are discussed pertaining to subdivision standards above.
G. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce
curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other
purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
The applicant has included on their proposed plat a 40-ft easement to be converted to a future 40-
ft right of way with development of phase 2. Staff considers this criterion met.
H. Utility Services.
Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and
Services, shall also be met.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition that all wire served utilities are required to be
underground.
I. Disposal of Wastes.
All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling,
composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles
intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be
required to be fenced or screened.
Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable for the proposed residential development.
E) ARTICLE 12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
12.06 Wetland Protection Standards
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to encapsulate the wetland buffer within the required
Civic Space. This area is currently maintained as lawn.
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection.
#SD-24-08
46
(4) Pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures and impervious surfaces.
(a) 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.
E. Exemptions.
The following activities are not required to meet the standards in this section and do not require
a local permit:
(1) Maintenance of Pre-Existing Gardens, Landscaped Areas/Lawns, Structures and
Impervious Surfaces. Maintenance of pre-existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, structures
and impervious surfaces located within a wetlands buffer, and that were legally in existence as
of the effective date of these regulations, does not require a permit.
(2) Invasive Species, Nuisance Plants, and Noxious Weeds Removal. Hand removal (e.g.
non-motorized or non-mechanized) of invasive species, nuisance plants, and noxious weeds, as
identified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets, within Class I, Class II, and
Class III wetlands, and their associated buffers, is exempt from these regulations.
(3) Trails. Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails, and associate
puncheons and boardwalks, not to exceed ten (10) feet in width located within the buffer area of
a Class I, Class II or Class III wetland. All trails located within this buffer area should be
constructed to meet the best practices outlined in the Recreational Trail Building Guidance
document developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
20. Staff recommends the Board consider whether these criteria permit the applicant to
convert the existing lawn area to a community garden or whether it must be maintained
as lawn. The applicant may also revert it to an unmaintained wetland area at their
choosing.
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.
If the Board determines conversion to community garden from lawn is not permitted under E(1)
above, Staff considers the proposed impacts to be potentially eligible for modification, though
additional documentation would be needed.
(3) Modification Standards. The Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer,
as applicable, may grant a modification from the rules of this Section only if a modification
application meets all the following standards:
(a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
#SD-24-08
47
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.
21. If the Board considers that the rules must be modified for conversion from lawn to
community garden, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit the
wetland delineation report enumerating the specific functions and values, enumerate the
area of impact, and demonstrate that the area of impact has been minimized.
I) OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS
3.18 Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards
A. Applicability.
This section shall apply to the receipt of a zoning permit for the construction and subsequent
alteration of all new principal buildings beginning December 1, 2015, or the date that this Section
3.17 becomes effective, whichever is later.
B. Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES).
Residential buildings, as defined by 30 V.S.A. section 51(a)(2), that are principal building, shall
comply with the Stretch Code, as defined by 30 V.S.A. section 53)a). Such buildings for which
the RBES Certificate certifying compliance with the Stretch Code is not recorded in the South
Burlington Land Records shall be deemed land development without a zoning permit in violation
of these Regulations.
This standard applies to this project.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
There is no minimum required landscaping budget for this project. The applicant is proposing
fourteen (14) street trees installed at 2.5 – 3” caliper of three maple species. The City of South
Burlington Public Works specifications require no more than 50% of any one species. This is
proposed to be met. Staff will request City Arborist review of the proposed species at the final
plat stage of review.
The applicant has also provided a tree protection plan.
13.05 Stormwater Management
This chapter includes application requirements and design requirements for on-site treatment and
for impacts to the municipal system. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on July 8,
2024 and the comments are provided above.
#SD-24-08
48
13.12 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures
This section pertains to utility cabinets on their own lot. The applicant is proposing to locate an
existing silo containing cell tower equipment on a 6,100 square foot (0.14 acre) lot. Assuming the
Board accepts the silo as a utility cabinet or similar structure as part of concurrent master plan
#MP-24-03, the following criterion are applicable.
A. General Requirements.
In any district, the Development Review Board may grant site plan approval for the construction
of a utility cabinet or similar structure according to the following regulations.
B. Specific Standards for Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures.
(1) The facility shall serve the City of South Burlington and/or immediately adjacent
communities.
Based on verbal information provided by the applicant, Staff understands this to be true.
(2) The minimum required lot for a public utility cabinet, substation, or communication relay
station on its own parcel may be reduced from the zoning district requirements, at the discretion
of the Development Review Board. In the event that the facility shall be erected on property not
owned by the utility, the Development Review Board shall require that the facility be located
unobtrusively.
The minimum lot size in the zoning district is modified by Act 47 to 8,712 sf, since the zoning
district permits single family homes.
(3) If the parcel containing the facility is landlocked, there shall be a recorded easement or
permission granting access to the utility or owner of the facility.
22. The utility exists therefore Staff assumes there is adequate access. Under proposed
conditions, the parcel will be directly adjacent to the project roadway. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion by providing
documentation of existing access at the final plat stage of review.
(4) There shall be sufficient landscaping or fencing of sufficient height and opacity to screen
effectively the facility year-round from streets and abutting unaffiliated properties.
Staff recommends the Board waive this requirement. The silo is an important element of the
South Burlington skyline as seen when looking towards Mt. Mansfield from Wheeler Nature Park.
(5) The location of the facility shall be shown on all relevant site plans.
This criterion is met.
(6) Utility cabinets and similar structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all
existing or planned public roads or rights-of-way.
This criterion is met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Staff recommends the Board not close the preliminary plat until thy close the master plan since
the preliminary plat cannot be approved before the master plan.
#SD-24-08
49
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Senior Development Review Planner