Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/16/2019 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 April 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leinwohl, G. Richards, N. Longo, P. O’Leary, D. Crawford,  K. & W. Hays, D. Seff, N. Hyman, S. Dopp, D. Partilo, P. Kahn, R. Greco, S. Losier,R. Rushford, M. Byrne, D. Peters, S. Baumaroun, A. Shields, L. Lackey, F. Landry, D. Blodgett, P. Kelley, C. Montgomery, C. Gendron, A. Chalnick, B. Bartlett, A. Portz, S. Partio, G. Rabideau, L. Hammond 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to do the Minutes as Item #5 as several members will be recusing themselves for later items. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply at that time. 5. Minutes of 19 March and 2 April 2019: Ms. Smith noted the incorrect spelling of Mr. Behr’s name and Ms. Keene’s name on p. 4 and p. 5 of the 2 April Minutes. Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 19 March and 2 April with the noted spelling corrections. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Appeal #AO-19-02 of Dennys, Inc., appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to deny the Certificate of Occupancy, 730 Shelburne Road: Mr. Conner noted that the project began in the spring of 2018. Mr. Belair issued the initial decisions. The issue is exterior lighting, specifically a series of red slats that are lighted at night. Mr. Conner showed photos taken from different points on Swift Street. The lights are visible from Shelburne Road and even from the south end of Pine Street. Section 13.07 of the LDRs states that all exterior lights shall have shielding and be directed downward so as not to be visible from any residential street. Mr. Conner then showed a cutsheet of types of lights that are and are not acceptable. He also drew attention to 2 site plan approvals which include a stipulation that all exterior lights shall be shielded. Mr. Baumaroun stated that the lights were always in the plan and were never brought up as an issue. They were inspected during construction. Mr. Kochman asked whether the lights were turned on during the inspection. Mr. Baumaroun said they were not turned on. Mr. Conner noted that the “inspections” were by the Fire Department, etc., not by Planning & Zoning staff. Mr. Sullivan noted the applicant did not object to the stipulation at the time of site plan approval. Ms. Hall said she spoke with Ray Belair on 10 April. He said he only reviewed what is referenced in the approval, which does not show anything regarding the lights in question. The applicant said the lighting is shown on sheet A5. Ms. Hall said the plans that were emailed to Mr. Belair did not include that sheet. The applicant said a full set of plans was submitted on 29 May. Mr. Kochman said he agrees with Mr. Sullivan and cannot see a basis for the applicant not to comply with the stipulation. If there was an issue, the approval motion should have been appealed. He felt the applicant is stuck with the permit they were given. Mr. Wilking added that it is not clear on the plan that the callout for the tower lighting isn’t part of the lighting of the Denny’s name. Mr. Behr said that in reviewing the drawing the DRB would have no idea that this was the outcome. Even if pointed downward it would still have the same effect and be viewed from a distance. The applicant replied, “That’s the idea.” Mr. Sullivan referred to a Vermont Supreme Court case from 2005 and read a statement from the Court. Mr. Conner noted the approval only references a 6-page set of plans and does not include the sheet with the lighting. The applicant said the 6 pages were the schematic sent first. The 20 sheets were the full plans sent later. Members agreed they would be denying the appeal. Ms. Keene said the Board will render its decision in 2 weeks. The applicant’s option then would be to turn off the lights or to appeal the Board’s decision to the Vermont Environmental Court. Mr. Conner added they could also submit a different solution. Ms. Keene said if the applicant wants to submit a new application before the Board renders its decision, they must withdraw the appeal. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close Appeal #AO-19-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash facility, 2) constructing anew 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wah facility; and 3) constructing a 2,353 sq. ft. six-position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl noted that 4 of the staff comments refer to landscaping, and prior to the meeting he provided staff with a revised plan that is in compliance. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Are in compliance with what is required. 2. They have added 4 shade trees to an added island and are in conformance. 3. They will replace the soil that is on the island. 4. Spacing of trees has been adjusted to 20 feet as the Arborist requested. 5. They will comply with the Fire Chief’s request. Mr. Leinwohl pointed out the shortened queueing lanes. These will be made clear to people parking cars. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-07. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-19-11 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102-room, 5-story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Rabideau said they have begun engineering work and have discovered communications equipment which requires converting the building into an L- shape. They have also addressed a concern of the DRB that the street side of the building was “too plain.” Mr. Rabideau showed the new plan with new materials facing the street. There is also a door on the street side. The building is a little shorter, and the actual floor area is reduced by about 300 square feet. The number of rooms remains the same. Staff comments were reviewed as follows: 1. The Airport has identified the need for the hotel, and it will offer food items to people using the Airport. Mr. Behr expressed concern that there is no longer a walkway from the Airport to the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said there is a walkway, but the have eliminated the sky bridge. Mr. Wilking questioned the tax status of the hotel, noting that the Airport has a payment in lieu of taxes agreement with the City. 2. Regarding the setback waiver, Mr. Rabideau indicated the utility corridor with communications equipment that is crucial to the Airport. It would cost $500,000 to relocate the equipment. Ms. Keene noted that 50 feet are required, and they are asking for 34 feet. Members were OK with the waiver. 3. Members were OK with the height waiver. 4. Members were concerned with lighting standards that relate to the Airport and felt the compliance note should come from the project’s electrical engineer. Mr. Longo said they will provide that statement. 5. Regarding access to the parking garage, Mr. Rabideau said the Airport has people who look at this full time and they have had to convince them that this is right. He showed the plan indicating a special tactile pavement where people would turn in to unload, etc. Mr. Gendron said there will an area in the garage just for hotel parking. Mr. Rabideau said he agrees with the Fire Chief about eliminating one parking space (he indicated it). He also noted they have eliminated the road that went around the hotel as it would have complicated things because the space between the hotel and garage is not wide enough. That area has been turned into a pedestrian access and an area for bike storage. Ms. Keene said staff is concerned with the crosswalk alignment. Mr. Rabideau said they are trying to avoid a conflict with cars waiting to go into the garage. Mr. Gendron added they are trying to get pedestrians to the Airport the safest way, and that is through the garage. There are lighted signs and markings on the ground for safety. Mr. Miller stressed the need for good lighting there 24/7. He was OK with as there is slow, one- way traffic, and there is landscaping to prevent people from walking where they shouldn’t, and there will be signage. Mr. Behr suggested extending the paving pattern with the same material. Mr. Rabideau said they will be happy to do that. Mr. Wilking asked if the bollards are lighted. Mr. Rabideau said they are. Mr. Portz said there is also a light pole that directly hits this area. 6. Ms. Keene said staff has no concerns with the area that used to be a road between the hotel and garage. Members liked this plan much better. 7. Mr. Rabideau said they agree with the landscaping amount but asked about credits for perennials and grasses. Mr. Portz said they understand this is usually not included, but they play a big part in the plan. He noted the issues with heights of plantings. He noted that stormwater areas will be planted with perennials. Mr. Miller cited the need to have “some teeth” into enforcing the maintenance of the perennials. Mr. Wilking noted that grasses and perennials were approved on a Pizzagalli plan. Mr. Rabideau said they will provide a landscape maintenance plan and stressed that the Airport is keenly interested in the landscaping on the whole Airport property. 8. Regarding stormwater Mr. Gendron explained the 2 separate systems, one south of the patio and one just east of the porte cochère. They are working with the Stormwater Superintendent to finalize this and are waiting for soil data (which was held up by big piles of snow in the area). 9. The EPSC plan will be corrected. 10. Regarding the 25% reduction in trip generation, Mr. Gendron said this is related to airline staff who will be using the hotel and will not have vehicles. Mr. Wilking suggested checking with other hotels to substantiate this. The Board invited the applicant to substantiate their 25% claim if they’d like. 11. Regarding the Fire Chief’s comments, Mr. Rabideau said there is a hydrant the Chief may have missed (he indicated it on the plan). They are OK with removing the one parking space noted earlier. Regarding the concern for setting up the aerial ladder truck, Mr. Rabideau said they would prefer to come back with a firm plan for that. 12. They will provide a statement from the manufacturer that lights are downcast. 13. They will get it done. 14. There is a master plan for bike storage. Lockers will be in a common place on the Airport. Mr. Gendron noted the terminal and FAA building are upgrading to provide bike racks. 15. Hotel staff has shower and lockers in the basement. This will be indicated on the plan. 16. Signage will be removed from the plan. Ms. Greco asked about solar panels for the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said the roof will be solar ready, and it will be a function of whether there are still credits available. Mr. Miller noted that credits have been reduced from 30 to 26. Mr. Crawford said he was impressed by the landscape plan and protection of existing trees. He asked why there are no trees on Airport Road. Mr. Portz explained that is because of the utility lines. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-19-11 to 21 May 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two-family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off-site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller turned the Chair over to Mr. Cota. As he will be leaving the Board in July, he felt continuity was important. Mr. Cota read staff comments regarding the use of TDRs that may be overturned by the Court. A modified plan has been submitted by the applicant which the applicant has indicated attempts to mitigate the risk associated with the use of TDRs. In his comment letter, Mr. Seff suggested waiting until the Supreme Court has ruled, but the applicant does not wish to wait. Mr. O’Leary said everything in the plan is the same except the phasing plan. There are 5 separate phases, similar to what was submitted before. The first 4 phases total 83 units. The 5th phase includes all the units that require TDRs. They are asked the Board to approve the Master Plan for all phases and for preliminary plat, phases 1-4, not phase 5. Mr. Behr had an issue with this because of the TDR bonus, which may not happen, and the city could be looking at a plan with “blank spaces.” Mr. O’Leary identified on the plan what is in Phase 5. He said if those units are not built, the areas would be added to open space. There also wouldn’t be multi-family buildings, though these could be put into phases 1-4. Mr. Kahn said it is still a cohesive plan, just with more open space. Mr. O’Leary said all the amenities would remain as well. Ms. Keene noted this is similar to what the Board did with the O’Brien project, but the O’Brien project phases were clustered together. Mr. Kochman asked why this doesn’t require a new application. He felt it is a material change, with half the density. The applicant said it is not a material change, just a change in when things will be built. Mr. O’Leary said the LDRs allow for phasing, and it was always a phased project. Mr. Cota said the Board is not going to make a decision on whether it is a material change tonight. Mr. Kochman said he doesn’t necessarily agree with the jurisdictional question raised by Mr. Seff, but he did agree with the riparian connection risk. Mr. Cota said the people who live in the first four phases might be used to the open space and would have a problem if Phase 5 is built. Mr. O’Leary said buyers would be given full information when they buy their homes. Mr. Kahn said the public offering statement given to buyers would disclose Phase 5. Regarding Overlay Map #7, Mr. O’Leary said people got information from Biofinder which was a desk-top survey with no field work. He said they would create a topo map and delineate everything and go out with experts for field verification. They would also verify where the 100-year flood plain is. He added that they know the wetland map is wrong. They have been out with the state to identify what they have to stay away from. Mr. Kochman said the Comprehensive Plan states you can’t build there. Mr. O’Leary said that hasn’t been followed in the past. Mr. Behr said Map 7 is there for the applicant to do further study and clarification. Public Comment was then solicited as follows: Mr. Lambert: Supports the development. Lives in Cider Mill development and loves the neighborhood, and would encourage his children to live there. Feels it makes sense to have smaller homes on smaller lots. Cited walking trails and the conveniences of this place to live. He wanted to see more children in the city and in the schools, also homes for retirees. Mr. Blodgett: Lives in the existing house. Said there is a silent majority enjoying their homes which were built by these builders. He felt it is a reasonable plan for the city. Mr. Hyman cited conflict over Cider Mill. He felt the density in this project is all over the place and doesn’t consider wildlife. Mr. Seff felt there is no authority to hear this application or to make a decision while there is a Supreme Court case. Mr. Chalnick said the LDRs say to respect the map, and there is nothing in the LDRs that says you have to delineate. He felt the map matches what is in Biofinder and is the best information the State has. Mr. Shields had several concerns including the setback of the houses from Dorset Street and the 2 exits onto Dorset St. which are 629 feet apart. There is also the possibility of a third exit 600 feet away. There appear to be over 500 waivers from the guidelines on lot coverage, front yard setbacks, etc. He didn’t know how the Board makes these determinations. Mr. Kochman said they are authorized to make those changes. Regarding the buffer between zones, Mr. Shields said the regulations said they have to be in single ownership, and he didn’t think they were in single ownership when the regulations were adopted. Ms. Partilo didn’t feel the concern for more children and families was justified. She would “prefer animals to children and families.” The area is designated as conservation area. Ms. Hammond submitted photos of wildlife and identified 84 different species of birds. She felt the wildlife has diminished because of other development, and once they’re gone, they’re gone. Ms. Greco felt the project is counter to 11 vision and goals statement in the Comprehensive Plan and counter to the City Council’s statement regarding reducing carbon footprint. This will use massive amounts of fossil fuel as there is no public transportation in the area. Mr. Seff asked Mr. Miller why he recused himself. Mr. Miller said he did not. He turned the Chair over to Mr. Cota. Mr. Seff asked about Mr. Miller’s comments regarding the value of people’s homes. Mr. Miller said that was related to Goal #1 in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Seff to stop interrogating Mr. Miller. Mr. Cota asked Mr. Seff to summarize his letter. Mr. Seff said he had assumed this hearing would not go forward because of pending appeals to the Supreme Court. He felt the Board doesn’t have the right to go forward because Judge Walsh said they shouldn’t go forward with preliminary plat or the master plan. That is now being appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Board denies the appellant, the appellant will appeal and say the Board had no authority to act. If the Board approves the plan, Mr. Seff said his clients will appeal under the same grounds. He felt the developer is wasting his own money as well has Mr. Seff’s clients’ money. Mr. Kochman said the Board’s view is that the Judge’s language is not binding on this Board. He agreed with the risk to the developer, but that is the developer’s call. Mr. Seff said he agrees with Mr. Kochman that there should be a new application because of material changes. He also believes the LDRs give map 7 authority of law. Mr. Kochman said he would like to get an opinion regarding “material change” from the City Attorney. Mr. Miller moved to continue MP-18-01 and SD-18-29 to 4 June 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Miller resumed the Chair. 10. Other Business: There was no other business transacted. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:18 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 March 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Richards, N. Longo, J. Leinwohl, D. Crawford, P. Washburn, R. Brinkerhoff; L. Hammond; J. Messina; C. Montgomery; A. Shields; S. Dopp; B. Bartlett; B. Currier; L. Lackey; J. Leinwohl; C. Gendron; S. Losier; N. Hyman; R. Gonda 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Item #7 was moved up to precede #5 as it is to be continued. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply at that time. 5. (formerly #7) Master Plan application #MP-18-01 and preliminary plat application #SD- 18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in 2-family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 56 acres off-site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 PAGE 2 Mr. Miller noted that the Board has decided to continue the hearing because the appeal of the administrative officer’s opinion has been denied and there has been a recent Court decision regarding TDRs. The Board anticipates more information will be known about how those two matters will affect the project by the date of the continued hearing. Mr. Cota assured members of the public that would have a chance to voice their opinions when the application is next heard. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-29 until 16 April 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Cota then moved to continue Master Plan MP-18-01 until 16 April 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 6. Continued conditional use application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet and increasing the height to fifteen feet, 30 Myers Court: Mr. Washburn noted the one outstanding issue was the height of the building. He noted the difference of opinion between staff and himself. He also noted that the State recommends a minimum of 4 ft. cover over the sewer if there is not be no plowing and 5 feet if there is to be plowing. He showed a hand-drawn plan and indicated the location of the sewer. He is proposing to change the preconstruction grade to 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the accessory structure. He will have to remove a row or 2 of siding to do this, but it would then meet the height requirement. Mr. Miller noted that staff prefers reducing the building height by 1-1/2 feet. Ms. Keene said it is up to the Board, but staff feels the sewer line is functional as it is. Mr. Kochman asked by what authority the Board could vary the preconstruction grade. Ms. Keene directed attention to the section of the LDRs where this is allowed. The section does not provide a lot of guidance, she noted, and it usually applies to a situation where there is fill. Mr. Washburn said the engineer says the state recommends 4 feet, and it is now only 2.5 feet. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 PAGE 3 An attorney representing two abutters said his clients feel this is “an end run around the regulations,” and it seems the applicant is attempting to use a different grade that was not part of the original construction. Mr. Washburn said he had misread the LDR, and never had any nefarious intent. He said he should have asked for the 4-foot sewer requirement 6 months ago. Mr. Kochman asked what has to come off to be within the permissible height. Ms. Keene said 1 foot 5-3/4 inches. Mr. Washburn said that is not quite true because the fill is higher in front of the building. Ms. Keene agreed and said she would review the provided information and calculate a corrected value. Ms. Smith did not like setting a precedent. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Miller said the building needs to be lowered, and the amount of lowering needs to be recalculated based on the already-provided information. Mr. Cota moved to close CU-18-12. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash facility, 2) constructing a new 7990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a 2,353 sq. ft. six position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Longo explained that the plan is to build a full-service carwash and vacuuming facility to replace the existing facility. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: a. Mr. Longo said there is no planned use for the pervious area next to the building. They will make it a grassed area. b. Mr. Longo gave members FAA documents indicating compliance with the regulations regarding interference with approaches to the Airport c. Mr. Longo explained that 112 parking spaces are being displaced. He indicated where they will now be located (in lots B, C, D and E). d. Regarding concern with what the building will look like, Mr. Leinwohl showed photos. To address a concern that the building was too “plain,” he indicated some brick columns and a band of green color around the building. He also noted that it is similar a feel to the parking garage. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 PAGE 4 e. Mr. Longo showed the location of a pedestrian sidewalk and a sidewalk with a path directly to the garage. He said it is unlikely anyone would be walking from the new facility to the garage. The public never has access to the carwash. f. Regarding interior parking islands, Mr. Longo said there is no way to do this within the parking area. He hoped the new grassed area would substitute. Ms. Keene was concerned with setting a precedent as 10% of the interior parking area is required to be landscaped. Ms. Hall indicated a paved area where there might be landscaping. Mr. Longo said they would look into it. g. Members were OK with the offsite landscaping as they felt it would be helpful to the neighborhood. h. Ms. Keene said landscaping in the residential area along the lot lines with the commercial area is fine. i. Mr. Longo indicated that the value of interior landscaping to be added to the landscape bond is $22,000. Members were OK with this. j. The applicant agreed to address the comments of the arborist. k. The applicant will address the comments about the oil/water separator. l. Mr. Longo said they will provide plans for protecting trees during construction. m. Regarding fire vehicle access, Mr. Leinwohl said they will do what was done at CVS with a low mountable curb. He showed where curbing would be removed to do this. It would be designed with a distinguishable material. n. Mr. Longo showed where the bike rack would be. Ms. Keene suggested using the existing small building for long-term bike storage. Mr. Longo noted that employee parking will not be allowed on the site. Mr. Miller noted an option is to put up a “shelter” that can be put over bikes. Staff has some designs to look at. Mr. Longo said they are happy to bring the whole Airport up to speed on regarding bike parking. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-19-07 to 16 April. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Minutes of 20 February 2018: Ms. Smith noted that on p. 6, item #7, she had returned after briefly leaving. Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 20 February 2018 as amended. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MARCH 2019 PAGE 5 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:25 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 APRIL 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 April 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Acting Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Bullister, B. Gould, C. Galipeau, J. Olesky, S. Ploesser, S. Wilbur, D. Crawford, B. Bouchard, C. Patullo 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-19-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC, to extend the regulations of the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district up to fifty feet into the Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district to allow construction of a driveway access nearer than currently permitted to Market Street, 268 Market Street: Mr. Cota noted the applicant had asked for a continuance to 7 May and that in order to continue they need to pay the $50 continuation fee. Mr. Wilking moved to continue CU-19-01 to 7 May 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-10 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC, to subdivide an existing 4.1 acre lot into 3 lots of 3.26 acres (Lot B1), 0.38 acres (Lot B2), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 APRIL 2019 PAGE 2 and 0.45 acres (Lot B3) for the purpose of constructing a project on Lots B2 and B3 which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 268 Market Street: Mr. Cota noted the applicant had asked for a continuance to 7 May and that in order to continue they need to pay the $50 continuation fee. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD-19-10 to 7 May 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-19-09 of Antonio B. Pomerleau, LLC, and Blue Dragonfly, LLC, to resubdivide three lots, 1519 and 1525 Shelburne Road and 5 Bartlett Bay Road: Mr. Ploesser reminded members that they had been at the DRB a year ago. The three properties are under the same ownership, and had been a PUD but was taken out of a PUD. They are now here just for the subdivision and boundary line adjustment. Mr. Ploesser said they had only one issue with condition #6 which references Section A on page 1 and says they would have to return to the DRB for any site plan approval instead of getting an administrative approval. Ms. Keene said if a waiver is required, which is the case here (maximum coverage waiver and maximum front yard coverage waiver), DRB approval is required. Ms. Keene also noted that the degree of non-conformity is not increasing, but it is still non-conforming though the waiver will be smaller. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-19-09. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-19-08 of SeaComm Federal Credit Union to amend a previously approved PUD for a four-story, 63-unit multi-family dwelling. The amendment consists of constructing a one-story, 3,500 sq. ft. financial institution with three drive-through lanes and twenty parking spaces on one acre, 1680 Shelburne Road: Mr. Wilking disclosed that he used to do business with the applicant. No issues were raised in this regard. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 APRIL 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Olesky noted that they had been in for sketch plan review a month ago. The proposed site plan layout hasn’t changed. They have also addressed most of the staff comments as follows: a. Removal of signs from the plan: Mr. Olesky said that is no problem. b. Address glazing requirements: Mr. Olesky noted that profiles have been provided. Ms. Keene said she hadn’t had a chance to check the math on the Shelburne Rd. glazing but would take the applicant’s word that it meets the standard. Mr. Behr said he was comfortable based on the renderings. Mr. Bullister directed attention to the math figures provided on the plan. c. Rooftop elements: Mr. Olesky said there are no rooftop elements above a foot in height that are not screened. d. Meeting the criteria of 8.06G: Ms. Keene said they are well under the height limit. e. Erosion Control: Mr. Olesky said they are OK with the requirement. f. Screening the parking area from Shelburne Road: Ms. Keene directed attention to renderings provided by the applicant. Mr. Wilking noted that if you are approaching the site from the south, all you see are trees. g. Modifying the parking lot to comply with Fire Chief’s concerns: Mr. Olesky said the Fire Chief had wanted the bump outs to have mountable curbs, but they prefer to move the bump outs to allow a greater turning radius for fire vehicles and those bump outs will not have mountable curbs. Ms. Keene noted she spoke with the Fire Chief who is OK if the bump outs are moved back 5 feet. Trees should also be moved to be at the back edge of the space. The applicant was OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 APRIL 2019 PAGE 4 h. Stormwater requirements: Mr. Olesky said they are OK with those requirements. i. Tree protection: The applicant is OK with this requirement. j. Bike storage Ms. Hall read the regulations regarding bike storage. Ms. Keene noted this application requires 4 short-term and 2 long-term bike storage facilities. Mr. Olesky indicated on the plan where they can meet the requirements. Mr. Crawford of the Natural Resources Committee was concerned with the 2 large trees that are not salvageable. Mr. Olesky noted this was discussed at sketch plan. He indicated the 2 trees on the plan and noted that the DRB requested that they be removed so the building can be located up to the curb. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-19-08. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Continues site plan application #SP-09-02 of Champlain Housing Trust to amend a previously approved site plan for a 104-unit multi-building residential complex. The amendment is for approval to revise the landscape plan be removing trees, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Patullo noted there are a number of trees very close to buildings, some of which are dropping limbs and creating a dangerous situation. He also noted that 30% of the site is a Conservation Area. There are 2,100 trees on the site. Plans were shown with the existing trees and the site with the requested trees removed. A picture of the current site was shown with trees close to the building and limbs from those trees on the ground. Mr. Baer said it seems reasonable. Mr. Wilking felt the site is over-landscaped. Ms. Keene noted the original developer cleared as few trees as possible when the project was built. She also noted the Board felt at the previous hearing that it is an aesthetics and health issue. Mr. Wilking said it is also a human health issue of getting light to the residences. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 APRIL 2019 PAGE 5 Ms. Keene noted there is also an issue of screening utility cabinets. The applicant said they are planning fencing around the dumpsters and will either landscape or fence around the utility cabinets. Regarding non-compliant light fixtures, the applicant noted these have already been changed. The applicant said bikes can be stored in the parking structures and also in 3 areas indicated on the plan (one by the entrance, one on the outer loop road between buildings 7 and 10, and one by the office/maintenance building). Mr. Crawford asked if there can be some way to plant new trees when old ones are taken out. Ms. Keene said there can be a “landscape management/replacement plan” for PUDs but not for site plans. Mr. Wilking felt that was an excellent idea. No other issues were raised. Mr. Kochman moved to close SP-19-02. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: Ms. Keen noted there is now a city-wide ethics/conflict of interest policy to which the DRB is subject, so the DRB’s separate policy is no longer needed. Mr. Kochman asked for time to review the other changes to the DRB rules of procedures which he had not been able to access. He was OK with abandoning the separate DRB policy. Mr. Kochman moved to remove the conflict of interest policy from DRB Procedures. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:02 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   AO‐19‐02 730 Shelburne Road Appeal    DATE:     April 16, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      Dennys Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative  Officer to deny the Certificate of Occupancy, 730 Shelburne Road.  A memorandum describing the background  and facts of the case is included in the packet for the Board.  This cover memorandum summarizes the question  to be decided by the Board.    The State statute governing appeals of the administrative officer’s decisions is as follows.    24 V.S.A. § 4465. Appeals of decisions of the administrative officer  (c) In the exercise of its functions under this section, a board of adjustment or development review board  shall have the following powers, in addition to those specifically provided for elsewhere in this chapter:  (1) To hear and decide appeals taken under this section, including, without limitation, where it is alleged  that an error has been committed in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an  administrative officer under this chapter in connection with the administration or enforcement of a  bylaw.  (2) To hear and grant or deny a request for a variance under section 4469 of this title.  In other words, the Board must determine whether an error has been made by the Zoning Administrative  Officer in enforcing the Land Development Regulations.  The appellant has not requested a variance.    The subject property received site plan approval for revising the parking layout, adding a pole light in the  parking lot, enlarging the dumpster storage area, and other minor site modifications on June 20, 2018 (#SP‐18‐ 27).  During construction of improvements associated with #SP‐18‐27, minor changes were made to the  planned site layout and the subject property received site plan approval for revising the parking layout,  relocating the dumpster, and other minor site modifications on August 28, 2018.  The Administrative Officer  denied the certificate of occupancy application on the following basis:    1. The lighting on the exterior of the southeasterly corner of the building does not comply with Section  13.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations.  #AO‐19‐02  2   13.07 Exterior Lighting  A.  General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one‐ family and two‐family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding  as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from  any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are  illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or  translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for  uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is  encouraged.          2. Condition 6 of the findings of fact and decision on #SP‐18‐27 is not met.    #SP‐18‐27 Condition 6: All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to  conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be  illuminated.    3. Condition 5 of the findings of fact and decision on #SP‐18‐43 is not met.    #SP‐18‐43 Condition 5:  All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to  conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be  illuminated.    The applicant has declined to amend the construction or operation of the property to comply with the  standard, and requested the administrative office deny the application for certificate of occupancy in order to  allow the matter to be presented to and decided by the Development Review Board.    The applicant has described in their application form that they are requesting the following from the Board:    “Please grant the illuminated slat wall system that was approved during the permit process.  We  submitted all the requested documentation and at no point were we told this was not allowed.  This  was approved by Ray Belair”     Staff notes the Board is not required to develop a solution to the lighting standard identified herein; it merely  must decide whether to uphold the administrative officer’s decision that the property is not eligible for a  certificate of occupancy because it does not meet all requirements of applicable ordinances.    RECOMMENDATION  Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.    Respectfully submitted,    ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Memorandum To: Development Review Board From: Paul Conner, Administrative Officer Dalila Hall, Acting Zoning Administrative Officer Date: April 3, 2019 Re: #AO-19-02, 730 Shelburne Rd – Appeal of Administrative Officer re: Denny’s C of O Denny’s Inc. has filed an appeal of the Administrative Officer’s decision denying their application for a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) #CO-19-04. The CO was denied due to the presence of an illuminated wall feature that does not comply with the conditions of approval and the Land Development Regulations. Background: The application for the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was received on January 11, 2019. This application followed the application and issuance of site plan amendments #SP-18-27 dated June 20, 2018 and #SP- 18-43 dated August 28, 2018 and associated zoning permits #ZP-18-282 and #ZP-18-363. Site work was performed by the applicant during the summer of 2018. Following completion of the work, the Administrative Officer was invited to perform a site visit in October. The Administrative Officer found a new parapet wall on the southwest building corner, approximately five (5) feet tall and four (4) feet wide with the appearance of being internally illuminated. Subsequent evening trips along that stretch of Shelburne Road confirmed that the structure is illuminated. It was communicated to the applicant to indicate that this feature was not approved and would have to remain off or be removed for a CO to be issued. They were also informed that their parking layout was not consistent with the approved plans and would need to be corrected. They corrected the parking layout to conform with the approved plans. After discussion, the applicant elected to apply for a CO, obtain a denial, and appeal the decision to the DRB. Following an inspection on January 25th, the Administrative Officer issued a denial on February 28, 2019. The denial was based on non-compliance with a condition in each of the approvals and non- compliance with the standards of the Land Development Regulations. The two site plan approvals contained specific conditions of approval related to lighting. Condition #6 of SP-18-27 and #5 of SP-18-43 state: “All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated.” This condition is based upon the following standard in the Land Development Regulations: 13.07 Exterior Lighting. A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two- family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. What follows is a chronology of the Project to date: (a) June 11, 2018: Applicant submits an application for site plan review, later assigned #SP-18-27, to amend the approved site plan for the property. (b) June 20,2018: #SP-18-27 is approved by the Administrative Officer. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the parking layout, 2) adding a pole light in the parking lot, 3) enlarging the dumpster storage area, and 4) other minor site modifications. The plan submitted consists of a six (6) page set of plans, page three (3) is labeled “Existing Conditions Site Plan,” dated 4/30/18, and prepared by Civil Engineering Associates Inc. (c) August 27, 2018: Applicant submits an application for site plan review, later assigned #SP-18-43, to make additional modifications to the approved plans. (d) August 28, 2018: The Administrative Officer approves #SP-18-43. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the parking layout, 2) relocating the dumpster, and 3) other minor site modifications. The plan submitted consists of a one (1) page set of plans, labeled “Demo Site Plan Proposed Site Plan” prepared by Technical Group, Inc., dated 3/22/18 and last revised 8/23/18. (e) October 26, 2018: The Administrative Officer, upon invitation, performs an initial site visit. (f) October 26, 2018: The Administrative Officer subsequently communicated to the applicant that the illuminated wall feature and parking layout were not consistent with the approval. (g) January 11, 2018: The applicant submits an application for a Certificate of Occupancy. (h) January 25, 2019: CO Inspection (i) February, 28,2019: The Administrative Officer issues a denial for the above stated reason. -End- 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ APPELLA __________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Dennys inc 203 east main street Spartanburg SC cmalvano@dennys.com Dennys unit 2364 730 Shelbourne rod south Burlington vt 05403 CO-19-04 along with site plans sp-18-43, sp-18-27 zoning zp-18-281 and zp-18-363 _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ ________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 3/12/2019 we told this was not allowed. This was approved by Ray Belair we submitted all the requested documentation and at no point were during the permit process. This was approved by Ray Belair please grant the illuminated slat wall system that was approved 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐19‐07 1200 Airport Drive Quick Turn Around    DATE:    April 16, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      The City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport has submitted preliminary and final plat application #SD‐ 19‐07 to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex.  The amendment consists of:  1) razing an  existing car wash facility, 2) constructing a new 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a  2,353 sq. ft. six position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive.    At the September 18, 2018 hearing, the Board indicated that there were several topics that needed additional  attention.  A summary of the status of each of these topics is as follows.  Numbered items for the Board’s  attention are in red.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions  The Board asked the applicant to remove the excess pavement between the existing building to be retained at the  north of the site and the proposed dumpster location that is currently impervious.  The applicant has updated the  plans to reflect the pavement being removed and the area covered with six inches topsoil, seed and mulch.      1. Staff notes the landscape plans do not reflect this area as being pervious and recommends the Board require the  applicant to also update the landscape plan.  Staff considers this can be a condition of approval.    The Applicant has corrected the north arrow on the revised sheets to be consistent between plans.     SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS  14.07 Specific Review Standards  D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street  Trees.  13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas  (2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in  parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the  parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement  shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking.  At the previous hearing, the Board discussed with the applicant that while the interior of the proposed facility  SD‐18‐23  2 is designed as a vehicle staging area and focuses on the movement of vehicles (as opposed to the parking of  vehicles), there are two areas on the southwestern side (19 spaces) and the northeastern side (15 spaces)  which are configured as vehicle parking areas for which parking lot landscaping standards should apply.  The applicant has provided an approximately 560 sq. ft. landscape island on the southwest side of the  proposed building, which is proposed to be planted with four shade trees.  Staff considers this consistent  with the discussion at the previous hearing, and therefore that this criterion is met.   2. Staff notes that the configuration of the landscape island differs between the landscape plan and the civil  plans, and recommends the Board discuss with applicant which configuration is correct, and require the  applicant to correct the plans as a condition of approval.  Either configuration would meet the required  landscape minimum.  3. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and recommends the Board require the applicant to specify that the  soil in the island be replaced with planting soil in a continuous planting pit to provide adequate soil volume  to support tree growth.  Staff considers this can be a condition of approval.    13.06G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting  costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements, some credit may  be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this  section are not reduced.  At the previous hearing, the Board asked the Applicant to update their landscape value calculations to include  landscaping both in and around the proposed facility and nearby on White Street and Airport Drive.  The  Applicant  has  provided  an  updated  landscape  value  of  $73,927.50,  greater  than  their  required  minimum  landscape value of $45,810.  Staff considers this criterion met.  4. The Board reviewed comments provided by the City Arborist at the last hearing.  The applicant has addressed  some of these comments. The Applicant does not appear to have addressed the City Arborist’s comments that  the spruces should be greater than ten feet apart unless they are intended to be maintained as a hedge.  The  City Arborist recommends a spacing of 20 feet.  Staff considers that since the provided landscape value is  greater than the required landscape value, the applicant may be able to increase the spacing without adverse  effect.  Staff recommends the Board discuss this with the applicant.    PUD STANDARDS    (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the  project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water  allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the  Department of Environmental Conservation.    As requested by the Director of Public Works, the applicant has provided an operation and maintenance  plan for the proposed oil water separator.  The Director has reviewed the manual and considers this  criterion met.    (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that  adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be  limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions  where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of  hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with  applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.    SD‐18‐23  3 The applicant has made modifications to the entrance islands and gates to allow fire truck access.  The Fire  Chief offers the following comments, which Staff recommends be included as a condition of approval.    1. Please remind the applicant that the gates are required to be on an Opticom remote access control  system.    2. Lanes 1 & 2 should be shortened and fire lanes marking painted on the pavement to prevent  encroachment of parked vehicles to the fire access path.     5. Staff recommends the Board adopt the Fire Chief’s comments as conditions of approval.    OTHER  13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage    At the previous hearing, the Applicant indicated that in lieu of addressing bicycle parking standards for the  proposed facility alone, they would prefer to address them for the overall PUD.  Upon discussion, Staff and the  Applicant agreed it would make sense to consider the PUD in a few discrete areas, addressing bicycle standards  as work in each area was proposed.  For the purposes of this application, the relevant area includes the Quick  Turn Around Facility and appurtenant buildings, the terminal building, the air traffic control complex, and the  proposed hotel being reviewed under separate application (see graphic provided by applicant for included  buildings).  The applicant calculates that a total of 52 short term and eight (8) long term bicycle parking spaces  are needed for the relevant area, and have proposed the majority of bicycle parking to be centrally located  within the parking garage, with twelve short term spaces located between the garage and the proposed hotel.      Bicycle parking spaces will replace a total of eight existing parking spaces.  LDR 13.01B Note 6 allows applicants  to substitute five bicycle parking spaces for each required motor vehicle parking space, up to 25% of the  required motor vehicle parking.  Though Staff has not performed an analysis of whether the applicant needs to  consider the removed parking spaces to meet their required minimums, Staff considers that even if they did,  Note 6 allows the applicant to remove up to 12 motor vehicle spaces because they have a total of 60 proposed  bicycle parking spaces, and has no concerns with removing 8 spaces to locate 60 bicycle parking spaces.    The applicant has included a note on their Bicycle Parking Plan indicating they will install signage to guide users  to find the bicycle parking.     Staff considers this criterion met.    Recommendation  Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.    568.18 sf 11.56 ft BTV PLANTING Estimate of Probable Construction Costs 3/27/2019 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Unit Total Sub-total PLANTING OFF SITE Amelanchier arborea 8 EA $660.00 $5,280.00 Betula nigra 'Heritage'; 2 1/2-3" Cal. 13 EA $737.50 $9,587.50 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Shademaster'; 3-3 1/2" Cal. 3 EA $1,100.00 $3,300.00 Pinus strobus; 8'-10' 22 EA $500.00 $11,000.00 Picea glauca; 8'-10' 22 EA $550.00 $12,100.00 Aronia arbutifolia 'Brilliantissima'; 5 Gal. 57 EA $80.00 $4,560.00 Physocarpus' Coppertina'; 5 Gal. 56 EA $80.00 $4,480.00 Planting Subtotal $50,307.50 MISC. Topsoil CY $45.00 $0.00 Planting Soil CY $55.00 $0.00 Misc. Subtotal $0.00 Subtotal $50,307.50 TOTAL $50,307.50 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Unit Total Sub-total PLANTING ON SITE Amelanchier grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' 4 EA $812.50 $3,250.00 Acer x freemanii 'Armstrong' 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Carpinus caroliniana; 2 1/2" Cal. 6 EA $875.00 $5,250.00 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Shademaster'; 3-3 1/2" Cal. 3 EA $1,100.00 $3,300.00 Picea abies; 8'-10' 7 EA $760.00 $5,320.00 Picea glauca; 8'-10' 6 EA $550.00 $3,300.00 Planting Subtotal $23,620.00 MISC. Topsoil CY $45.00 $0.00 Planting Soil CY $55.00 $0.00 Misc. Subtotal $0.00 Subtotal $23,620.00 TOTAL $23,620.00 PROJECT TOTAL $73,927.50 Wagner Hodgson Landscape Architecture 1 3/27/2019 Existing Terminal(+/-160,000 SF oftotal floor space)QTA SiteHotel SiteProposed Airport Bikeparking location on 1st Floornear EV charging stations:QTA: 4 short term, 2 longtermHotel (60,000 sf): 6 longtermExisting Terminal (160,000sf): 32 short term, long termnot requiredExisting FAA Building(17,000 sf): 4 short term,long term not requiredExisting FAABuilding (+/-17,000SF of total floorspace)Burlington International AirportBike Parking Basis of Design &Location Plan04/05/2019NShort Term Bike ParkingLocated at the Hotel Sitebetween parking garage andhotel:Hotel (60,000 sf):12shortterm spots, 6 racks #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 1 1 of 12  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐19‐11_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_PP  FP_2019‐04‐16.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: April 12, 2019  Plans received: March 22, 2018  1200 Airport Drive  Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐11  Meeting date: April 16, 2019  Owner/Applicant  City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport   C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation   1200 Airport Drive, Box 1   So. Burlington, VT 05403  Co Applicant  BTV Hotel LLC.  C/O Rabideau Architects  550 Hinesburg Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C  Airport District  777.84 acres   Project Contact  Gene Richards, Director of Aviation  1200 Airport Drive, Box 1  South Burlington, VT 05403  Location Map        PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐11 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to  amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex.  The amendment consists of constructing a  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 2 2 of 12  102 room 5‐story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Airport district.  Development within this district must be reviewed  pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.   Until recently, the LDRs required all projects within this district be reviewed under PUD standards.    The Development Review Board held a public meeting to review a sketch plan application for this  project on January 15, 2019.  This plan differs from the sketch plan by the reduction in height (though  not in stories), improvements to the façade facing Airport Drive, reconfiguration of pedestrian and  vehicular access, and removal of the proposed sky bridge to the hotel.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have  reviewed the plans submitted on 3/22/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the  Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The Project is located in the airport district and the transit overlay district.  Hotel is not an allowed use  within the airport district.  However, the definition of Airport Uses in Article 2 is as follows.    Airport uses. Fixed‐ and rotary‐wing operations together with retail sales and service operations  related  to  public,  private,  and  general  aviation,  including  aircraft  sales,  repair,  and  storage,  commercial shipping and storage, restaurants, rental vehicles, and other uses designed to serve  aviation passengers and industry.    1. At Sketch, the Board discussed the categorization of the hotel as falling under “other uses designed  to serve aviation passengers and industry.” At sketch, majority of the Board felt this was an  appropriate classification, but was not unanimous on this determination.  Staff therefore  recommends the Board discuss whether they feel this project meets the definition of serving aviation  passengers and industry.  At sketch, members discussed that the walkway from the terminal to the  hotel supported this classification, and asked why lodging was not considered an accessory use by  default.  The applicant represented that the hotel is interlaced with the airport because of amenities  and parking and because the airport initiated it.  Staff recommends since Sketch is non‐binding  discussion that the Board reaffirm the majority of members still agree with the hotel being an  allowed use.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS     Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 3 ac  942 ac  No change   Max. Building Coverage 30 %  Unknown  No change  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 3 3 of 12   Max. Overall Coverage 50 %  33.9%  34.3%  @ Min. Front Setback  50 ft.  Unknown  34 ft.   Min. Side Setback 35 ft.  Unknown  No change   Min. Rear Setback 50 ft.  N/A  N/A   Max. Front Setback Coverage 30%  Unknown  No change  @ Max. Height (flat roof)  35 ft.  Unknown  65 ft.  √  Zoning Compliance    @   Waiver requested    The applicant has provided a plan (Sheet C‐02) showing the requested 34‐ft front yard setback from the  proposed 80‐ft right of way.  At Sketch, the Board discussed that in order to consider the requested setback  waiver, they wanted the applicant to provide a more engaging street frontage elevation.  In support of this  request, the applicant has reconfiguired the building to place hotel room windows facing Airport Drive on  the upper stories, and a central entry door at ground level.  The applicant has provided elevations as well as  a colored rendering of the hotel from Airport Drive.    2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to grant the setback wavier.    The maximum allowable height for a flat roof building in the airport district is 35 feet.  The applicant is  proposing a five‐story building and has requested a waiver to allow the building to be 65 feet high, though  the provided elevations indicate a building height of 60 ft 8 in.  The northern end of the parking garage is 58  feet high and the southern end adjacent to the proposed hotel is two stories lower.  Development in the  airport district is eligible for a height waiver as follows.    (a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the  limitations set forth in Table C‐2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks  shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot.  (b)  For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table  C‐2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may  waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning  district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a  plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre‐construction grade,  post‐construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the  proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other  public rights‐of‐way.  (c)   Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations,  that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C‐2 may be approved by the  Development  Review  Board  as  a  conditional  use  subject  to  the  provisions  of  Article  14,  Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of subsections (a)  and (b) above.  The project is already being reviewed as a PUD.  At sketch, the Board’s major concerns with the requested  height waver were the same as those with the requested setback waiver.    3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to grant the height waiver, and consider whether to grant  the requested 65 ft. or the actual 60 ft 8 in.       #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 4 4 of 12  AIRPORT DISTRICT STANDARDS  All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05  and the following additional standards:    (1)   No  use  shall  be  permitted  which  will  produce  electrical  interference  with  radio  communications or radar operations at the Airport.  (2)   No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion  with airport lights.  (3)   No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the Airport.  (4)   All uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration,  and any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports.    4. Based on the proposed use as a hotel, a review of the provided lighting description and plan, and the  fact that the airport is a co‐applicant on the project, Staff considers it likely these criteria are met but  recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to provide a written affirmative  statement that these criteria are met as a condition of approval.     6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts    A. Site Plan or PUD review required    The application is being reviewed as a PUD.  Staff considers this criterion met.      B. Multiple structures and uses permitted.  Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures,  and  multiple  uses  on  a  subject  site  may  be  allowed,  if  the  Development  Review  Board  determines  that  the  subject  site  has  sufficient  frontage,  lot  size,  and  lot  depth.  Area  and  frontage requirements may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate  ownership.  Construction  of  a  new public  street  may  serve  as  the  minimum  frontage  requirements. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the  normal maximum for the applicable districts.    Staff considers this criterion met.    C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation.  (1)   Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the  presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined  as no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of these districts). Any requirements for  shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to  the City Attorney.  (2)   Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible.  (3)   Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum  number of curb cuts onto the public roadway.    There are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs.  The applicant has provided a  parking needs assessment which includes the impacts of the simultaneous application for a  reconstructed Quick Turn Around car wash and fueling facility (SD‐19‐07).  The parking needs  assessment states that there are 3,109 parking spaces available in the garage, in the car wash and  fueling facility (spaces available for rental cars only), and in surface lots.  The airport analyses  parking statistics, and states that during the peak times, 650 parking spaces are available.   #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 5 5 of 12  Therefore they consider the addition of a 102 room hotel will not result in a shortage of parking  spaces.  They offer the following narrative pertaining to hotel parking.    Approximately 20 parking spaces will be dedicated to hotel patrons on the second level of  the parking garage adjacent to the hotel.  Three accessible parking spaces will be provided  for hotel patrons on the ground level of the garage in immediate proximity to the hotel.   Employee parking will be managed consistently with current airport policies regarding  employee parking usage and location.    Staff has no concern with the proposed configuration of parking.    (4)   Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.    LDR Section 15.12 pertains to standards for roadways, parking and circulation.  The Board has the  authority to require pedestrian easements through PUDs to facilitate pedestrian circulation within  the PUD.  At sketch, the Board discussed that a defined and safe pedestrian route from the hotel to  the terminal is needed.    5. The Applicant has significantly modified the proposed access to the parking garage since sketch  and recommends the Board discuss the revised configuration with the applicant.  At sketch, the  applicant  proposed  a  one‐way  out  to  Airport  Drive  from  the  hotel,  but  under  the  revised  configuration, this drive has been eliminated.  Staff considers the proposed return lane to the main  driveway generally satisfactory, but remains concerned about the proposed pedestrian crosswalk  relative to the direction of traffic flow.  The crosswalk is significantly skewed from perpendicular  to traffic flow, causing pedestrians to have to look nearly behind them before crossing the road,  and it appears the crosswalk conflicts with the parking garage access gate.  The Fire Chief has  commented that the parking space on the access road will need to be eliminated, discussed below.   Staff considers removing this parking space opens possibilities for improving pedestrian safety at  this crossing.    D. Buffer Strip.  Properties in the Airport, Mixed Industrial Commercial, Industrial Open Space and  Airport Industrial districts that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along  the abutting line, as per Section 3.06(I) (buffers).  Section 3.06(I) pertains to non‐residential uses whose side or rear boundaries are within fifty feet  of the boundary of a residential district.  The Project is proposed to be within fifty feet of the  residential district when measured from the front boundary.  Staff considers this criterion not  applicable.     SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    14.6 General Review Standards  Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general  review standards for all site plan applications:  A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due  attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use  policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.    The project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 6 6 of 12  plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are  compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource  conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant.  Staff considers that  the proposed use is compatible with the airport.  The site is not located in the south end of the  quadrant.  The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential.   Staff considers this criterion met.    B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.  (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from  structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,  and adequate parking areas.    The applicant is proposing a combination of fiber cement siding, brick, and limestone.  Staff  considers this generally compatible with the materials of the adjacent parking garage.  Plantings are  robust, and the landscaping includes common hardscape elements duplicated on both the north  and south of the building.  Staff’s concerns with pedestrian circulation are discussed above as they  pertain to Airport District Standards.    6. In general, the area between the parking garage and the hotel is proposed to be a utilitarian  corridor, with the primary amenity areas located on the south side of the hotel.  There are two  doors located between the hotel and the garage, one an exit from a stairwell and one an exit  from a food prep area.  Primary entrances are on the east, south and west sides of the building.   Staff wishes to draw this to the Board’s attention as it differs from the plan presented at sketch.      (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.    The project is proposing one additional parking space to be located outside of the parking  garage, which is addressed under fire department comments below.    (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and  scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining  buildings.    The applicant’s requested height waiver is discussed above under zoning district standards.    14.07 Specific Review Standards   In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:    A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision  of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an  arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve  general access and circulation in the area.    Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.    B.  Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections  shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 7 7 of 12  installations  remaining  above  ground  shall  be  located  so  as  to have  a  harmonious  relation  to  neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.    The hotel is proposed to be served by underground electric originating at an existing pole on Airport Drive.   Staff considers this criterion met.    C.  Disposal  of  Wastes.  All  dumpsters  and  other  facilities  to  handle  solid  waste,  including  compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and  properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).  Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall  not be required to be fenced or screened.    The applicant is proposing an enclosed dumpster between the hotel and the parking garage.  Staff  considers this criterion met.    D.  Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,  and Street Trees.    Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening  shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape  requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development  Regulations.    The applicant estimates the building cost to be $11,968,710.  The required minimum landscape value is  therefore $127,187.10, as follows.    Total  Building  Construction  Cost  % of total Construction Cost  Required Value  $0 ‐ $250,000  3%  $7,500  Next $250,000  2%  $5,000  Additional Over $500,000  1% $114,687.10  Total $127,187.10    The applicant is proposing $17,780 in trees and shrubs.  The applicant has requested several other  elements be allowed to be considered as contributing towards the minimum required landscape value, as  follows.   A large quantity of grasses and perennials as infill around the trees and shrubs and in the rain  garden.  $15,820   Patio and entry area pavers.  $20,150   Retaining walls and stone accents.  $50,700   Existing trees to be retained.  $22,641  The applicant appears to have used the methodology  proposed  in  a  paper  published  by  the  Purdue  University  Cooperative  Extension  Service  Department of Horticulture (1/2006) to calculate the value of existing trees.  Existing trees to  be retained include three honey locusts, one ginko and three ornamental cherry trees.  Notably, the applicant has not requested the value of hardscape between the garage and hotel be  included.  The total value of the items the applicant is requesting be considered towards the required  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 8 8 of 12  minimum landscape value is $133,781.  13.06G Landscaping Standards.  (1)  The  Development  Review  Board  shall  require  compliance  with any  Tree  Ordinance  or  Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the effective  date of these regulations.  (2)  Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan.  (3)  Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum  planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below.  In  evaluating  landscaping  requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than  tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.    The Board has the flexibility to allow the applicant to provide the required landscaping anywhere on the  airport PUD, to allow some of the required landscape value as hardscape improvements and to allow some  credit for existing vegetation not approved as part of a prior site plan if they determine that the landscaping  standards are otherwise met.      7. Staff recommends the Board consider the following points pertaining to the proposed landscape value:   Should the entire value of grasses and perennials be included?  The applicant is required to  maintain landscaping in a vigorous growing condition and grasses and perennials are more  subject to change and may therefore present problems in demonstrating compliance with  the approved landscape plan.   Staff considers only the incremental value of the patio and entry area pavers should be  allowed to be included, as compared to the cost of standard concrete treatment.    The applicant provides the following statement with regard to snow storage.    Snow from the hotel site access road will be plowed to a location in accordance with the Airport’s  existing operations.    Staff considers no separate snow storage area is needed for the proposed hotel.    E.  Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the  limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and  waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board  may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive  Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5)  feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a  total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new  development,  or  increasing  the  coverage  on  sites  where  the  pre‐existing  condition  exceeds  the  applicable limit.    The applicant is requesting both setback and height waivers, discussed above.    F   Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site  disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other  techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying  soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 9 9 of 12  pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.    8. The applicant has been working with the Stormwater Section to demonstrate compliance with the  stormwater management standards of Article 12.  At the time of this writing, the Stormwater Section  has not yet received a full package demonstrating the design of the stormwater management system.   Staff anticipates there may be an update at the time of the hearing.  Staff recommends the Board not  conclude the hearing until the Stormwater Section considers Article 12 standards to be met.    G.  Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for  Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.    No new public roadways are proposed.  The through‐lane of the hotel access road appears to be  approximately 10 ft wide, with the drop off area another 10 ft wide.  Staff considers the proposed  perimeter road will be limited to internal airport operations therefore standards of Section 15.12 do not  apply.    PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general  standards for all PUDs.    (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the  project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City  water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit  from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    The applicant has provided an estimate of average and peak water demand, and average  wastewater flow.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary  water and wastewater allocation prior to recording the mylar, and to obtain final water and  wastewater allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit.    (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after  construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous  conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB  may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for  Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.    The project will disturb less than one acre of land.  The applicant has provided an erosion  prevention and sediment control plans (Sheets C‐05).  Staff notes the EPSC plan does not reflect  the current proposed layout, omits tree protection for the existing trees to be preserved within  the limits of disturbance, and does not include the permanent stabilization timelines of Article  16.      9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct the EPSC plan as described  immediately above and considers this can be a condition of approval.    (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to  prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 10 10 of 12  on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical  review by City staff or consultants.    The applicant has estimated that the Project will generate 39 PM peak hour vehicle trips, which  includes a 25% reduction from the standard ITE value.  The applicant explains that they consider  25% of trips will occur between the hotel and terminal without the use of a vehicle.  Without the  25% reduction, the Project generates 52 PM peak hour vehicle trips.      10. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to allow the applicant’s proposed 25% trip  reduction.    (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,  wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on  the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these  Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural  Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.    No natural resource impacts are anticipated.  Staff considers this criterion met.     (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in  the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in  which it is located.    See discussion of visual compatibility with existing structures above under site plan review  standards.  Staff considers the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the  zoning district.      (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities  for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.    The project is proposed to be constructed in an existing open space within the airport loop road.   Staff considers though this area is a visual open space, it is not an activated space.  Staff  considers this criterion met.    (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to  insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval  including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular  access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,  and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed  and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.    The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 3/25/2019 and offers the following comments.    As the building is a proposed 5 story bldg. and its a tight lot, FD will treat the bldg. like a high rise  for fire protection purposes.  We will need two points of access to the roof, one through the  interior of the building. It appears our only aerial access to the bldg. is the SE corner of the  bldg.  If the aerial is “thrown” to the roof, as we have one spot we can use, it would result in the  airport access road being cut off completely.   So they may want to develop a contingency plan  for traffic control.  They will also need to eliminate what appears to be a parking space at the NE  #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 11 11 of 12  corner of the lot as the ambulance can not make the turn back on to Airport Circle if there is a  car in that spot. The supporting fire hydrant for the fire suppression systems are not shown of  the plat. It would need to be on the same side of the street as the Hotel as the fire hoses can not  be driven over.       11. Staff recommends the Board discuss the Fire Chief’s comments with the applicant prior to closing  the hearing, to include the following three main points.   blocking of the main airport driveway when there is a fire truck on site,    the proposed parking space on the exit from the hotel driveway   the absence of fire hydrants.    (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting  have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.    No changes to roads are proposed.  The existing pedestrian walkway is proposed to be retained.      12. Lighting is proposed to be generally downcast and shielded, with the exception of the proposed  lighted bollards, for which Staff is unable to make a determination.  Staff recommends the Board  require the applicant to demonstrate that the bollard lights will have louvers to direct lighting  downward.      Other elements are discussed elsewhere in this document.  Staff considers this criterion will be  met when other concerns discuss above are met.     (9)  Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council.    No changes to public infrastructure are proposed.  The Director of Public Works reviewed the  submitted plans on 3/25/2019 and had no concerns.  Staff considers this criterion met.      (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for  the affected district(s).    A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review  standards above.     (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and  integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to  generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and  groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.    13. As discussed above, the applicant has been working with the Stormwater Section to address  concerns.  Staff recommends the Board not conclude the hearing until a positive determination  from the Stormwater Section is made.      #SD‐19‐11  Staff Comments 12 12 of 12  OTHER    Energy Standards  Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:  Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.    13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage    At the previous hearing for the airport Quick Turn Around facility (SD‐19‐07), the Applicant indicated  that in lieu of addressing bicycle parking standards for the proposed facility alone, they would prefer to  address them for the overall PUD.  Upon discussion, Staff and the Applicant agreed it would make sense  to consider the PUD in a few discrete areas, addressing bicycle standards as work in each area was  proposed.  For the purposes of this application, the relevant area includes the Quick Turn Around Facility  and appurtenant buildings, the terminal building, the air traffic control complex, and the proposed hotel  (see graphic provided by applicant for included buildings).  The applicant calculates that a total of 52  short term and eight (8) long term bicycle parking spaces are needed for the relevant area, and have  proposed the majority of bicycle parking to be centrally located within the parking garage, with twelve  short term spaces located between the garage and the proposed hotel.      14. Staff has no concerns with the proposed configuration of short and long term spaces but notes that  the applicant has modified the bicycle parking plan since their initial submission and many plans  show an outdated bicycle parking configuration.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant  to update their plans to reflect the current bicycle parking.    15. In addition to short and long term bicycle parking spaces, the applicant must provide one changing  facility, one unisex shower, and three clothes lockers meeting the minimum standards in 13.14C(2).   Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that these facilities are provided  on the architectural floor plans.    Signage    Staff notes the Applicant has shown on some of their plans the proposed location for a hotel sign.    16. Staff notes the applicant must remove all signs from the plans, including callouts of sign locations. The  Board  may  not  approve  signs  or  sign  locations  as  part  of  the  current  application,  and  Staff  recommends the Board include a condition to this effect.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.    Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com1257+Zs/d/KE^Zt/E'/EyZ,/ddhZ>^zDK>^ADDADDITIONALA/CAIR CONDITION(ING)ATACOUSTIC TILEADJADJUSTABLEAFFABOVE FINISH FLOORALUMALUMINUMAPROXAPPROXIMATEARCHARCHITECTURALBDBOARDBLDGBUILDINGBLKGBLOCKINGBSMTBASEMENTCABCABINETCERCERAMICCJCONTROL JOINTCLCLEAR, CLEARANCECLGCEILINGC.H.CEILING HEIGHTCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCOLCOLUMNCONCCONCRETECONSTCONSTRUCTIONCONTCONTINUOUSCPTCARPETCTCERAMIC TILEDETDETAILDIADIAMETERDIMDIMENSIONDNDOWNDSDOWNSPOUTDWGDRAWINGEEASTEAEACHELECELECTRICALELEVELEVATION, ELEVATOREQEQUALEQUIPEQUIPMENTEXISTEXISTINGEXPEXPANSIONFDFLOOR DRAINFFFINISHED FLOORFECFIRE EXTINGUISHER W/ CABINETF. EXT.FIRE EXTINGUISHER W/O CABINETFINFINISHFLFLOOR, FLASHINGFTFOOT, FEETFTGFOOTINGGAGAGEGALVGALVANIZEDGCGENERAL CONTRACTORGLGLASSGYPGPYSUMH.HGTHEIGHTHCHOLLOW COREHORIZHORIZONTALH/CHANDICAPHMHOLLOW METALHVACHEATING, VENTINALTION, & A/CIDINSIDE DIAMETERININCHINSULINSULATION, INSULATEDINTINTERIORINCLINCLUDEDJAN, JCJANITOR'S CLOSETJTJOINTKITKITCHEN, KITCHENETTELAVLAVATORYLAMLAMINATEMATLMATERIALMAXMAXIMUMMDOMEDIUM DENSITY OVERLAYMECHMECHANICALMTLMETALMINMINIMUMMOMASONRY OPENINGNNORTHNICNOT IN CONTRACTNONUMBERNOMNOMINALNTSNOT TO SCALEOCON CENTERODOUTSIDE DIAMETEOPNGOPENINGOPPOPPOSITEPLPLATEPLYWDPLYWOODPRELIMPRELIMINARYPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPTDPAINTEDP.T.PRESSURE TREATEDPVCPOLYVINYL CHLORIDEQTQUARRY TILERRADIUS, RISERRDROOF DRAIN, ROADREINFREINFORCEMENTREQDREQUIREDREVREVISIONRMROOMROROUGH OPENINGSSOUTHSCHSCHEDULESCWSOLD CORE WOODSECTSECTIONSHTSHEETSIMSIMILARSLSLOPESPECSPECIFICATIONSQSQUARESTDSTANDARDSTLSTEELSUSPSUSPENDEDS. STLSTAINLESS STEELT & GTONGUE AND GROOVETEL TELEPHONETEMPTEMPORARYTH, THKTHICK, THICKNESSTHRSLDTHRESHOLDTOSTOP OF STEEL, SLABTOWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVCTVINYL COMPOSITION TILEVERTVERTICALVESTVESTIBULEVIFVERIFY IN FIELDVWCVINYL WALL COVERINGWWIDTH, WASTE, WATER, WESTW/WITHW/OWITHOUTWDWOODWTWEIGHTWWFWELDED WIRE FABRICWWMWELDED WIRE MESH214AB12CL512102.5' A107TITLE LINEDWG. NO.SHEET NO.DWG. NAMEELEVATION NO.SHEET NO.SECTION NO.SHEET NO.ELEVATIONSECTION MARKERDETAIL MARKERDOOR NUMBERWINDOW TYPEREFERENCE GRIDCENTER LINEROOM NUMBERELEVATION TAGSPOT ELEVATIONPARTITION TYPEROOF SLOPE INDICATIONREVISIONNORTH ARROWCHANGE IN ELEVATION1" DN.SHEET NO.DRAWING NAMESHEET NO.DRAWING NAMESHEET NO.DRAWING NAME30)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEd5(9,6,2161R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH$ &,7<6.(7&+3/$168%0,66,21 % &,7<6.(7&+3/$168%0,66,215(9,6(' & 35(/,0,1$5<3/$7$33/,&$7,21 ' 5(9,6('35(/,0,1$5<3/$7$33/,&$7,21 A101 BASEMENT LEVEL PLANA102 LOBBY LEVEL PLANA103 SECOND LEVEL PLANA104 THIRD LEVEL PLANA105 FOURTH LEVEL PLANA106 FIFTH LEVEL PLANA201 ELEVATIONSA202 ELEVATIONSA901 3D VIEW'h^dZKKD^,h>GUESTROOM TYPECOUNTRATIOACCESSIBLE DOUBLE QUEEN 2 2%ACCESSIBLE DOUBLE QUEEN SUITE 1 1%ACCESSIBLE KING 3 3%ACCESSIBLE KING SUITE 1 1%DOUBLE QUEEN 32 30%DOUBLE QUEEN SUITE 3 3%KING 44 42%KING SUITE 19 18%TOTAL # OF GUESTROOMS 105 100%'ZK^^h/>/E'ZLEVELGROSS AREABASEMENT FLOOR 5178 SFFIRST FLOOR 11080 SFSECOND FLOOR 11057 SFTHIRD FLOOR 11057 SFFOURTH FLOOR 11057 SFFIFTH FLOOR 11057 SFTOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA 60487 SF UPUP332211KHFFDDBBCEGJLMN7468911131517181819192020141612105AALAUNDRY001EMPLOYEETOILET002EMPLOYEEBREAK ROOM003STAIR 'A'004CORRIDOR005ENGINEERING006MECHANICAL008STAIR 'B'010WATER /SPRINKLER009UNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAELECTRICAL0078"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"2' - 1 1/2"151' - 1 3/4"8"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"8"11"1' - 1"11"30' - 7 3/4"11"75' - 0 1/2"11"38' - 3 1/2"11"7"11"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"67' - 1 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"8"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"2' - 1 1/2"151' - 1 3/4"2' - 0"54' - 7 1/4"66' - 6"26' - 6 1/2"1' - 6"8"8' - 8"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"4' - 0"8"8' - 8"12' - 8 1/2"20' - 10"19' - 4 1/2"4' - 0 1/2"2' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 10 1/2"39' - 2 1/2"1' - 6"65' - 7 1/2"11"3' - 1 1/2"11"18' - 5 1/2"11"19' - 0"11"11' - 9 1/2"11"7' - 9"11"11"1' - 1"11"52' - 9 1/4"11"65' - 7"11"25' - 7 1/2"11"7"11"97' - 8 1/2"11"3' - 1"11"12' - 4 1/2"11"65' - 3 1/2"11"12' - 4 1/2"11"21' - 5 3/4"11"11"30' - 1 3/4"11"1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϭ^DEd>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϭͬϮϭͬϭϴϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ^DEd>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ UPDNUPDN332211KHFFDDBBCEGJLMN7468911131517181819192020141612105AAELEVATORLOBBY108ICE104STAIR 'A'107CORRIDOR103LINEN /STORAGE106VESTIBULE101ENTRY FOYER102FITNESS109FOOD PREP111TOILET114TOILET115CORRIDOR112STAIR 'B'116EXIT117I.T.118WORKROOM119OFFICE120LOBBY124CORNERMARKET123CARTS126LOUNGE125SEATING113BUFFET110PATIOSTORAGE122REGISTRATION1218"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"2' - 1 1/2"151' - 1 3/4"8"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"8"11"1' - 1"11"30' - 7 3/4"11"75' - 0 1/2"11"38' - 3 1/2"11"7"11"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"27' - 9"11' - 7 1/2"27' - 9"13' - 3 1/2"8"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"2' - 1 1/2"151' - 1 3/4"2' - 0"54' - 7 1/4"66' - 6"26' - 6 1/2"1' - 6"8"8' - 8"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"4' - 0"8"8' - 8"12' - 8 1/2"20' - 10"19' - 4 1/2"4' - 0 1/2"VESTIBULE127DOUBLE QUEEN10919' - 0"STORAGE1052' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 10 1/2"39' - 2 1/2"1' - 6"65' - 7 1/2"11"3' - 1 1/2"11"18' - 5 1/2"11"19' - 0"11"11' - 9 1/2"11"7' - 9"11"11"1' - 1"11"52' - 9 1/4"11"65' - 7"11"25' - 7 1/2"11"7"11"11"3' - 1"11"12' - 4 1/2"11"25' - 11"11"11' - 7 1/2"11"25' - 11"11"12' - 4 1/2"11"ACCESSIBLE KING SUITE101DOUBLE QUEEN102ACCESSIBLE KING103KING104KING105KING106KING107KING SUITE10897' - 8 1/2"1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϮ>Kz>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϭͬϮϱͬϭϱϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ>Kz>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ UPUP332211KHFFDDCORRIDOR207ELEVATORLOBBY206BBCEGJLMN746891113151718181919202014161210ICE2025AAKING223KING221KING219DOUBLE QUEEN210KING SUITE209KING208KING207KING206KING205KING204DOUBLE QUEEN203KING224KING222STAIR 'A'205LINEN /STORAGE204STAIR 'B'208CORRIDOR201ACCESSIBLE DOUBLEQUEEN SUITE2015 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"31' - 1 1/4"5 1/2"75' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"38' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 5 1/2"39' - 3"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"65' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"66' - 8 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"53' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"13' - 1"5 1/2"52' - 6"5 1/2"26' - 1 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"54' - 2 1/4"13' - 1"53' - 5"26' - 7"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"51' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"8' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 0"52' - 6 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"4' - 0"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"8' - 8"5 1/2"STORAGE203DOUBLE QUEEN20265' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"36' - 3 1/2"36' - 9"4' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 8"97' - 3 1/2"KING SUITE218KING SUITE216KING SUITE214KING SUITE220DOUBLE QUEEN217DOUBLE QUEEN215DOUBLE QUEEN213DOUBLE QUEEN211DOUBLE QUEEN212ROOF BELOWROOF BELOW1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϯ^KE>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϬϵͬϬϮͬϭϲϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ^KE>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ UPDNUP332211KHFFDDBBCEGJLMN7468911131517181819192020141612105AACORRIDOR307STAIR 'B'308ELEVATORLOBBY306ICE302DOUBLE QUEEN SUITE301STAIR 'A'305LINEN /STORAGE304CORRIDOR301ACCESSIBLE DOUBLEQUEEN309DOUBLE QUEEN312STORAGE3035 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"31' - 1 1/4"5 1/2"75' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"38' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 5 1/2"39' - 3"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"65' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"66' - 8 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"53' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"13' - 1"5 1/2"52' - 6"5 1/2"26' - 1 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"54' - 2 1/4"13' - 1"53' - 5"26' - 7"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"51' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"8' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 0"52' - 6 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"4' - 0"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"8' - 8"5 1/2"65' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"36' - 3 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 8"97' - 3 1/2"KING323KING321KING319KING324KING322KING308KING307KING306KING305KING304KING SUITE318KING SUITE316KING SUITE314KING SUITE320DOUBLE QUEEN317DOUBLE QUEEN315DOUBLE QUEEN313DOUBLE QUEEN311DOUBLE QUEEN310DOUBLE QUEEN302DOUBLE QUEEN30336' - 9"1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϰd,/Z>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭd,/Z>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ UPUP332211KHFFDDBBCEGJLMN7468911131517181819192020141612105AACORRIDOR407STAIR 'B'408ELEVATORLOBBY406ICE402STAIR 'A'405LINEN /STORAGE404CORRIDOR401ACCESSIBLE KING403STORAGE4085 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"31' - 1 1/4"5 1/2"75' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"38' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 5 1/2"39' - 3"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"65' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"66' - 8 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"53' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"13' - 1"5 1/2"52' - 6"5 1/2"26' - 1 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"54' - 2 1/4"13' - 1"53' - 5"26' - 7"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"51' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"8' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 0"52' - 6 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"4' - 0"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"8' - 8"5 1/2"65' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"36' - 3 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 8"97' - 3 1/2"KING423KING421KING419KING424KING422KING408KING407KING406KING405KING404KING SUITE418KING SUITE416KING SUITE414KING SUITE420DOUBLE QUEEN417DOUBLE QUEEN415DOUBLE QUEEN413DOUBLE QUEEN411DOUBLE QUEEN412DOUBLE QUEEN410DOUBLE QUEEN402DOUBLE QUEEN SUITE401ACCESSIBLE DOUBLEQUEEN40936' - 9"1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϱ&KhZd,>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ&KhZd,>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ DN332211KHFFDDBBCEGJLMN7468911131517181819192020141612105AACORRIDOR507STAIR 'B'508ELEVATORLOBBY506ICE502STAIR 'A'505LINEN /STORAGE504CORRIDOR501STORAGE5035 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"31' - 1 1/4"5 1/2"75' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"38' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"31' - 6 3/4"76' - 5 1/2"39' - 3"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"10' - 6 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3"9' - 3"13' - 3"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"65' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 10"5 1/2"4' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"66' - 8 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"2' - 8 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"9' - 8 1/4"12' - 11 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5 1/2"1' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"53' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"13' - 1"5 1/2"52' - 6"5 1/2"26' - 1 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"54' - 2 1/4"13' - 1"53' - 5"26' - 7"5 1/2"2' - 0"20' - 7 3/4"6' - 5"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"12' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"149' - 3 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"5 1/2"51' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"8' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 0"52' - 6 1/2"8' - 8"5 1/2"4' - 0"22' - 7 3/4"6' - 4"22' - 7 3/4"8' - 8"5 1/2"65' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"36' - 3 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 8"97' - 3 1/2"KING523KING521KING519KING524KING522KING508KING507KING506KING505KING504KING SUITE518KING SUITE516KING SUITE514KING SUITE520DOUBLE QUEEN517DOUBLE QUEEN515DOUBLE QUEEN513DOUBLE QUEEN511DOUBLE QUEEN512DOUBLE QUEEN510DOUBLE QUEEN502DOUBLE QUEEN SUITE501KING SUITE509ACCESSIBLE KING50336' - 9"1257+RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϭϬϲ&/&d,>s>W>E/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚ&ƌŽŵ͗ϮϬϭϭ&/&d,>s>W>EZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵ LOBBY LEVEL330' -6"SECOND LEVEL343' -10"THIRD LEVEL353' -10"FOURTH LEVEL363' -10"FIFTH LEVEL373' -10"ROOF DECK383' -10"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"13' - 4"57' - 4"60' - 8"55' - 9"E-1E-1E-2E-7E-8E-8E-8E-8E-11E-11E-12E-12E-14E-15E-17E-17E-18E-18E-13E-13E-1E-2E-4E-4E-6E-6E-6E-16E-1E-16LOBBY LEVEL330' -6"SECOND LEVEL343' -10"THIRD LEVEL353' -10"FOURTH LEVEL363' -10"FIFTH LEVEL373' -10"ROOF DECK383' -10"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"13' - 4"60' - 8"E-1E-1E-2E-5E-8E-8E-8E-10E-12E-14E-17E-17E-17E-18E-13E-9E-3E-6E-6E-4E-4E-16E-1RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϮϬϭ>sd/KE^/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ^Khd,>sd/KEϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮ^d>sd/KEydZ/KZDdZ/>>'EE-1 SIDING TYPE ONE - INDIANA LIMESTONE, IN THE COURSING INDICATED.E-2 SIDING TYPE TWO - MODULAR FACE BRICK - RUNNING BOND. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECTE-3 SIDING TYPE THREE - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" MASONRY SERIES AWP 1818 - SANDSTONE WITHPRE-FORMED EXTERIOR CORNERS. COLOR - GENTLE GRAY.E-4 SIDING TYPE FOUR - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" WOOD SERIES AWP 1818 - VINTAGEWOOD WITH "TAMLYN"OPEN OUTSIDE CORNER TRIM. COLOR - CEDAR.E-5 SIDING TYPE FIVE - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" DESIGNER SERIES AWP 1818 - ILLUMINATION WITH "TAMLYN"OPEN OUTSIDE CORNER TRIM. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECT FROM MANUFACTURER'S COLOR EXPRESSIONPALLET.E-6 SIDING TYPE SIX - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" CONCRETE SERIES AWP 3030 - INDUSTRIALBLOCK WITHPRE-FORMED EXTERIOR CORNERS.E-7 SIDING TYPE SEVEN - FIBER CEMENT PANEL. SMOOTH FINISH. COLOR TO BE BLACK.E-8 CUT LIMESTONE STRETCHER AND SILL COURSES AS INDICATED.E-9 'NICHIHA' SILL-CHISELED IN GRAY COLOR.E-10 MAIN ENTRY DOOR: THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUM AUTOMATIC SLIDING ENTRY DOOR. SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FORSIZE. COLOR TO BE BLACK.E-11 ENTRY DOOR: SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR SIZE AND MATERIAL. COLOR TO BE BLACK.E-12 STOREFRONT SYSTEM AND COMPONENTS WITH THERMALLY BROKEN FRAME AND INSULATED ARGON FILLEDGLASS. COLOR TO BE BLACK. SEE VERMONT COMMERCIAL ENERGY STRETCH CODE FOR MAXIMUM U-VALUE.E-13 FIBERGLASS OR COMPOSITE WINDOWS WITH LOW-E, ARGON FILLED, INSULATED GLASS. COLOR TO BE BLACK. (SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE )E-14 DECORATIVE CORNICE. COLOR TO BE WHITE.E-15 DECORATIVE SUNSHADE WITH COLOR AND PROFILE TO MATCH CORNICE.E-16 18 GA. PREFORMED SHEET METAL SHADOW BOX. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECT.E-17 20 GA. PREFORMED COPING FORMED FROM GALVALUME SHEET STOCK WITH FLUOROPOLYMER FINISH. COLOR ASSELECTED BY ARCHITECT.E-18 DECORATIVE BRACKETS LOBBY LEVEL330' -6"SECOND LEVEL343' -10"THIRD LEVEL353' -10"FOURTH LEVEL363' -10"FIFTH LEVEL373' -10"ROOF DECK383' -10"13' - 4"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"55' - 9"60' - 8"57' - 4"E-13E-13E-1E-5E-8E-8E-9E-11E-12E-15E-17E-17E-17E-1E-8E-2E-1E-6E-6E-3E-4E-4E-11E-16LOBBY LEVEL330' -6"SECOND LEVEL343' -10"THIRD LEVEL353' -10"FOURTH LEVEL363' -10"FIFTH LEVEL373' -10"ROOF DECK383' -10"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"13' - 4"55' - 9"57' - 4"60' - 8"E-13E-13E-11E-12E-14E-15E-16E-16E-9E-3E-5E-17E-17E-17E-1E-2E-6E-6E-4E-4E-7E-8E-8E-16E-16RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϮϬϮ>sd/KE^/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭEKZd,>sd/KEϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮt^d>sd/KEydZ/KZDdZ/>>'EE-1 SIDING TYPE ONE - INDIANA LIMESTONE, IN THE COURSING INDICATED.E-2 SIDING TYPE TWO - MODULAR FACE BRICK - RUNNING BOND. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECTE-3 SIDING TYPE THREE - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" MASONRY SERIES AWP 1818 - SANDSTONE WITHPRE-FORMED EXTERIOR CORNERS. COLOR - GENTLE GRAY.E-4 SIDING TYPE FOUR - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" WOOD SERIES AWP 1818 - VINTAGEWOOD WITH "TAMLYN"OPEN OUTSIDE CORNER TRIM. COLOR - CEDAR.E-5 SIDING TYPE FIVE - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" DESIGNER SERIES AWP 1818 - ILLUMINATION WITH "TAMLYN"OPEN OUTSIDE CORNER TRIM. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECT FROM MANUFACTURER'S COLOR EXPRESSIONPALLET.E-6 SIDING TYPE SIX - FIBER CEMENT SIDING. "NICHIHA" CONCRETE SERIES AWP 3030 - INDUSTRIALBLOCK WITHPRE-FORMED EXTERIOR CORNERS.E-7 SIDING TYPE SEVEN - FIBER CEMENT PANEL. SMOOTH FINISH. COLOR TO BE BLACK.E-8 CUT LIMESTONE STRETCHER AND SILL COURSES AS INDICATED.E-9 'NICHIHA' SILL-CHISELED IN GRAY COLOR.E-11 ENTRY DOOR: SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR SIZE AND MATERIAL. COLOR TO BE BLACK.E-12 STOREFRONT SYSTEM AND COMPONENTS WITH THERMALLY BROKEN FRAME AND INSULATED ARGON FILLEDGLASS. COLOR TO BE BLACK. SEE VERMONT COMMERCIAL ENERGY STRETCH CODE FOR MAXIMUM U-VALUE.E-13 FIBERGLASS OR COMPOSITE WINDOWS WITH LOW-E, ARGON FILLED, INSULATED GLASS. COLOR TO BE BLACK. (SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE )E-14 DECORATIVE CORNICE. COLOR TO BE WHITE.E-15 DECORATIVE SUNSHADE WITH COLOR AND PROFILE TO MATCH CORNICE.E-16 18 GA. PREFORMED SHEET METAL SHADOW BOX. COLOR AS SELECTED BY ARCHITECT.E-17 20 GA. PREFORMED COPING FORMED FROM GALVALUME SHEET STOCK WITH FLUOROPOLYMER FINISH. COLOR ASSELECTED BY ARCHITECT. RabideauArchitects550 Hinesburg RoadSuite 101South Burlington. VT 05403802 863 0222Rabideau-Architects.com‹5DELGHDX$UFKLWHFWV,1&^,dEhDZWZK:dη͗35(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,21)?UHYLWILOHV?%7968,7(6$,53257+27(/BDOOHQ#UDELGHDXDUFKLWHFWVFRPUYW ϵϬϭϯs/t/ZWKZd,Kd>^Khd,hZ>/E'dKE͕sZDKEdϭϱϭϮϭϬͬϭϬͬϭϴZs/^/KE^EŽ͘ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂƚĞ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEϭϭͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϴ/dz^<d,W>E^hD/^^/KEͲZs/^ϭϮͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϴWZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϭϵZs/^WZ>/D/EZzW>dWW>/d/KEϬϯͬϮϭͬϮϬϭϵϭWZ^Wd/ss/t SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUE UE UEUE UESD GW WW W W W W TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTV TV TV TV TVTVUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UEUE UEUEUT UT UT UT UTUT UTUT UT UTELEC BOX/VAULT6"VCP28"MAPLEGAS TEST STATION12"BIRCH14"LOCUST6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST14"PINE1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULTSIGN LIGHTSTREET LIGHT747131.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT6"ORNAMENTAL3.2'X2.2'EMPTY ELEC VAULT6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST(2)14"PINE1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT6"ORNAMENTAL4"X4" 4.5'TALL16"BEECH10"LOCUST(2)10"SPRUCE8"GINKO10"PINE1.2'X1.8'FIBER VAULT3.2'X2.2'CATV VAULT11"ASH4"X4" 4.5'TALL6"ORNAMENTAL74712/812"ASH8"SPRUCEGROUND LIGHT14"CATALPA12"PINE12"VCP1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT14"ASH8"ORNAMENTAL8/747/11 1DROP4"SPRUCEGROUND LIGHT12"PINE16"BEECHLIFT ARMSTREET LIGHTSTREET LIGHT18"BEECH20"MAPLE(4)14"PINE8"BEECH1.2'X1.2'ELEC VAULT3.2'X2.2'CATV VAULTTEL PED6"SPRUCE10"ASH4"CPEP12"GINKO8"PVC14"PINESTREET LIGHT8"BEECH4"X4" 10'TALLNO PARKING6"SPRUCE14"MAPLE10"PINEWELCOME TO BIA8"BEECHSTREET LIGHT6"ORNAMENTALDROP6"SPRUCEGARDEN EDGE3.2'X2 25"GINKO12"VCP14"PINE6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST12"FIR12"LOCUST16"PINENO PARKINGSIGN LIGHTSTREETLIGHTAEAT8S/11SWITH CELL PHONELOT SIGNAP TERMINALPARKINGRENTIRRIGATIONCONTROLVALVEBIA SHORT TERM PARKNOT IN USEGARDEN EDGEBIA WELCOMEARR/DEPPARK/RENTFPFPFPTICKETSPITTERXXX1ST FLOOR330.193RD FLOOR353.302ND FLOOR342.1712"VCPRIM 330.01INV IN 318.7INV OUT 318.6RIM 329.756"INV IN 319.212"INV IN 319.0INV OUT 318.912"VCPRIM 329.7012"INV IN E 319.412"INV IN S 319.3INV OUT 319.112"VCPRIM 331.138"INV IN 321.612"INV IN 321.4INV OUT 321.3TG 331.49INV IN 326.9INV OUT 326.9BOT 324.915"CPEP15"CPEPRIM 332.77INV IN 326.6INV OUT 326.5BOT 324.4TG 329.82INVS IN 325.1INV OUT 325.0BOT 323.0TG 330.28INV IN 326.1INV OUT 326.0BOT 324.115"CPEP15"CPEP15"CPEP15"CPEP18"CPEP18"CPEPTG 330.74INVS IN 324.8INV OUT 324.7BOT 322.7CSDSDSDSDSDSDTG 328.87INV IN 326.1INV OUT 325.7BOT 323.412"CI12"CITG 328.67INV IN 325.9INV OUT 326.3BOT 323.3TG 329.31INV OUT 326.6INVS IN 325.7BOT 325.712"PVC12"CMP12"CMPTG 329.08INV IN 326.0INV OUT 325.9BOT 325.412"CPEPTG 328.71INV 326.0BOT 325.2TG 331.2718"PVC INV IN 324.418"PVC INV OUT 324.2BOT 322.41.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULTVSE25/8" REBAR VSE CONTROL CAPN 717914.025E 1469149.059EL 330.008VSE4MAGNAILN 717800.318E 1469273.578EL 329.479VSE30MAGHUBN 718019.795E 1469287.389EL 332.594VSE3MAGNAILN 718076.201E 1469411.178EL 331.527MAX HEIGHT14'-6"S8S/11SWITH CELL PHMP63225.412(212"ONRUURURURUN4"CN11014110"PINE2"P111NGILPUCHBEECEC3.2'X2.2'CA23UETVTV 7957.3594UEEERC6 6BUCECERURUALREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTINGVEGETATION, TYPICALREMOVE AND DISPOSE OFEXISTING VEGETATION, TYPICALTREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYPICALTREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYPICALTREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYPICALSDSDSDSDGASGASGASGASGASGASGASUGEUGEUGESWWWSSSUGES SDBTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA100TREEPROTECTIONAND REMOVALPLAN020'10' 40'EXISTING TREE TO REMAINEXISTING TREE TO BEREMOVEDLEGENDEXISTING TREE TO BEPROTECTEDTREE PROTECTION FENCE,REFER TO DETAIL A/LA100TREE PROTECTION - CHAIN LINKSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"6'-0" MIN. OR AS INDICATED ON PLANSEXISTING TREENOTES:1. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PROTECTION PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS.2. TREE PROTECTION FOR GROUPING OF MORE THAN ONE TREE MAY OCCUR, REFER TO DRAWINGS.3. PRIOR TO STARTING WORK, THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO REVIEW TREE PROTECTION FENCINGLAYOUT.4. IF TREE PROTECTION FENCE CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DRIP LINE AS DETAILED DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE BEST EFFORTTO PROTECT AS MUCH OF THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE AS POSSIBLE. NOTIFY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF FIELDADJUSTMENTS TO TREE PROTECTION FENCE ARE REQUIRED5. TREE PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN AN UPRIGHT CONDITION THROUGHOUT THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, WHETHER TEMPORARY,DEMOLITION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION.6. WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE PROHIBITED USES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES PARKING, LAYDOWN ANDSTORAGE OF MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES. REFER TO TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS7. REMOVAL OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE IS PROHIBITED.8. IF DAMAGE TO TREE(S) DOES OCCUR, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE 4'-0" FENCE OPENING FOR LAWN MOWING OPERATIONDRIP LINE, DEFINED BY THEFURTHEREST EXTENT OFBRANCHING ON ALL SIDES OFTREECHAIN LINK FENCE, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONSGALVANIZED STEEL POSTS,6'-0" O.C.EXISTING GRADETREE PROTECTION ZONEVARIES PER TREE SIZEWARNING: TREEPROTECTIONZON E - D O N O T ENTERTEMPORARY SIGN, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONSA SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUE UE UEUE UESD GW WWW W W W TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTVTVTV UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UEUE UEUEUEUT UT UT UT UTUT UTUT UT UTUE AEATFPFPFPCSDSDSDSDSDSD333332331333332331333332331EXISTINGPARKING GARAGEAIRPORT DRIVEAIRPO R T CI R C L E PROPOSEDHOTEL BUILDINGFFE 330.5'VANSTONE RETAINING WALLS(3) RELOCATED FLAG POLES AND LIGHTSSTORMWATER BASIN WITHSTONE ACCENT BLOCKSGRANITE COBBLE EDGE ALONGVEHICULAR AISLEHOTEL ENTRY PLAZA,UNIT PAVERSPROTECTION BOLLARDS TO SEPARATEPEDESTRIANS FROM VEHICULAR DROP OFFEXPOSED AGGREGATECONCRETE WALKFIREPIT WITH LOUNGE SEATINGSTORMWATER BASIN WITH STONEACCENT BLOCKPEDESTRIAN WALK,UNIT PAVERSEXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETEWALK CONNECTION TO STAIR TOWERTRASH / RECYCLE STORAGEBICYCLE LOCKER STORAGE(6 BIKES)BIKE RACKS(12 BIKES)STONE ACCENT BLOCKSCONCRETE WALK CONNECTIONTO PUBLIC SIDEWALKPROPOSED CROSSWALK FROMDELIVERY LANEPROPOSED WALK CONNECTIONTO TERMINALEXISTING PARKING GATEUTILITY EQUIPMENT, REFER TOCIVIL DRAWINGSOUTDOOR KITCHENOUTDOOR TERRACE, UNITPAVERSPROTECTION BOLLARDGRANITE CURBFLUSH GRANITE CURBCONCRETE PAVEMENT,SERVICE ENTRYWASHED DRIP STONEGRANITE CURBCONCRETE SIDEWALKSDSDSDSDGASGASGASGASGASGASGASUGEUGEUGESWWWSSSUGES SDBTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA200LAYOUT PLANLAYOUT NOTES1. THE CONSULTANT DRAWINGS ARE SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERALCONTRACTOR TO CHECK WITH WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSBEFORE INSTALLATION OF CONSULTANT WORK. SHOULD THERE BE ADISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND THEDRAWINGS OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION FOR CLARIFICATION. ANY WORKINSTALLED IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE CORRECTED ATNO EXPENSE OT THE OWNER OR DESIGN CONSULTANTS.2. ALL SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND MATERIAL INDICATIONS ARE CONSIDEREDTO BE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF THE CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONSREGARDING THEIR EXACT MEANING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST THATTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ISSUE A CLARIFICATION.3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DIMENSIONS MISSING FROM PLANS OR NEEDEDFOR EXECUTION OF THE WORK SHALL BE CLARIFIED OR PROVIDED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE THE WORK IS INSTALLED.a. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH MATERIAL, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.b. TAKE ALL DIMENSIONS PERPENDICULAR TO ANY REFERENCE LINE,WORK LINE, CENTERLINE, OR FACE OF BUILDING/STRUCTURE.c. ALL DIMENSIONS CALLED OUT AS "EQUAL" ARE CONSIDEREDEQUIDISTANT MEASUREMENTS.4. REFERENCE TO NORTH IS TRUE NORTH.5. REFERENCE TO SCALE IS FOR FULL SIZED DRAWINGS, NOT REDUCED PLANS.DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWINGS.6. ANY CONFLICTS IN WHICH THE METHODS OR STANDARDS OF INSTALLATION ORMATERIALS SPECIFIED DO NOT EQUAL OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THELAWS OR ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE PROJECT, THE LAWS AND ORDINANCESSHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ALLCONFLICTS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE WORK OF THE NEWCONSTRUCTION WILL NOT OBSTRUCT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO NEARBYBUILDINGS. EXITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NOTIFY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONDITIONS VARYING FROM INFORMATIONHEREIN PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK.9. TO ESTABLISH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL INTENT, EVERY ATTEMPT HASBEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY MOST CONDITIONS020'10' 40' SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUE UEUEUEUE UE UEUE UESD GW WWW W W W TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTVUE UE UE UE UE UE UE UEUE UEUEUT UT UT UT UTUTUTUT UT UTAEATFPFPFPCSDSDSDSDSDSD333332331333332331333332331EXISTINGPARKING GARAGEAIRPORT DRIVEAIRPO R T CI R C L E PROPOSEDHOTEL BUILDINGFFE 330.5'VAN45 ca42 fg28 ca5 sh88 dp3 GT31 sh8 sh20 RA12 RA8 ca21 JH28 dp6 sh9 RA1 AR28 ca5 ca145 dp11 ca18 RA2 AR18 RA19 RA6 sh6 BN(6) EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN AT AIRPORT ENTRY(1) EXISTING TREES TO REMAINLAWNLAWNLAWNLAWN1 AC6 RASTORMWATERSTORMWATER(5) EXISTING TREES ALONG AIRPORT DRIVETO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED, TYPICALSDSDSDSDGASGASGASGASGASGASGASUGEUGEUGESWWWSSSUGES SDBTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA400PLANTING PLANPLANT LIST:KEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZE-INSTALLED REMARKSSIZE-MATURETREES: AC Amelanchier canadensis Shadblow Serviceberry 1 8'-10' ht. B&B, multi 15'-20' ht.AR Acer rubrum 'Armstrong Gold' Armstrong Gold Red Maple 3 2.5-3" cal.B&B30'-40' ht.BN Betula nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 6 2.5-3" cal. B&B, single-stem30'-40' ht.GT Gleditsia triacanthos 'Sunburst' Sunburst Honey Locust 3 2.5-3" cal. B&B, Branching at 6' ht.30'-40' ht.SHRUBS:JH Juniperus horizontalis 'Youngstown' Youngstown Creeping Juniper 21 3 gal. cont. Plant 48" o.c.6"-1' ht.RA Rhus aromatica 'Gro-low' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 1023 gal. cont. Plant 48" o.c. 2'-3' ht.GRASSES:ca Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grass 1252 gal. C.G. Plant 24" o.c.2'-3' ht.fg Festuca glauca 'Elijah Blue' Elijah Blue Fescue 42 2 gal. C.G. Plant 24" o.c.2'-3' ht.sh Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed 56 2 gal. C.G. Plant 36" o.c.2'-3' ht.PERENNIALS:dp Dennstaedtia punctilobula Hayscented Fern 261 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.1'-2' ht.STORMWATER:- Mix of rain garden perennials TBD -- 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.1'-2' ht.SEED MIX TYPESLawn Green Mountain Special MixPLANTING NOTES1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS.2. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND IFNECESSARY OTHER SUB CONTRACTORS AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION.3. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.4. PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION SHALL NOT OCCUR BEFORE ROUGH GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.5. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FORNURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMAN. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS OF THE SAMESPECIES AND SIZE SHALL HAVE MATCHING HEIGHT AND FORM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS.6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS. IF ANYDISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.7. STAKE LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO EXCAVATING PLANT PITS. LOCATION OF ALL PLANT PITS TOBE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PAINT OUTLINES FOR PLANT BEDS AND GROUND COVER,FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF PESTS OR PLANT DISEASES. PRESELECTED OR "TAGGED"MATERIAL MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND CERTIFIED PEST AND DISEASE FREE. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY TO WARRANTY ALL PLANT MATERIAL BASED ON THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS.9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT OF ANY EXISTING HARDSCAPE OR SOFTSCAPE MATERIALSDAMAGED DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS INCLUDING SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THESPECIFICATIONS AND LAWN DETAIL.10. ALL AREAS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR ROADWAY OR HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL RECEIVE TOPSOIL AND SEED.11. ALL TREES, PLANT BEDS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE COVERED WITH 2" OF ORGANIC BARK MULCH AS NOTED IN THESPECIFICATIONS.12. AREAS SHOWN AS GROUNDCOVER AT THE BASE OF TREES AND SHRUBS MUST CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.THERE SHALL BE NO GROUND COVER INSTALLED AT THE BASE OF TREES OR SHRUBS AS FOLLOWS:a. 4 FOOT RADIUS AROUND EVERGREENS.b. 3 FOOT RADIUS AROUND DECIDUOUS TREES.c. 2 FOOT RADIUS AROUND LARGE SHRUBS.12. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE PLANTED USING A TRIANGULATED METHOD, REFER TO PLANT MATERIALINSTALLATION DETAILS.13. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS FOR PROPER PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.14. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVEDBY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING.020'10' 40' BTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA401PLANTINGDETAILSTREE PLANTINGSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"18"18"FINISH GRADE2" HEMLOCK BARK MULCHREMOVE TOP HALF OF WIRE CAGECUT AND REMOVE BURLAPFROM ROOTBALLBACKFILL MIX FOR TREE PLANTING BEDS,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS 02916 SOIL PREPARATIONTOP OF ROOTBALL, ROOT FLARE SHOULDBE EVIDENT. IF ROOT FLARE IS NOT EVIDENT,THEN SCRAPE OFF THE TOP LAYER OF SOILBUILD UP ON TOP OF ROOTBALL FROM NURSERY.UNDISTURBED GRADEEXCAVATE ONLY TO SPECIFIEDPLANTING DEPTH TO ENSURESTABLE BASEBREAK APART EDGE OF EXCAVATIONW/ SHOVEL AND BLEND PLANT MIXW/ EXISTING SOIL TO PROVIDETRANSITION TO UNDISTURBED GRADENOTE: EXAMINE ENTIRE TREE AND REMOVEALL NURSERY TAGS, ROPE, STRING, ORSURVEYORS TAPE TO PREVENT FUTUREGIRDLING.SURROUNDING SOIL SHOULD NOTEXCEED 80% COMPACTION, DRAINAGEWILL BE REQUIRED IF COMPACTEDSOILS ARE PRESENTTEMPORARY WATERING BASIN2 12" HARDWOOD STAKES. ALIGNSTAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD/ WALKSOR PARALLEL W/ DIRECTION OFPREVAILING WIND, REFER TO TREESTAKING DETAILNYLON STRAPWITH 3/4" GROMMETS,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONSFASTEN WIRE BELOW POINT OFMAJOR BRANCHING OR TO MAJOROUTSIDE TRUNK.3 TIMES THE DIAMETEROF THE ROOT BALLDECIDUOUS TREECOMPACTEDSUBGRADE6" TOPSOILREFER TO SPECIFICATIONSLAWNSCALE 1" = 1'-0" p-lawn.dwgLAWNREFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FORSEEDING OR SODDING INFORMATIONSEE PLANTING LIST FOR PLANT SPACINGAADDDDDNOTE:PLANT QUANTITIES DETERMINED BY MULTIPLYING AREA (SQ. FT.)BY NUMBER OF PLANTS/SQ. FT. FOR REQUIRED SPACING.PERENNIAL PLANTINGSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"SPACING "D"ROW "A"NUMBER OFPLANTS/SQ. FT.36" O.C.30" O.C.24" O.C.12" O.C.10" O.C.8" O.C.6" O.C. 5.16"26.00"20.76"10.44"8.64"6.96"31.20"2.601.664.61.121.15.28.18PLANT SPACINGPLANT CENTERPLANT ROWSET AT ORIGINAL PLANTING DEPTHFINISH GRADEMULCH AS SPECIFIEDSUB GRADESEE PLANTING PLAN FOR SPACINGAND QUANTITIESCONTINUOUS PLANTING PITFILLED WITH PLANTING MIXREFER TO SPECIFICATIONS02916 SOIL PREPARATIONAS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE.NOTE: SHRUB PLANTINGSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"SPACING "D"ROW "A"NUMBER OFPLANTS/SQ. FT.5' O.C.4' O.C.36" O.C.30" O.C.24" O.C.41.52"31.20"26.00"20.76"51.96"0.280.180.040.120.07DADDDAD1'-0"MINSEE PLANFOR SPACINGPLANT ROWPLANT CENTERPLANT SPACINGALL EQUAL ORAS SHOWN ONPLANTING PLANFINISH GRADEMULCH, AS SPECIFIEDSHRUB ROOTBALLCONTINUOUS PLANTING PITFILLED WITH PLANTING MIXREFER TO SPECIFICATIONS02916 SOIL PREPARATIONSUB GRADE2. CONTINUOUS PLANTING PITS FILLED WITH PLANTINGMIX PER THE DEPTH AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONSIS REQUIRED.1. QUANTITY OF SHRUBS AND SPACINGABCD ISSUED FORPERMITMARCH 2019MIXED INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ONING DISTRICTAIRPORT ONINGDISTRICTPRO ECT LOCATIONAIRPORT INDUSTRIAL ONING DISTRICTMIXED INDUSTRIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL DISTRICTRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDUEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE UEUEUEUE UE UEUE UESD GW WWW W W W TV TVTV TV TVTV TVTV TV TVTVTVTV UE UE UE UE UE UE UEUE UEUEUEUT UT UT UT UTUT UTUT UT UTUE 6"VCP28"MAPLEGAS TEST STATION12"BIRCH14"LOCUST3.2'X2.2'ELEC VAULT6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST14"PINE1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULTSIGN LIGHTSTREET LIGHT747131.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT6"ORNAMENTAL3.2'X2.2'EMPTY ELEC VAULT6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST(2)14"PINE1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT4"X4" 4.5'TALL16"BEECH10"LOCUST(2)10"SPRUCE8"GINKO7-0/74716/11FP1-3-1 4DROPS10"PINE1.2'X1.8'FIBER VAULT3.2'X2.2'CATV VAULT11"ASH4"X4" 4.5'TALL6"ORNAMENTAL74712/812"ASHELEC BOX/VAULT8"SPRUCEGROUND LIGHT14"CATALPA12"PINE12"VCP1.2'X1.8'ELEC VAULT14"ASH8"ORNAMENTAL8/747/11 1DROP4"SPRUCEGROUND LIGHT12"PINE16"BEECHLIFT ARMSTREET LIGHTSTREET LIGHT18"BEECH20"MAPLE(4)14"PINE8"BEECH1.2'X1.2'ELEC VAULT3.2'TEL PED10"ASH4"CPEP12"GINKO8"PVC14"PINE8"BEECH4"X4" 10'TALLNO PARKING6"SPRUCE14"MAPLE10"PINEWELCOME TO BIA8"BEECHSTREET LIGHT6"ORNAMENTALDROP6"SPRUCEGARDEN EDGE3.2'X2.2'CATV VAULT5"GINKO12"VCP6-0/12A/74718/100A 1DROP14"PINE6"SPRUCE12"LOCUST12"FIRELEC BOX/VAULT12"LOCUST16"PINENO PARKINGSIGN LIGHTSTREETLIGHTAEAT8S/11SWITH CELL PHONELOT SIGNAP TERMINALPARKINGRENTIRRIGATIONCONTROLVALVEBIA SHORT TERM PARKNOT IN USEGARDEN EDGEBIA WELCOMEARR/DEPPARK/RENTFPFPFPTICKETSPITTERXXX1ST FLOOR330.193RD FLOOR353.302ND FLOOR342.1712"VCPRIM 330.01INV IN 318.7INV OUT 318.6RIM 329.756"INV IN 319.212"INV IN 319.0INV OUT 318.912"VCPRIM 329.7012"INV IN E 319.412"INV IN S 319.3INV OUT 319.112"VCP12"VCPRIM 331.138"INV IN 321.612"INV IN 321.4INV OUT 321.3TG 331.49INV IN 326.9INV OUT 326.9BOT 324.915"CPEP15"CPEPRIM 332.77INV IN 326.6INV OUT 326.5BOT 324.4TG 329.82INVS IN 325.1INV OUT 325.0BOT 323.0TG 330.28INV IN 326.1INV OUT 326.0BOT 324.115"CPEP15"CPEP15"CPEP15"CPEP18"CPEP18"CPEPTG 330.74INVS IN 324.8INV OUT 324.7BOT 322.7SDSDSDSDSDSDTG 328.87INV IN 326.1INV OUT 325.7BOT 323.412"CI12"CITG 328.67INV IN 325.9INV OUT 326.3BOT 323.3TG 329.31INV OUT 326.6INVS IN 325.7BOT 325.712"PVC12"CMP12"CMPTG 329.08INV IN 326.0INV OUT 325.9BOT 325.412"CPEPTG 328.71INV 326.0BOT 325.2VSE25/8" REBAR VSE CONTROL CAPN 717914.025E 1469149.059EL 330.008VSE4MAGNAILN 717800.318E 1469273.578EL 329.479VSE30MAGHUBN 718019.795E 1469287.389EL 332.594VSE3MAGNAN 71807E 14694EL 331.5MAX HEIGHT14'-6"EXISTINGPARKING GARAGEAIRPORT DRIVEAIRPO R T CI R C L E PROPOSEDHOTEL BUILDINGFFE 330.15'VANEREXEREXEXRELOCATED EXISTING LIGHTRELOCATED EXISTING LIGHTUNDER CANOPY LIGHTINGBOLLARD LIGHTSFLAGPOLE GROUND LIGHTS,TO MATCH EXISTING ORRE-USEBUILDINGMOUNTED LIGHTSBUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTEXISTING STREETLIGHTTO REMAINEXISTING STREETLIGHTTO REMAINEXISTING BUILDING LIGHT0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.40.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.50.50.40.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.60.60.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.60.70.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.60.70.90.80.70.60.50.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.01.21.00.80.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.21.61.91.71.40.90.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.61.11.32.02.62.82.11.20.70.50.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.81.41.72.53.72.71.71.00.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.80.70.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.40.61.12.02.43.33.32.11.20.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.51.12.00.20.30.50.60.60.50.40.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.20.30.60.91.62.22.22.72.01.10.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.73.60.30.71.41.81.51.21.00.80.60.50.40.30.20.20.20.30.40.81.01.61.72.21.61.10.80.70.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.52.91.22.83.93.02.62.31.71.41.21.00.70.50.40.40.30.40.60.81.31.41.51.21.10.90.80.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.73.84.44.33.23.02.51.30.80.80.70.60.60.50.60.81.01.21.01.01.01.00.90.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.34.63.51.70.90.80.60.20.70.70.80.90.80.80.80.91.01.00.90.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.70.50.60.50.70.70.30.70.80.60.80.90.90.90.90.70.60.50.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.0000.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.40.40.60.60.70.60.60.70.90.91.00.90.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.40.50.70.81.01.11.00.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.30.40.50.60.71.01.11.00.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.40.50.70.80.91.01.21.21.10.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.81.11.21.31.41.61.71.81.61.10.80.50.40.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.11.62.02.12.11.92.12.12.62.41.71.10.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.53.23.43.12.72.52.42.83.42.21.20.70.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.13.34.14.44.03.42.92.93.03.62.41.40.80.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.53.74.64.84.43.62.82.82.63.32.41.50.80.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.22.53.64.44.54.13.22.42.22.12.51.91.10.70.50.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.63.53.71.22.13.03.63.73.32.51.91.91.71.71.40.90.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.41.12.22.31.20.50.23.83.30.91.42.02.52.62.31.81.41.41.21.11.00.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.80.90.60.30.10.12.22.01.21.12.10.40.71.01.31.51.51.41.10.90.80.70.80.90.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.20.10.10.60.80.80.70.91.83.33.11.70.90.60.80.91.00.90.80.70.60.50.60.70.70.80.60.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.50.81.51.61.10.80.80.80.80.70.70.60.50.40.50.60.60.60.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.50.80.80.70.80.90.90.70.70.60.50.40.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.50.60.60.81.01.21.00.90.80.60.50.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.50.60.71.01.31.71.81.61.30.80.60.50.40.40.30.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.60.70.80.91.31.62.42.82.71.71.10.70.50.40.40.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.01.31.51.21.01.41.51.93.03.52.51.61.00.60.50.40.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.11.32.83.11.81.10.91.42.22.43.42.91.81.00.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.12.01.00.91.11.82.32.22.51.81.00.70.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.81.11.51.51.91.41.00.80.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.11.11.31.31.00.90.80.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.70.70.70.70.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.60.60.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.40.40.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0NEW POLE LIGHTSDSDSDSDGASGASGASGASGASGASGASUGEUGEUGESWWWSSSUGES SDBTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA500020'10' 40'LIGHTING PLANFIXTURE AND POLE SPECIFICATIONSNotes:1. Contractor to provide shop drawings of all light fixtures and accessories for review and approval.2. No light fixture substitutions will be allowed without prior approval from SE Group (Landscape Architect)3. Refer to lighting plans and lighting details for additional information.4. Contractor to take special care to make sure light fixtures are installed in the locations identified on the lightingplans, avoiding conflicts with trees and other plant material.5. Refer to lighting details for light horizontal offset when pole mounted lights are located next to walks and plazas.6. Refer to lighting details for light pole bases and fixture installation requirements.7. Refer to Electrical Engineering drawings for service, conduit, and voltage requirements - and additional lightfixtures)Fixture ER:Manufacturer: V.I.F.EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATEDEXManufacturer: V.I.F.EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAINFixture A:Manufacturer: Kim LightingFixture B:Manufacturer: HE WilliamsFixture E:Manufacturer: FC LightingFixture D:Manufacturer: Lightolier(Pole Light) (Building Mounted Light)(Canopy Light)(Flagpole Ground Light)Fixture C:Manufacturer: Wayne Tyler(Bollard Light)(REFER TO LA501 FOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET INFORMATION)(REFER TO LA501 FOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET INFORMATION)(REFER TO LA501 FOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET INFORMATION)(REFER TO LA501 FOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET INFORMATION)(REFER TO LA501 FOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET INFORMATION)Luminaire ScheduleQtyLabelArrangementLum. LumensLum. WattsLLFBUG RatingDescription1ASINGLE563163.70.850B1-U0-G2KIM LIGHITNG WP9S3E35-60L4K, 64W, 4000K, TYPE 3, MOUNTED @ 18' AFG8BSINGLE1247130.850B1-U0-G0HE WILLIAMS VWMH-L10-740-EDD-INV-UNV, 4000K, MOUNTED @ 10' AFG3CSINGLE26031.760.850B0-U1-G1WAYNE TYLER BOLLARD, 24SERIES-32W-4K-80CRI-617, 4000K2ESINGLE211830.20.850N.A.FC LIGHTING FCD803-UNV-4K-3000L-WIDEFLOOD, MOUNTED IN GRADE4DSINGLE325930.30.281B2-U0-G0LIGHTOLIER P6RDL30835CLZ10U, 1000LM, 3000K, MOUNTED @ 13.5' AFG0.251.00 BTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersLA501LIGHTINGDETAILSBOLLARD LIGHTSCALE: NTSUNDER CANOPY LIGHTSCALE: NTSBUILDING MOUNTED WALL LIGHTSCALE: NTSABDPOLE LIGHTSCALE: NTSFLAGPOLE LIGHTSCALE: NTSCE Existing Terminal(+/-160,000 SF oftotal floor space)QTA SiteHotel SiteProposed Airport Bikeparking location on 1st Floornear EV charging stations:QTA: 4 short term, 2 longtermHotel (60,000 sf): 6 longtermExisting Terminal (160,000sf): 32 short term, long termnot requiredExisting FAA Building(17,000 sf): 4 short term,long term not requiredExisting FAABuilding (+/-17,000SF of total floorspace)Burlington International AirportBike Parking Basis of Design &Location Plan04/05/2019NShort Term Bike ParkingLocated at the Hotel Sitebetween parking garage andhotel:Hotel (60,000 sf):12shortterm spots, 6 racks   575 Dorset Street   South Burlington, VT 05403  tel 802.846.4106  fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com                TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   MP‐18‐01 & SD‐18‐29 1505 Dorset Street Master Plan and Preliminary Plat    DATE:     April 16, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      Dorset Meadows Associates LLC has submitted an application seeking master plan and preliminary plat approval  for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling.  The planned unit  development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in  multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of  approximately 56 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights (TDRs), 1505 Dorset  Street.      At the January 29, 2019 hearing, the Board continued the hearings for the purpose of taking public comment.  At  the March 19, 2019 hearing, the Board continued the hearings without discussion in order to allow certain  matters before the Environmental Court potentially affecting the application to develop.  The Staff memorandum  of March 19, 2019 describes the related court matters.  Since that date, there has been activity in each of the  court matters, as described below.    1. On February 28, 2019, the Environmental Court issued a Judgement Order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec,  which pertains to an appeal of a final plat application approved by the Board for a project referred to as  Spear Meadows.  The Judgement Order concluded “the TDR Bylaw is invalid as it does not comply with  24 V.S.A. SS 4423,” and that “the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague.”  The Judgement Order was  appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court on March 27, 2019.  Staff considers the applicant may proceed  at risk, but if the project is approved with TDRs, the use of TDRs may be overturned in court.      2. On March 19, 2019, the Environmental Court issued a judgement order dismissing the appeal of the  Board’s decision #AO‐18‐01 that the current applications (MP‐18‐01 and SD‐18‐29) were complete on  September 26, 20181.  This judgement order was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court on April 4,  2019.    Should the Board determine to allow the applicant to proceed with the hearing at risk, and assuming the applicant  still wishes to do so on April 16, Staff has prepared a discussion of the modified plan submitted by the applicant,  which the applicant has indicated attempts to mitigate the risk associated with the use of TDRs.                                                                   1 Staff acknowledges this statement paraphrases the subject of the appeal, and refers those interested in the matter to  Board decision #AO‐18‐01 for a complete description of the decision.  #MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29  Master Plan & Preliminary Plat  2    Though circumstances have changed since the last hearing at which the application was discussed, Staff reminds  the  Board  that  they  continued  the  hearing  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  public  comments,  and  therefore  recommends the Board reserve as much time as possible for robust public comment on the merits of the  application.  The Board is not obligated to make a determination on how they would decide on the applicant’s  modified plan at the April 16 meeting, and may continue the hearing to allow deliberations or further discussion  with the applicant.     MODIFIED PHASING PLAN    On April 5, 2019, the applicant provided a revised phasing plan which includes a new Phase V.  Both the previous  phasing plan and the April 5 plan are included in the packet.  Phase V is proposed to include 71 units.  Staff  previously calculated that the project needs to purchase 67.4 TDRs, conserving 56 acres of land off‐site, therefore  Phase V represents greater than the number of units which would require TDRs in order to be constructed.    The LDR allows phased approval of projects:  15.08C(2) The final plat application may be submitted in sections  in accordance with the preliminary plat and/or Master Plan approval for the property so that it shall only  include the phase of the approved preliminary plat that the applicant proposes to record and develop at that  time.  There is no prohibition on including phases that are not intended for immediate construction in the master  plan or preliminary plat application, and in fact any master plan must indicate the full‐build conditions of the  following metrics:  1. Total number of residential dwelling units  2. Total site coverage  3. Location, layout, capacity and number of collector roadways  4. Permanent open space  5. Total PM peak hour vehicle trip ends    As stated in 15.08B(3)(b), an approval of the preliminary plat application must contain conditions specifically to  include  (i) Specific changes which the Board will require in the preliminary plat  (ii) The character and extent of required improvements which in the Board’s opinion may be waived  without jeopardy to public health, safety and general welfare.    1. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe in more detail the goals of their revised  phasing,  then  provide  an  opportunity  for  public  comment  on  the merits  of  the  application.    Staff  recommends the Board consider, in deliberative session or at a continued hearing if necessary, whether  the applicant’s revised phasing continues to meet PUD standards described in 15.18, and limit Board  discussion during the April 16 hearing to allow time for public comment.    Staff considers the Board may find the following PUD standards applicable to phasing.    (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent  unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.  In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a  traffic  study  submitted  by  the  applicant,  and  the  findings  of  any  technical  review  by  City  staff  or  consultants.    The revised phasing plan does not affect the phasing or configuration of roadways, other than to indicate  that the multifamily homes accessed directly off Nowland Farm Road will be considered part of Phase V  rather than Phase XX which was designated to be stated at any time due to limited public infrastructure.   #MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29  Master Plan & Preliminary Plat  3    Staff has no concerns that this criterion continues to be met.    (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as  specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located.    The purpose statement of the SEQ is as follows.    A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation,  scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and  well‐planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural  features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special  and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in  a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a  related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall  be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed  as conditional uses.     The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Project area as designated for medium to lower intensity residential  to mixed used development.  Previous discussion of this criterion considered the location of larger homes  along Nowland Farm Road as transitional to a denser neighborhood, and addressed the perception of duplex  units when viewed from the open spaces located to their rears.      2. The revised phasing plan takes homes from each of the previously proposed phases I through IV and  designates them for Phase V.  Many of the phase V homes are around the perimeter of the development.   Phase V includes all of the duplex and multifamily homes.  Staff recommends the Board discuss whether  they consider the revised phasing plan meets this criterion.    (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating  contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.    The revised phasing plan includes in Phase V some lots adjacent to interior open spaces, but does not  otherwise affect open spaces.  The proposed open space infrastructure phasing is not affected; all open  spaces are proposed to be constructed as part of Phases I through IV.      3. Based on experience with other projects, Staff considers the developer may encounter opposition to  building out Phase V if it is significantly delayed as residents may come to perceive the Phase V lots as  part of the Project’s open space.  While this concern would not affect the developability of Phase V, Staff  considers this issue worthy of discussion.    (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected  district(s).    The Goals of the comprehensive plan are  1. Affordable & community Strong.  Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our residents  and visitors.  2. Walkable.  Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.  3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green South  Burlington.  #MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29  Master Plan & Preliminary Plat  4    4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and  statewide community.    The  project  lies  within  the  Southeast  Quadrant  of  the  city.    Southeast  Quadrant  objectives  In  the  Comprehensive Plan adopted are:    60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas within this  quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.  61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that complement and help  sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington’s remaining agricultural  lands.  62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ’s “main street” with traffic calming techniques, streetscape  improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway profile  suited to its intended local traffic function.    Staff previously considered this project strongly supports each of these goals and objectives through the  creation of contiguous open space areas, conservation of 56 acres of off‐site land, and providing additional  development and connectivity along Dorset Street.  Should Phase V not be constructed, there would be no  off‐site conservation.  Staff considers that while unfortunate, the removal of off‐site conservation would not  result in this project not meeting this criterion.    Other PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, grading and erosion control, wetland protection,  fire protection, and roadway layout.  Should the Board wish to discuss these criteria, they may be found in 15.18  of the LDR. Staff considers the Project’s overall compliance with these standards to be not affected by the order  in which homes are built.    PACKET  Staff has included the following information on the packet for the Board.  Public comments included in the March  19 packet are duplicated here, because the application was not discussed on its merits at that time.  Additional  Court documents related to the appeal of Dorset Meadows are included the March 19 packet should the Board  wish to revisit any of those materials.    1. Phasing Plan (dated 3/18/2019, received 4/5/2019)  2. Previous Phasing Plan (dated 1/18/2019, received 1/18/2019)  3. Judgement order on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐01, 3/19/2019)  4. Entry regarding motion on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐01, 3/19/2019)  5. Judgement order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2/28/2019)  6. Decision on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2/28/2019)  7. Interested Person Comments in order received since 1/29/2019 hearing  a. Louise Hammond (1/29/2019)  b. Natural Resources Committee (1/31/2019)  c. Ray Gonda (2/3/2019)  d. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,  Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,  Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3/6/2019)  e. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,  Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,  Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3/8/2019)  #MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29  Master Plan & Preliminary Plat  5    f. Louise Hammond (3/19/2019)    RECOMMENDATION  Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and take public comment on the merits of the  application, and continue the hearing.    Respectfully submitted,      ________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    MP-18-01 & SD-18-29 1505 Dorset Street Dorset Meadows Packet for 4/16/2019 Hearing Table of Contents Documents are provided in the order they are mentioned in the Staff Comments, starting with MP-18-01 and proceeding to SD-18-29. Phasing Plan (dated 3/18/2019, received 4/5/2019) Previous Phasing Plan (dated 1/18/2019, received 1/18/2019) Judgement order on Docket No. 2-1-19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO-18-01, 3/19/2019) Entry regarding motion on Docket No. 2-1-19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO-18-01, 3/19/2019) Judgement order on Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2-28-2019) Decision on Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2-28-2019) Interested Person Comments in order received Louise Hammond (1-29-2019) Natural Resources Committee (1-31-2019) Ray Gonda (2-3-2019) Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman, Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3-6-2019) Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman, Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3-8-2019) Louise Hammond (3/19/2019) STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 2-1-19 Vtec Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD JUDGMENT ORDER Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, (Dorset) seeks permit approval for a planned unit development (PUD) on its property located at 1505 Dorset Street in South Burlington, Vermont. Thus far, Dorset has submitted a sketch plan, an application for master plan review, and an application for preliminary subdivision plat review to the City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning (Planning and Zoning). A number of neighboring residents (Neighbors) appealed after Planning and Zoning moved on from the sketch plan and began to review Dorset’s master plan and subdivision plat applications (Applications). Presently before the Court is Dorset’s motion to dismiss Neighbors’ appeal, which asserts that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was not an appealable decision or act below pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). For the reasons set forth in the Entry Order that accompanies this Judgment Order, we conclude that Neighbors have appealed a DRB action that did not conclusively resolve any issues relevant to the permit. Further, Neighbors have not shown how their interests are particularly affected by the DRB’s acts. These acts do not constitute a final, appealable decision, which deprives us of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Dorset’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. Because we dismiss the present appeal, Neighbors’ motion for summary judgment is MOOT. This concludes the matter before the Court. Electronically signed on March 19, 2019 at 1:56 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). _________________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Superior Court, Environmental Division Notifications: Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Tom Anfuso Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Donna Anfuso Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Robert Brinkerhoff Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Louise Hammond Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Andrew Chalnick Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Higley Harmon Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Rosanne Greco Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant William Hays Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Kathy Hays Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Claudia J. Miller Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Noah Hyyman Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Steven Partilo Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Dunia Partilo Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Darrilyn Peters Matthew B. Byrne (ERN 2486), Attorney for Appellee Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC Amanda S. E Lafferty (ERN 5113), Attorney for Interested Person City of South Burlington Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Count 1, Zoning Appeals (2-1-19 Vtec) Title: Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Motion 1) Filer: Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC Attorney: Matthew B. Byrne Filed Date: February 26, 2019 Response in Opposition filed on 03/01/2019 by Attorney Daniel A. Seff for Appellant Darrilyn Peters Reply filed on 03/11/2019 by Attorney Matthew B. Byrne for Appellee Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC The motion is GRANTED. Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, (Dorset) seeks permit approval for a planned unit development (PUD) on its property located at 1505 Dorset Street in South Burlington, Vermont. Thus far, Dorset has submitted a sketch plan, an application for master plan review, and an application for preliminary subdivision plat review to the City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning (Planning and Zoning). A number of neighboring residents (Neighbors) appealed after Planning and Zoning moved on from the sketch plan and began to review Dorset’s master plan and subdivision plat applications (Applications). Presently before the Court is Dorset’s motion to dismiss Neighbors’ appeal, which asserts that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was not an appealable decision or act below pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a). We provide a brief overview of the relevant case history for context: On June 11, 2018, Dorset submitted a proposed sketch plan for the PUD to Planning and Zoning. An Assistant Administrative Officer reviewed the sketch plan and concluded that the PUD needed to undergo master plan review in addition to the other stages of the City of South Burlington’s multi-stage review process. On July 17, 2018, the City of South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) discussed and took comments on the sketch plan before continuing it to August 7, 2018. After taking further comments at the August 7, 2018 hearing, the DRB adjourned the meeting without continuing sketch plan review. The DRB did not take a vote or otherwise formally announce a decision at the August 7, 2018 hearing. On September 26, 2018, Dorset proceeded to submit the Applications as part of the next phase of review. Planning and Zoning’s Administrative Officer and Assistant Administrative Officer deemed these complete. Neighbors appealed the completeness determination to the DRB on October 11, 2018. They argued that the Applications were premature, unripe, and could STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 2-1-19 Vtec not proceed because the DRB hearings on Dorset’s sketch plan did not result in formal approval of the sketch plan. On appeal, the DRB concluded that it completed its sketch plan review with the August 7, 2018 hearing and the Applications could proceed. Neighbors appealed that determination to this Court on January 4, 2019. Dorset’s motion to dismiss followed. In reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), this Court accepts all uncontroverted factual allegations as true while construing them in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. In re Pelkey Final Plat Major Subdivision, No. 172- 12-12 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. July 3, 2013) (Durkin, J.) (citing Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT 72, ¶ 2, 190 Vt. 245). This Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a) if the decision or act appealed from is final. In re Saxon Ptnrs LLC BJ’s Warehouse Sketch Plan, No. 5-1-16 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. July 15, 2016) (Walsh, J.). Municipal decisions are final when they resolve the “ultimate issue” before the municipal panel. In re Scott Farm Act 250, No. 48-4-17 Vtec, slip op. at 1-2 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 22, 2017) (Walsh, J.) (citing Jordan v. State Agency of Transp., 166 Vt. 509, 513 (1997)). This interpretation of “decision” strikes a balance between the need for appellate review of municipal decisions before the final permit determination and the delay and inefficiencies that result from piecemeal appellate review. See, e.g., Castle v. Sherburne Corp., 141 Vt. 157, 163-64 (1982) (discussing the purposes and dangers of interlocutory appellate review). Thus, a municipal panel’s commentary, guidance, or hypothetical discussion is not appealable to this Court. Saxon Ptnrs, No. 5-1-16 Vtec at 2 (July 15, 2016) (citing In re Stowe Club Highlands Merger/Subdivision Application, No. 35-3-11 Vtec, slip op. at 6 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 15, 2012) (Walsh, J.), aff’d, 2013 VT 4, 193 Vt. 142). This Court has also looked to whether the municipal panel is authorized or required to make a decision at a particular stage of review to determine whether a decision is final. See, e.g., In re Perras & Sons, Inc. Preliminary Plat, No. 29-2-06 Vtec, slip op. at 6-9 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Oct. 18, 2006) (Durkin, J.). Given the posture of this matter, it is important that we define what “decision or act taken, or [] failure to act” is on appeal before us. The act, or failure to act, Neighbors appeal is the DRB’s alleged failure to properly conclude sketch plan review before moving on to accept the Applications as complete in the next stage of review. Neighbors do not appeal any substantive conclusion reached by the DRB in sketch plan review. They do not allege that the DRB improperly reached a decision on a feature of the application that will bind parties in later stages of review.1 See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d); see, e.g., In re Bridges Zoning Permit Approval, No. 3-1-18 Vtec, slip op. at 4-5 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 29, 2018) (Walsh, J.). Instead, they assert a procedural irregularity that does not limit or have consequences for the DRB’s review moving forward. Thus, Neighbors seek to appeal an action of the DRB that itself did not resolve any issues relevant to the application in sketch plan review. Neighbors’ concern lies with the lack of a vote itself, not with any consequences or deprivation of rights resulting from it. Here the lack of finality merges with the absence of a justiciable injury. See Brod v. Agency of Natural Res., 2007 1 For instance, Neighbors do not appeal the DRB’s decision in the sketch plan phase that Dorset is applying for a “major” PUD that requires master plan review. See Perras, No. 29-2-06 Vtec at 6-9 (Oct. 18, 2006) (concluding that the decision that the application involved a major subdivision in the sketch plan phase was appealable because the town’s ordinance required the municipal panel to make that determination at that stage). That sort of substantive determination becomes final and binding without an appeal. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). DRB actions that do not conclusively resolve any issues relevant to the application do not fall within the same category. VT 87, ¶ 8-10, 182 Vt. 234 (describing the case and controversy requirements, specifically the injury requirement); Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 78 (1998) (emphasizing that “[t]he injury must be an invasion of a legally protected interest,’ not a generalized harm to the public.” (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992))). If the DRB had perfected the vote Neighbors allege is necessary, the substantive aspects of the application, as well as the parties, would be in the same position as before this appeal, just without the delay. Brod, 2007 VT 87, ¶ 6 (affirming the lower court’s determination that the standing requirements were not met because any ruling “would not change ‘the current state of affairs’ . . . .”). Therefore, we conclude that Neighbors have appealed a DRB action that did not conclusively resolve any issues relevant to the permit. Further, Neighbors have not shown how their interests are particularly affected by the DRB’s acts. These acts do not constitute a final, appealable decision. Accordingly, Dorset’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.2 While we ultimately conclude that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, our conclusions do not in any way affect the rules surrounding divestiture of jurisdiction. See In re Freimour & Menard Conditional Use Permit, No. 59-4-11 Vtec, slip op. at 6-7 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. June 6, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (citations omitted) (discussing how an appeal to this Court divests the municipal panel below of its authority to decide on those aspects of the application involved in the appeal). Dorset argues that, despite the present appeal, the DRB retained its ability to decide on the Applications in the next phase of review. The DRB, however, did not have control over the reviewability of the Applications while this appeal was pending.3 The question of whether the DRB could properly proceed to the next stage of review was the basis of Neighbors’ appeal and constituted the matter before this Court. The DRB could not decide this question for themselves. Any steps taken by the DRB related to the Applications during the pendency of this appeal were carried out without the power to do so. See, e.g., Kotz v. Kotz, 134 Vt. 36 (1975) (vacating a trial court order that issued while the matter was on appeal to the Supreme Court). 2 Because we dismiss the present appeal, Neighbors’ motion for summary judgment is MOOT. A cursory review of Neighbors’ motion reveals that they do not assert any new legal theories that would unsettle our conclusions here. Neighbors also request review under V.R.C.P. 75 as an alternative to an appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471. They ask that we either treat their notice of appeal as the complaint required by V.R.C.P. 75(b) or give them permission to file a separate V.R.C.P. 75 complaint. Neighbors do not identify any statutory authority or procedural rule enabling this Court to discard the specific procedural requirements of V.R.C.P. 75 through a rebranding of their notice of appeal. Nor is a V.R.C.P. 75 action a matter of permission, though the weaknesses we identify in the present appeal will likely pervade Neighbors’ other requests for relief. To the extent Neighbors request an advisory opinion on a V.R.C.P. 75 complaint not presently before the Court, that is beyond this Court’s authority to give. See Chittenden S. Educ. Ass’n, Hinesburg Unit v. Hinesburg Sch. Dist., 147 Vt. 286, 294 (1986) (citing In re Constitutionality of House Bill 88, 115 Vt. 524, 529 (1949)) (discussing the prohibition on advisory opinions in Vermont courts). 3 We note that Planning and Zoning’s conclusion that the Applications were complete occurred before the notice of appeal and was not barred by the divestiture of jurisdiction. So ordered. This concludes the current proceedings before this Court. A Judgment Order accompanies this Entry Order. Electronically signed on March 19, 2019 at 1:48 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). _________________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Superior Court, Environmental Division Notifications: Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Tom Anfuso Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Donna Anfuso Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Robert Brinkerhoff Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Louise Hammond Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Andrew Chalnick Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Higley Harmon Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Rosanne Greco Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant William Hays Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Kathy Hays Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Claudia J. Miller Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Noah Hyyman Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Steven Partilo Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Dunia Partilo Daniel A. Seff (ERN 1514), Attorney for Appellant Darrilyn Peters Matthew B. Byrne (ERN 2486), Attorney for Appellee Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC Amanda S. E Lafferty (ERN 5113), Attorney for Interested Person City of South Burlington rmaher STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat JUDGMENT ORDER For the reasons set forth in the Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment that accompanies this Judgment Order, the Court concludes that the City of South Burlington transfer of development rights bylaw (“TDR Bylaw”), as set forth in the City of South Burlington Land Use Regulations (“Regulations”) is invalid. As detailed in our Decision, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw fails to comply with the enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423 with respect to subsections §§ 4423(a)(3) and (5) and is unconstitutionally vague. We further conclude that a dead-end street longer than 200 feet may be permitted in the context of a Planned Unit Development pursuant to the Regulations Therefore, Appellants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Similarly, Snyder Group, Inc.’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The consequence of our determinations is that judgment is entered in favor of the neighboring Appellants and against Appellee/Applicant Snyder Group, Inc. The August 1, 2017, approval of a final plat application submitted by Snyder Group, Inc., issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board is therefore VOIDED. This concludes the matters before the Court in this proceeding. Electronically signed on February 28, 2019 at Brattleboro, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). ________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge Environmental Division 1 SSTATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 114-8-17 Vtec Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment The present appeal is of an August 1, 2017 approval of a final plat application submitted by Snyder Group, Inc. (“Snyder”) issued by the City of South Burlington Development Review Board (“DRB”). The application proposes to construct 47 new dwelling units and maintain one existing dwelling unit, all on property located at 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The DRB approved the project as a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). Neighboring property owners William Gilbert, Maurene Gilbert, Louise Kleh, Michael Scollins, Mary Scollins, Robert Skiff, Marley Skiff, and the Pinnacle at Spear Homeowners Association (collectively, “Appellants”) appealed that decision to this Court.1 Presently before the Court are Snyder and the Appellants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Snyder is represented in this matter by Matthew B. Byrne, Esq., Robert H. Rushford, Esq., and Jeffrey O. Polubinski, Esq. Appellants are represented by Daniel A. Seff, Esq. The City of South Burlington (“City”) is represented by Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute concerning the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. V.R.C.P. 56(a), applicable here through V.R.E.C.P. 5(a)(2). When considering the facts presented to us, “the nonmoving party receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 2015 VT 108, ¶ 14, 200 Vt. 125 (quoting Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 356). When considering cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court 1 We note that Attorney Seff has moved to withdraw as counsel for Maureen and William Gilbert as they have moved from South Burlington and no longer wish to be parties in this litigation. That motion is GRANTED and Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert are relieved of their party status. We further note that, over the course of these proceedings Louise Kleh passed. 2 considers each motion individually and gives the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. City of Burlington v. Fairpoint Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 VT 59, ¶ 5, 186 Vt. 332. Factual Background We recite the following facts solely for the purpose of deciding the pending motions for summary judgment. Our recitation here summarizes the facts that we have deemed undisputed and material to the legal issues raised by the parties, but should not be mistaken for factual findings, which cannot occur until after the Court conducts a trial. Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 170 Vt. 632, 633 (2000). 1. On April 27, 2017, Snyder submitted a subdivision application for a PUD. The application proposed to raze one single family dwelling, construct 18 single family dwellings, construct three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and construct 10 two family dwellings (“the Project”). In total, the Project consists of 48 residential units. 2. On August 1, 2017, the DRB approved final plat application #SD-17-14 for the Project. See In re the Snyder Grp. Inc. – 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear St., #SD-17-14, Final Plat Application, Findings of Fact and Decision, at 1 (S. Burlington Dev. Rev. Bd. Aug. 1, 2017) (hereinafter “DRB Decision”). 3. The Project was reviewed and approved pursuant to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations that were last amended on June 27, 2016 (“Regulations”). 4. The Project is located on 25.93 acres at 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The parcel is in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District (“SEQ-NR”). 5. Spear Meadows, Inc., 1350 Spear Street, LLC, and Gary J. Farrell currently own the three parcels which comprise the Project. Snyder has an option to purchase the properties. 6. The Project was approved as a PUD and proposes 48 units, which results in 1.85 units per acre. Snyder seeks to increase the Project’s density from the applicable maximum density limit for the zoning district of 31 dwelling units to 48 units by using transferable development rights (“TDRs”). 3 TDR Bylaw 7. The City has adopted a TDR bylaw, which is set forth in Regulations § 9.05(B) and 9.13(C) (together, “TDR Bylaw”). The Bylaw became effective on April 24, 2006. 8. A municipal TDR bylaw must comply with the statutory requirements set forth in 24 V.S.A. § 4423. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a) states that: (a) In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1) Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2) Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3) Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4) Define “density increase” in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination. (5) Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. 9. Regulations § 9.13(C) sets forth the basis for the TDR Bylaw. It requires that: (a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district, and EITHER that the sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations; OR (b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. 10. It then states in § 9.13(C)(2) that: If the conditions of 9.13(C)(1) above are met, the Development Review Board may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development 4 density calculated for a noncontiguous encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above 11. Regulations § 9.05(A) state that the maximum density within the SEQ-NR is 1.2 units per acre. Pursuant to this, the base density of the Project would be 31.12 units. 12. Regulations § 9.05(B) states that the applicable density “within a contiguous development parcel subject to a single PUD or Master plan approval shall not exceed an average density” of 4 dwelling units per acre in the Neighborhood Zoning District. It further notes that “[s]uch average densities may be achieved only under a PUD Planned Unit Development application. See Section 9.13, SEQ Review and Approval Process.” Regulations § 9.05(B). 13. Under the TDR Bylaw, the Project would have an allowable density of 103.72 units within at PUD proposal. 14. Snyder applied for approval for 17 development rights to be transferred for the Project. It proposes that the Project is the “receiving parcel” and the Bread and Butter Farm, formerly known as the Leduc Farm, on Leduc Farm Road in South Burlington as the “sending parcel.” It proposes a density of 1.85 dwelling units per acre. Dead End Street 15. Snyder proposes a 320-foot-long dead-end roadway, referenced as Street A. 16. Regulations § 9.08(A)(2)(b) state that “[d]ead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” 17. Nevertheless, the DRB approved Street A, in part under the possibility that it could be, at some as-yet determined point in the future, connected with another nearby roadway, Vale Drive. It also concluded that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) was waivable. Discussion Both Snyder and Appellants move for complete judgment all Questions Appellants raise in their Statement of Questions. The Town has filed a brief in opposition of Appellants’ motion. Appellants raise five Questions in their Statement of Questions.2 2 Four of those Questions have multiple subparts. This results in 37 Questions, including subparts. 5 Question 1 asks whether Regulations provisions “concerning the purported transfer of development rights, including without limitation [Regulations] §§ 2.02 . . ., 9.05(A)—(B) and 9.13(C) . . ., [are] invalid and unenforceable?” Question 2 asks whether the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutional. Question 3 asks whether the TDR Bylaw is facially unconstitutional, with subparts addressing vagueness. Question 4 asks whether the TDR is unconstitutional as applied, similarly addressing vagueness. Question 5 asks if Snyder’s proposed 320-foot dead-end street should be rejected and prohibited. The subparts of each Question address more specific aspects of these broader Questions. Before addressing the substance of these Questions, we address a threshold argument raised by Snyder: that Appellants lack standing to raise their statutory and constitutional challenges to the TDR Bylaw. We then address the remaining legal issues in turn. I. Whether the Neighbors have standing to raise their statutory and constitutional arguments. We begin by noting that Snyder’s motion is one for summary judgment. However, in substance, it appears to be a, at least in this aspect, a motion to dismiss pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). In this aspect of its motion, Snyder does not seek judgment on any question posed by Appellants in their Statement of Questions but instead challenges their standing to be an appealing party in this appeal. We first note that “standing is a necessary component of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Bischoff v. Bletz, 2008 VT 16, ¶ 15, 183 Vt .235 (citing Brod v. Agency of Nat. Res., 2007 VT 87, ¶ 2, 182 Vt. 234). The absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including by this Court on its own motion. Id.; see, e.g., Brigham v. State, 2005 VT 105, ¶ 9, 179 Vt. 525 (mem.) (citation omitted). Therefore, we will review Snyder’s motion, solely with respect to the issue of standing, as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In reviewing such a motion, we accept all uncontroverted factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Rheaume v. Pallito, 2011 VT 72, ¶ 2, 190 Vt. 245. Snyder raises two arguments as to why Appellants lack standing in this matter. First, it asserts that Appellants have not demonstrated that the Project has the potential to result in a physical or environmental impact on their interests, and therefore do not qualify as “interested 6 persons” pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). Second, Snyder challenges Appellants’ standing to raise their specific statutory and constitutional arguments. We address these issues in turn. a. Physical or Environmental Impact To qualify as interested persons as Appellants seek to do in this appeal, a showing is required that such persons claiming such status (1) own or occupy property in the “immediate neighborhood” of the subject property; (2) can “demonstrate a physical or environmental impact on his interest under the criteria reviewed”; and (3) “alleges that the decision or act, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms” Regulations. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). To preserve their status as appellants, an interested person must also demonstrate that they participated in the proceeding below. 24 V.S.A. § 4471. It appears undisputed that the Appellants participated in the proceedings below and that that they live in the immediate neighborhood.3 Snyder argues, however, that they have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a physical or environmental impact on their interests under the criteria reviewed.4 An interested person must establish a non-speculative demonstration, or a reasonable possibility, of a physical or environmental impact under the criteria reviewed. In re UVM Certificate of Appropriateness, (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 26, 2013) (Walsh, J.). (citations omitted) aff’d by No. 2013-301 (Jan. 23, 2014). To demonstrate such a possibility, the person or persons “must describe how the development under review will impact him or her specifically (i.e., describe a concrete and particularized injury) and must reference evidence showing that such impact is not hypothetical (i.e., demonstrate an actual or imminent injury).” Id. (citations omitted). 3 Whether Appellants have alleged that the decision on appeal, if confirmed by this Court, “will not be in accord with the policies, purposes, or terms” of the Regulations appears undisputed as well. See 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b)(3). 4 Snyder appears to argue that the criteria reviewed are not the applicable Regulations, but instead 24 V.S.A. § 4423 and the Constitution, as Appellants raise statutory and constitutional challenges. However, the Project is to be reviewed, as a general matter, under the Regulations, which Appellants contend are improper. Therefore, we conclude, for the general purposes of whether Appellants have standing to appeal pursuant to § 4465, the criteria reviewed are the Regulations. An in-depth analysis of whether Appellants may raise their statutory and constitutional challenges occurs below. 7 We note that the elements of whether a party is in the “immediate neighborhood” and whether their interests could be affected by a development are closely intertwined. See In re Appeal of Stank & Mulvaney, No. 101-7-01 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Oct. 15, 2001) (Wright, J.). It is uncontested that Appellants live in the immediate neighborhood of the Project. Further, Appellants have described alleged impacts that an allegedly improperly increased density would have on their interests, such as increased traffic, noise, light pollution, and adverse aesthetic impacts. These facts have not been controverted, and we conclude that Appellants have alleged a reasonable possibility of a physical or environmental impact under the criteria reviewed. We decline to require Appellants, as Snyder asserts we should, to “prove” these impacts at this stage of the proceeding. To do so would be to place a higher burden on Appellants than contemplated by the “reasonable possibility” standard. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants may generally appeal the DRB’s decision to this Court. We next turn to whether they may raise their statutory and constitutional arguments. b. Statutory and Constitutional Arguments Snyder essentially asserts that Appellants lack standing to raise their statutory and constitutional arguments because they are not the proper party to raise these issues, Snyder is. To have standing, a party must show: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 77 (1998) (citations omitted). “The prudential elements of standing include . . . the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interest protected by the law invoked.’” Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 341 (1997) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)) (citations omitted). Injury in fact is the “invasion of a legally protected interest.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, (1995) (internal quotations omitted). The determination of whether a party has suffered such an invasion “requires inquiry into the substance of plaintiff's claim.” Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., Inc, 166 Vt. at 341. The zone of interest test is “whether the interest sought to be protected by the [party] is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970). 8 Snyder asserts that Appellants cannot show any of the three elements of standing as related to their void for vagueness argument. It further asserts Appellants are outside the zone of interest with respect to their statutory claim. Appellants assert that, because it fails to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, the TDR Bylaw is improper. From this improper bylaw, they assert that they will be injured by an improperly permitted development which permits an increase in density beyond what is otherwise permissible in the Regulations. They further assert that, should the Court conclude that the TDR Bylaw is either improperly enacted or unconstitutional, their injury will be redressed, as the development would be limited to the density available without the use of TDRs. We begin with the constitutional claim. Neighboring property owners, as a general matter, have interests most often impacted by neighboring development. Further, as stated above, there is a reasonable possibility that Appellants’ interests will be impacted by the Project. The TDR Bylaw, if the Court concludes it is void for vagueness, therefore invades their interests as it unconstitutionally permits the increased density of a neighboring property. We therefore conclude that there is a direct link between their injury (i.e., impacts to their respective properties from increased density) and the alleged vagueness. We decline to adopt Snyder’s assertion that only applicants would or could suffer the requisite injury to have standing to raise constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances. Such a conclusion would disregard important interests that neighboring property owners have that may be impacted by a neighboring development.5 We also have found no precedent that supports Snyder’s position. We further note that, should the Court conclude the TDR Bylaw unconstitutional, Appellants alleged injury would be redressed, as the applicable maximum density in the district would apply as set out in § 9.03. We see no justification, as Snyder suggests, that a conclusion that the TDR Bylaw is unconscionably vague would somehow invalidate the Regulations in its entirety, resulting in no limitations on density, at which time Snyder could construct the Project 5 We further note that the Vermont Supreme Court has previously entertained constitutional challenges raised by neighboring property owners, without addressing the issue of their standing to raise the issue. See In re Peirce Subdivision Application, 2008 VT 100, 184 Vt. 365. 9 at any density it saw fit.6 Therefore, Appellants injury is redressable. We conclude that Appellants have standing to raise their constitutional challenges. With respect to Appellants’ statutory claim, Snyder has limited its standing challenge, asserting that Appellants are not within the zone of interest and therefore cannot raise their statutory challenges. We begin by noting we are slightly confused by Snyder’s argument. It appears to assert that Appellants lack standing to challenge § 4423, which is not what Appellants are attempting. Instead, Appellants challenge the Regulations compliance with § 4432, its enabling statute with respect to TDRs. Appellants are therefore asserting no legal right under § 4423, but assert such a right under the Regulations. As neighboring property owners, we conclude that Appellants are within the zone of interests the Regulations seek to protect.7 We therefore conclude that Appellants have standing to raise their statutory clams. Having concluded that Appellants have standing to raise all of their arguments, we turn to the substance of their challenges. II. Whether the City’s TDR Bylaw complies with 24 V.S.A. § 4423. Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid. McLaughry v. Town of Norwich, 140 Vt. 49, 54 (1981). As such, the Court “will not interfere with zoning unless it clearly and beyond dispute is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory.” City of Rutland v. Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 367 (1964). However, “[a] municipality has zoning authority only in accordance with, and subject to, the terms and conditions imposed by the state in making the power grant.” Flanders Lumber & Bldg. Supply Co. v. Town of Milton, 128 Vt. 38, 45 (1969) (citations omitted); see also N. Country Sportsman’s Club v. Town of Williston, 2017 VT 46, ¶ 12, 205 Vt. 1 (“While municipalities are entitled to create their own regulatory ordinances, those ordinances must conform to statutory standards.”) (citing In re White, 155 Vt. 612, 618 (1990)). 6 A more in-depth analysis of this issue is provided below in Section III. 7 Much like their constitutional challenge, we note that the Vermont Supreme Court has previously entertained a neighboring property owners challenge to zoning regulations as inconsistent with the relevant enabling statute, though without addressing the argument of whether the neighbor had standing to do so. See In re John A. Russell Corp., 2003 VT 93, 176 Vt. 520. 10 Therefore, “[s]tatutes are the state’s legislative policies; municipalities are its instrumentalities.” Kedroff v. Town of Springfield, 127 Vt. 624, 627 (1969). As such, if “an ordinance does not properly comply with or effectuate a statute, that ordinance should be read to include and effectuate the statute.” N. Country Sportsman’s Club, 2017 VT 46, ¶ 12. 24 V.S.A. § 4423 authorizes municipalities to use the possible transfer of development rights in zoning ordinances.8 Section 4423 requires that: (a) In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1) Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2) Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3) Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4) Define “density increase” in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination. (5) Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. In interpreting zoning ordinances, we apply familiar rules of statutory construction. In re Appeal of Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 19, 184 Vt. 262. First, we “construe words according to their plain and ordinary meaning, giving effect to the whole and every part of the ordinance.” Id. (citations omitted). If there is no plain meaning, we will “attempt to discern the intent from other sources without being limited by an isolated sentence.” In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 8 The City and Appellants agree that § 4423 is the statutory authority under which municipalities may enact TDR programs. Snyder does not appear to contest that § 4423 authorizes the TDR Bylaw, but also states that there are other sources of authority to enact such a bylaw. Snyder specifically references 24 V.S.A. § 4410, which grants the Town broad authority to enact zoning bylaws, and the City charter. While it is true that these sources give the City authorization to regulate land use development, neither address TDRs. The Legislature, however, has set forth specific requirements that municipalities must meet to enact TDR programs. We are unconvinced that these broad grants of authorization somehow negate or supersede the Legislature clear directives set forth in § 4423. 11 280 (1995). In construing statutory or ordinance language, our “paramount goal” is to implement the intent of its drafters. Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 61. We will therefore “adopt a construction that implements the ordinance's legislative purpose and, in any event, will apply common sense.” In re Laberge Moto-Cross Track, 2011 VT 1, ¶ 8, 189 Vt. 578 (quotations omitted); see also In re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial, 2014 VT 13, ¶ 22 (quoting Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 148 Vt. 47, 49 (1986)) (“Our goal in interpreting [a zoning regulation], like a statute, ‘is to give effect to the legislative intent.’”). We keep these principles of interpretation in mind as we address whether the TDR Bylaw complies with each subsection of § 4423. a. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(1) Section 4423(a)(1) requires that a TDR bylaw “[s]pecify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired.” Snyder asserts that the Regulations comply with this subsection through § 9.13(C)(1)(a). This section states that an applicant seeking to use TDRs: [S]hall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or any adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district. Appellants disagree. They contend that § 9.13(C)(1)(a) does not comply with § 4423(a)(1) because it does not define “development rights,” which the Court analyzes below, or “sending area.” They assert that the closest the Regulations get to defining a sending area would be found within § 9.04(C), stating: “Areas designated SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC shall be considered development areas. Areas designated SEQ-NRP are designated as conservation areas.” They assert that conservation areas are not equivalent to “sending areas,” as used in § 4423(a)(1). The Regulations do not define any area using the term “sending area” nor is the term defined in its own right. However, § 4423(a)(1) does not require such rigidity in this respect. Instead, it requires that a sending area be designated as a location where development rights may be acquired. Here, the Regulations state that development rights must be secured within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or adjacent lands on the same tax parcel lying within any 12 sub-district, or from lands acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing public parks in any sub-district. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a). It then goes on to call these lands “the sending parcel.” Id. We note that in § 9.04(C), SEQ-NRP is designated as a conservation area whereas SEQ- NRT is designated as a development area. However, this section generally designates the SEQ sub-districts. Section 9.13(C) is specific to TDRs and non-contiguous PUDs. It is in this section that the Regulations specify certain areas as sending parcels. We do not conclude these different designations, one not specific to the TDR program, results in the TDR Bylaw failing to comply with § 4423(a)(1). Because we must begin our analysis with the presumption that zoning ordinances are valid, and we must read them to effectuate the statute, we conclude that the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(1) as it identifies “sending parcels” in § 9.13(C)(1)(a). b. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(2) Section 4423(a)(2) requires that a TDR bylaw “[s]pecify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used.” The Regulations state that, should development rights be obtained within a sending parcel, the DRB “may then approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density calculated . . . to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2). Snyder asserts that, because Chapter 9 of the Regulations is specific to the SEQ District, and § 9.13(C)(2) identifies any other sub-district of the SEQ District as an area where development rights may be transferred (i.e., a receiving area), the TDR Bylaw complies with § 4423(a)(2). Appellants assert that the Regulations do not use the term “receiving area” and again direct us to § 9.04(C), which states that “Areas designated SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR and SEQ- VC shall be considered development areas. Areas designated SEQ-NRP are designated as conservation areas.” It states that the term “development area” does not mean “receiving area.” They further note that § 9.05(b)(2) indicates the SEQ-NRT sub-district as an area at which density 13 may be increased under § 9.13, but also a “sending parcel” under § 9.13(C)(1), which they assert is in violation of § 4423(a). The Regulations do not define or use the term “receiving area.” However, similarly to our above discussion, § 4423(a)(2) does not require such rigidity. Instead, it requires that the Regulations designate a receiving area or areas as a location where development rights may be used. Here, the Regulation states that if rights are secured as set forth in § 9.13(C)(1), the DRB may approve the transfer of all or some of those rights “to another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2). Regulations § 9.05(B) then states that densities may be increased pursuant to § 9.13 in the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC sub- districts.9 Further, we reach this conclusion despite the fact that the SEQ-NRT sub-district is identified both as a sending area and a receiving area. The statute merely states that a bylaw must identify area or areas as sending and receiving areas. We can find no prohibition that an area may be designated both as a receiving and sending area, as Appellants suggest. We decline to read such a prohibition into the statute. While never specifically designated as “receiving areas” we conclude that the Regulations satisfy § 4423(a)(2), in that the Regulations specify areas within which development rights may be used.10 c. 24 V.S.A. §§ 4423(a)(3), 4423(a)(4) Because of the interrelated nature of §§ 4423(a)(3) and (4) we combine our analysis of the TDR Bylaw’s compliance with these sections. Section 4423(a)(3) requires that TDR bylaws must “[d]efine the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases.” 9 The SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to Regulations § 9.12. 10 We note that Appellants appear to concede this fact. See Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, p. 12 (“Section 9.05(B) . . . specifies the SEQ zones that can receive additional units per acre as part of the Section 9.13 TDR-based density increase (albeit without specifying the zones as ‘receiving areas’).”) 14 Section 4423(a)(4) requires that TDR bylaws must “[d]efine ‘density increase’ in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination.” Because the definition of “density increase” is fundamental to § 4423(a)(3), we begin our analysis with whether the Regulations properly define “density increase.” The term “density increase” is not expressly defined in the Regulations, nor is it used. Density in the SEQ district is defined in terms of dwelling units per acre. See Regulations § 9.05. Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw does not comply with § 4423(a)(4) both because it fails to mention the term “density increase” and because it does not speak in terms of “an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ration of floor area to lot size, or any combination.” Snyder asserts that density increase is defined in terms of building bulk or a combination of the enumerated definitions and, as such, complies with § 4423(a)(4). Snyder points out, oddly enough, the definition of the word “define.” “Define” means “(1) To state the precise meaning of (e.g., a word or sense of a word), (2) To describe the nature or basic qualities of . . ., (3) To delineate the outline or form of, (4) To specify or fix distinctly . . ., (5) To serve to distinguish.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Define 302 (3rd Ed. 2005). It asserts that, while the Regulations do not use the term density increase, it effectively defines the term. Section 9.05(B) sets a base density in terms of dwelling units per acre. It then sets forth the maximum density for a lot in an enumerated SEQ sub-districts in the same terms. While we note that § 9.05(B) speaks in terms of dwelling units per acre, that term does not exist in a vacuum. As a baseline, the Regulations note that, 1.2 dwelling units per acre are permissible in the SEQ district. This is reflected in Regulations Table C-2, entitled Dimensional Standards Applicable in All Districts. This table denotes minimum lot sizes for all of the SEQ sub- districts. See Regulations Table C-2. It notes the minimum lot sizes, and also presents this size in terms of maximum dwelling units per acre. Id. This is presented as 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Id. 15 Table C-2 also sets forth maximum building heights and percentage of the site which may be covered by buildings, both components of building bulk. See 3 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 54.2 (4th Ed.). We conclude that the Regulations adequately define “density increase” in terms of dwelling units per acre, since the definition includes both terms of lot size, as related to dwelling units per acre, as well as terms of building bulk. Therefore, we conclude that the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(4). We next turn to whether the Regulations comply with § 4423(a)(3) and “[d]efine the amount of density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases.” The Regulations give a base density, 1.2 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum allowable density by use of TDRs, which ranges from 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre, depending on the relevant SEQ sub-district that has been defined as a receiving area. See Regulations § 9.05(B). As such, we conclude that the Regulations have effectively defined the amount of density increase allowable in a receiving area, in compliance with § 4423(a)(3). With respect to the second aspect of § 4423(a)(3), however, the Regulations provide no guidance. Section 9.13(C)(1) states that an applicant “shall demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered” in a sending area. It notes that the parcel must be “sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development.” Regulations § 9.13(c)(1)(a). There is nothing in the Regulations regarding how much, either in terms of land mass or parcel size, that would result in sufficient “development rights” to be regarded as an allowable density increase.11 We therefore conclude that there is no definition of the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain the density increases set forth in § 9.05(B). For this reason, we conclude that the Regulations do not comply with § 4423(a)(3). 11 Snyder appears to argue that, by adequately describing how much density increase is allowable, the Regulations have satisfied how much development rights must be secured to use TDRs. This argument fails to address that development rights and density increase are two different statutory requirements. Snyder’s attempt to conflate the two does not provide a sufficient explanation. 16 d. 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a)(5)12 Section 4423(a)(5) requires that a bylaw: Define “development rights,” which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. The term “development rights” is not defined by the Regulations. The Regulations require that applicants “demonstrate that development rights have been secured and encumbered” in a sending district. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a). It then goes on to say that the parcel must be: [S]ufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure conformance with these Regulations [or . . .] [a]ll encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent conservation easement or restriction of similar binding effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall be subject to the provisions of this article. Regulations § 9.13(C)(1)(a)—(b). Snyder asserts that development rights are defined as “all or a portion of the residential development density calculated for a noncontiguous encumbered parcel or another parcel to satisfy the provisions of Section 9.05 above.” Regulations § 9.13(C)(2).13 Appellants argue that the Regulations do not formally define the term, nor do they reference the minimum statutory definition set forth in § 4423(a)(5). Therefore, they assert the Regulations fail to comply with the subsection. We agree with Appellants; the Regulations are lacking in both respects. Section 9.13(C)(1)(a) states that encumberment could occur “through a purchase or other agreement 12 While we conclude that the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(3), we include an analysis of compliance with § 4423(a)(5) pursuant to Appellants’ Question 1.8. 13 We note that Snyder additionally argues that defining “development rights” in terms of conservation easements would be illogical. Citing Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Agency of Transp., 174 Vt. 341, 348 (2002) (stating that the Court “will always avoid a statutory construction which leads to absurd or irrational results.”). It asserts that, because conservation easements limit development, it cannot be included in a definition of “development rights.” This argument misses the purpose of the term “development rights” and the need for its definition in the context of the § 4423 and TDR programs generally. Development rights are those rights to be secured in a place designated for conservation or limited development, a sending area, and used in area designated for development, a receiving area. As such, the statute directs that the definition set forth the encumberment to be secured in the sending area, for use in the receiving area, at a minimum as including a conservation easement. This is neither irrational or absurd in the context of a TDR program. 17 acceptable to the City Attorney.” There are no references to what type of encumberment would be sufficient to satisfy the Regulations, nor an inclusion of the minimum definition as set forth in the statute. While subsection (b) references a conservation easement, it also mentions restrictions “of similar binding effect.” Such a fleeting mention does not remedy the fact that they are patently lacking in this respect. Snyder argues that we should look to the plain meaning of the words “development” and “rights” pursuant to Regulations Article 2.01. While we could look to the plain meaning of the words “development” and “rights,” such an exercise would not result in the Regulations meeting the minimum statutory requirements. It would therefore be a fruitless endeavor. We therefore conclude that the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(5). We next turn to whether this and our above conclusions regarding §§ 4423(a)(3) and 4423(a)(5) must result in the invalidation of the TDR Bylaw. III. Whether the TDR Bylaw is invalid due to failure to comply with §§ 4423(a)(3) and (5). Snyder asserts that, even if the Court concludes the TDR Bylaw does not comply with § 4423, it is still valid. Citing In re Walker, 156 Vt. 639 (1991); and In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402 (1990). Both the Walker and Duncan decisions reference municipalities that failed to enunciate mandatory statutory requirements regarding conditional use approval standards; specifically, “that a proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect the utilization of renewable energy resources.” Walker, 156 Vt. at 639 (citing 24 V.SA. § 4407(2) (repealed eff. July 1, 2004). In Walker, the Court concluded that an “ordinance must be read to include the statutory requirements [set forth in the conditional use statute], and those requirements will govern whether or not they are expressly set forth in the ordinance.” Walker, 156 Vt. at 639. Both cases are distinct from the present matter. Both matters reflected a failure to include an explicit statutory standard, whereas here the statute requires the ordinance to define terms, to which the statute provides varying degrees of direction. The Regulations at issue here fail to provide the necessary direction; an implicit inclusion of a statutory reference does not in this instance cure the omission. 18 We conclude the Regulations fail to comply with § 4423(a)(3) for failure to define the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain increased development rights. Looking to the statute, there is no definition therein, but only the requirement to define. The same is true for § 44239(a)(5). Section 4423 does not lend itself to the same “gap filling” as proposed for the conditional use approval standards examined in Walker and Duncan. We therefore conclude the TDR Bylaw is invalid. Having reached this conclusion, we address its impact on the pending application. Regulations § 1.03 states that: Should any section, sub-section, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase of these land development regulations be declared by any competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of any other portion of these land development regulations, except the section in question. Here, we conclude that Regulations §§ 9.13(C)(1)(a), 9.13(C)(2), and 9.05(B)(2)—(6) do not comply with § 4423 and are, therefore, invalid. Snyder asserts that this conclusion somehow invalidates either the entirety of the Regulations or all density requirements therein. We disagree. Nothing within this decision effects other aspects of the Regulations including, of particular import here, § 9.05(A), which sets forth the maximum allowable density in the SEQ district without the use of TDRs. Having found no reason to disturb or invalidate § 9.05(A) or any other aspect of the Regulations not above discussed, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw provision is severable from the rest of the Regulations. Therefore, the Project is limited to 31 units.14 We next turn to Appellants’ constitutional challenges. 14 Snyder argues that, “because land-use regulations are in derogation of property rights, any uncertainty in their meaning must be decided in favor of the property owner.” Citing Agency of Nat. Res. v. Weston, 2003 VT 58, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 573. Under this tenant of statutory construction, Snyder reiterates its assertion that any invalidation of the TDR Bylaw would eliminate density requirements in either South Burlington generally or the SEQ district in particular, and that Snyder would therefore be permitted to construct the Project without limitation. This argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, our above conclusions regarding the TDR Bylaw’s compliance with § 4423 is not based in any ambiguity or uncertainty in the Regulations overall meaning. Second, pursuant to the Regulations severability clause, the purported destruction of the non-TDR related density requirements would be improper. 19 IV. Whether the TDR Regulation is constitutional. Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally void for vagueness both on its face and as applied. When reviewing a municipal land use decision, we begin with the presumption that a zoning regulation is constitutional. In re Highlands Dev. Co., LLC, No. 194-10-03 Vtec, slip op. at 13 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Feb. 2, 2010) (Wright, J.) (citing Hunter v. State, 2004 VT 108, ¶ 31, 177 Vt. 339). Our approach to complaints of “standardless, arbitrary discretion focuses on the criteria for due process and equal protection.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 19 (citing In re Handy, 171 Vt. 336, 345-46 (2000). We will consider two factors to determine whether a regulation is void for vagueness and thus unconstitutional. First, we consider whether the regulation is “sufficiently precise that an ordinary person using the means available and ordinary common sense can understand the meaning and comply” and does not leave an applicant “uncertain as to what factors are to be considered by the [municipal panel].” Rogers v. Watson, 156 Vt. 483, 491 (1991) (citing Brody v. Barasch, 155 Vt. 103, 111 (1990); Town of Westford v. Kilburn, 131 Vt. 120, 124 (1973). Second, we consider whether the regulation provides standards that sufficiently guide municipal decisions and therefore do not allow for the “exercise of discretion in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 20 (quoting Kilburn, 131 Vt. at 124). Additionally, a balance must be struck between the flexibility a municipal panel must have in reviewing a specific development proposal and a landowner’s right to know what standards govern an application. See Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491; see also Handy, 171 Vt. at 349; Kilburn, 131 Vt. 124 (“On one hand the standards governing the delegation of such authority should be general enough to avoid inflexible results, yet on the other hand they should not leave the door open to unbridled discrimination.”). Thus, while we must “invalidate ordinances that ‘fail to provide adequate guidance” and allow for “ad-hoc decision making that is essentially arbitrary,” we will uphold general standards “accompanied by some ability of landowners to predict how discretion will be exercised.” Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 20 (quoting Kilburn, 131 Vt. at 125); Handy, 171 Vt. at 349. For this reason, we consider regulations in the context of the entire ordinance so that “even if some of the bylaws’ objectives are general,” it may be constitutional 20 “as long as other provisions impose specific limits to guide and check the [decisionmaker’s] discretion.” Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491; Pierce Subdivision, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 24 (“By providing both general and specific standards for [] review, the bylaw strikes an appropriate balance between providing guidance to the Commission and avoiding inflexible requirements which would defeat the creativity and flexibility required to effectuate the goals of the [bylaws].”)). Appellants assert that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide any standards for the DRB, or the Court on appeal, to apply when determining whether to approve the transfer of all or some of the TDR-based density requested by an applicant. Further, they assert the TDR Bylaw does not provide any standards for the City Attorney to apply when determining whether a parcel is sufficiently encumbered under § 9.13(C)(1). Snyder asserts that the TDR Bylaw is constitutional because it sets forth the limited range within which a density can be approved when using TDRs. It also asserts that by providing that the City Attorney must “ensure conformance” with the Regulations, the TDR Bylaw provides sufficient guidance when determining whether encumberment is sufficient. Section 9.13(C)(2) allows the DRB to “approve the assignment (transfer) of all or a portion of the residential development density” when approving the use of TDRs. Section 9.05(A) sets the maximum allowable density within the SEQ district and § 9.05(B) sets the maximum allowable density through the use of TDRs within the various SEQ subdistricts. As discussed above, there is no guidance on the quantity of development rights that must be secured in order for TDRs to be utilized. Similarly, there is no guidance regarding what the DRB should consider when approving the assignment of all or a portion of the development rights. A mere maximum and minimum, in the absence of these important aspects of lawful TDR programs, are not sufficiently precise such that an ordinary person could understand how the TDR program works, specifically with respect to the transfer of development rights, and would leave an applicant and those concerned by a proposed development uncertain as to what factors are to be considered by the DRB when determining the transfer of development rights. See Rogers, 156 Vt. at 491. 21 As the Regulations are, in effect, standardless regarding this issue, and lack sufficient guidance for the DRB to employ when making determinations regarding the number of TDRs the DRB will allow to be used in an area. Therefore, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague on its face.15 V. Whether the proposed dead-end street is permissible. When interpreting a zoning ordinance, we apply the familiar rules of statutory construction. Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 19. A complete review of the legal standards we apply in doing so is set forth above. Of import to our present analysis is whether the Court affords deference to a municipality’s interpretation of its ordinance. The parties both direct us to In re Confluence Behavioral Health LLC CU. In that decision, we noted that: The interpretation by an appropriate municipal panel of its own zoning regulations can have some import in our analysis. In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402, 408 (1990) (“we have consistently held that ‘absent compelling indication of error, we will sustain the interpretation of a statute by the administrative body responsible for its execution.’”) (citation omitted). However, as noted above, municipal zoning decisions are appealed to the Environmental Division de novo. 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a). We therefore do not defer to the municipal panel’s interpretation of a zoning term when that determination is itself the subject of an appeal. The exception to this rule is where the municipal panel has established a pattern of consistent interpretation. In re Korbet, 2005 VT 7, ¶ 10, 178 Vt. 459; 38 Thasha Lane Dev. Water & Sewer Fees Denial, No. 136-9-14 Vtec, slip op. at 4—5 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 28, 2015) (Walsh, J.). No. 15-2-16 Vtec, slip op. at 11 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Jan. 23, 2017) (Durkin, J.) aff’d by 2017 VT 112. Section 9.08 sets forth “additional dimensional and design requirements” for the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, and SEQ-NRT sub-districts. Section § 9.08(A)(2)(b) states that “[d]ead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer-head) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” Regulations § 9.08(A)(2)(b). PUDs are: 15 Having reached this conclusion, we need not reach whether the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutional as applied. We note that the impact of this conclusion on the application before the Court is identical to that in Section III, above. 22 One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed. Regulations § 2.02 (emphasis added). Snyder asserts that, because the Project is a PUD, the DRB and this Court on appeal may deviate from dimensional requirements pursuant to the definition of PUDs. Therefore, it asserts that the oversized road may be permitted. Additionally, and alternatively, it asserts that the roadway standards are waivable pursuant to § 15.12(D)(5). Appellants disagree, arguing that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is mandatory and non-waivable. Therefore, it asserts that Street A is impermissible as proposed. First, we address whether the Regulations permit deviations from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) when permitting PUDs. PUDs, by their definition, permit the DRB, and this Court on appeal, flexibility in imposing land use restrictions. Specifically, their definition states that “dimensional requirements” may be deviated from. Section 9.08(A)(2)(b) is included as a dimensional and design standard for the SEQ district. See Regulations § 9.08. Therefore, by the plain language of the Regulations, § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is the type of requirement that the Regulations contemplated PUDs deviating from in some instances. While § 9.08(A)(2)(b) provides clear requirements on dead-end streets, there is nothing in the Regulations to show that this would not be subject to the flexibility afforded to PUDs by their nature as set forth in Regulations § 2.02. Therefore, we conclude that deviation from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is permissible with respect to PUDs. Second, we address whether the § 9.08(A)(2)(b) requirement is waivable.16 Section 15.12 governs standards for roadways, parking and circulation in PUDs generally. Included in this section is the provision that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the DRB to grant waivers of public roadway standards subject to the provisions of § 15.12(D)(4).” 16 Having reached the above conclusion, an analysis of whether § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is waivable is largely unnecessary. However, we reach the issue as it is presented by Appellants’ Questions 5.4—5.10. 23 Regulations § 15.12(D)(5); see also Regulations § 15.12(D)(4) (provisions related to roadway connections to adjacent parcels). We must begin by noting that, while Appellants present a number of Questions related to the issue of waiver, their briefs in large part do not address the issue. Appellants include the bald assertion that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is non-waivable, but this appears to be based solely on their interpretation of § 9.08(A)(2)(b) and not how it interrelates with § 15.12(D)(5). Section 15.12 sets for the “Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation” in subdivisions and PUDs. Included in this are roadway criteria in § 15.12(D). Section 9.08, however, sets forth specific dimensional and design requirements in the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, and SEQ-NRN sub-districts. Neither section reference one another, nor is § 9.08(A)(2)(b) identified as a public roadway standard, but instead a component of street, block and lot patterns within the enumerated sub-districts.17 Other than the fact that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) relates to roadways, we can find no interpretation that supports the conclusion that it can be waived pursuant to § 15.12(D)(5). As such, we conclude that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) cannot be waived. This conclusion, however, does not disturb our above conclusion that the DRB may deviate from § 9.08(A)(2)(b) when permitting PUDs. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, we conclude that the TDR Bylaw is invalid as it does not comply with 24 V.S.A. § 4423. We further conclude that the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague. Finally, we conclude that the DRB, and this Court on appeal, may permit a roadway longer than 200 feet in length in the context of a PUD application. This concludes the matter before the Court. A Judgement Order accompanies this Decision. 17 Snyder asserts that the Town’s conclusion that § 9.08(A)(2)(b) is waivable is entitled to some deference. However, having received no indication of consistent application of this interpretation and the matter being the subject of the present appeal, we afford this interpretation no deference. See Confluence Behavioral Health LLC CU, No. 15-2-16 Vtec, slip op. at 11 (Jan. 23, 2017). Further, to the extent Snyder asserts that other oversized dead end streets have been approved pursuant to § 15.12(D)(4) for future interconnection, because we reach the above conclusion that the DRB may deviate from § 9.08(A)(2)(b), we conclude that an analysis of this issue is unnecessary. 24 Electronically signed on February 28, 2019 at Brattleboro, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). ________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge Environmental Division  0DUOD.HHQH )URP/RXLVH+DPPRQGNDUPDNRVPR#DROFRP! 6HQW7XHVGD\-DQXDU\30 7R'DOLOD+DOO &F0DUOD.HHQH 6XEMHFW:LOGOLIHLQ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ ĂŚůŝĂĂŶĚDĂƌůĂ͕  WůĞĂƐĞƐŚĂƌĞƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞZdŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘  /ǁĂƐŝŶĂƚƚĞŶĚĂŶĐĞĂƚƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĞǀĞŶŝŶŐ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌůŝŬĞŵĂŶLJ/ĚŝĚŶŽƚŐĞƚĂĐŚĂŶĐĞƚŽƐƉĞĂŬ;ƐĂŵĞĂƐůĂƐƚZ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͙Ϳ/ĂŵŚĞĂĚĞĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŽǁŶǀĞƌLJĞĂƌůLJƚŽŵŽƌƌŽǁƵŶƚŝůDĂƌĐŚϳƚŚƐŽ/ĚĞĐŝĚĞĚƚŽƐŚĂƌĞŵLJƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐƚŚŝƐǁĂLJ͘  ĨĞǁǁĞĞŬƐďĂĐŬƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĂĚ:ĞŶƐ,ŝůŬĞĨƌŽŵsĞƌŵŽŶƚ&ŝƐŚĂŶĚtŝůĚůŝĨĞŐŝǀĞĂƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚǁĂƐ ĞdžĐĞůůĞŶƚĂŶĚǀĞƌLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝǀĞ͘,ĞŝƐĂŶĞdžƉĞƌƚŝŶƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŝƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚ ŝŶƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚƚŽsĞƌŵŽŶƚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ :ĞŶƐ,ŝůŬĞŵĂĚĞŝƚǀĞƌLJĐůĞĂƌƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐŽĨǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͕ƌŝƉĂƌŝĂŶĂŶĚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͕ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJĂƌĞĂůůǀŝƚĂůůLJ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽƵƐĂŶĚŚĞĨĞǁƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐǁĞŚĂǀĞůĞĨƚ͘&ĞǁĂƐŚĞŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚŵĂŬĞƐƚŚĞŵĞǀĞŶŵŽƌĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͬǀĂůƵĂďůĞ͘/ĂůƐŽŚĞĂƌĚŚŝŵƐĂLJƚŚĂƚĞǀĞŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĂƐǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞŵůŽƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƉůĞŶƚLJŽĨƐĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐƐƚƵĚŝĞƐŝŶĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƵƐŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞŽĨŬĞĞƉŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƌŝƉĂƌŝĂŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŽƉĞŶ͘  dŚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŝƐǀĞƌLJ͕ǀĞƌLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ͊  /ŚĂǀĞƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚĞĚŽǀĞƌϴϰƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨďŝƌĚƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚϭϮLJĞĂƌƐĂŶĚƚŚŽƐĞĂƌĞŽŶůLJƚŚĞŽŶĞƐ/ŚĂǀĞƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚĞĚ͘/ ĂŵƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐƚŚĂƚ/ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƐĞĞŶďƵƚĂƌĞŽƵƚƚŚĞƌĞ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĂůůŝŶͬŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƐĂŵĞůĂŶĚĂƐƚŚĞŽƌƐĞƚ DĞĂĚŽǁƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘  >ĂƐƚǁĞĞŬŝŶ&W&ĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶƚŚĞWŝŶŶĂĐůĞͬ^ƉĞĂƌĂƌĞĂǁƌŽƚĞƚŚĂƚǁŽŬĞƵƉƚŽĂĚƵůƚĨŝƐŚĞƌƚƌĂĐŬƐŽŶƚŚĞŝƌďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚ͘ dŚĞLJƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĞLJŚĂǀĞƐĞĞŶƌĞĚĨŽdž͕ďŽďĐĂƚ͕ƐŬƵŶŬƐ͕ƌĂĐĐŽŽŶƐ͕ƐƋƵŝƌƌĞůƐ͕ǁŽŽĚĐŚƵĐŬ͕ŽƉŽƐƐƵŵĂŶĚŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐŵŝĐĞǀŽůĞƐ ĂŶĚŵŽůĞƐ͘dŚĞLJĂůƐŽŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚŚĂǀŝŶŐƐĞǀĞƌĂůĐŽLJŽƚĞƚƌĂĐŬƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞŝƌLJĂƌĚ͘ tĞĂƌĞƉĂǀŝŶŐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƌƵŶŶŝŶŐŽƵƚŽĨƉůĂĐĞƐƚŽŐŽ͊dŚĞLJĚŽŶ͛ƚďĞůŽŶŐŽŶŽƵƌƉŽƌĐŚĞƐĂŶĚŝŶŽƵƌ ĨƌŽŶƚLJĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞLJďĞůŽŶŐŝŶƚŚĞǁŝůĚ͙ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͘ /ƚŽŽŚĂǀĞƐĞĞŶƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĚĞĞƌ͕ƌĂďďŝƚƐ͕ĂŶĚůĂƐƚǁĞĞŬĂŵŝŶŬĂŶĚƐĞǀĞƌĂůďĞĂǀĞƌ͘ /ŶLJĞƐƚĞƌĚĂLJƐƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶ&ƌĞĞWƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚƉĂŐĞŚĂĚĂŶĂƌƚŝĐůĞĂďŽƵƚŽƉŽƐƐƵŵ͘dŚĞLJĞĂƚƚŝĐŬƐ͊>Ğƚ͛ƐŶŽƚƉĂǀĞŽǀĞƌ ƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞ͘tĞŶĞĞĚƚŚĞŵƚŽĞĂƚƚŚĞƚŝĐŬƐ͘dŝĐŬƐĐĂƵƐĞůLJŵĞĚŝƐĞĂƐĞ͘  tĞĂƌĞŬŶŽǁŝŶŐůLJƐŚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐ͘>Ğƚ͛ƐďĞĂǀŽŝĐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞǀŽŝĐĞůĞƐƐ͘dŚĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐŶĞĞĚƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂ ďĂůĂŶĐĞŝŶůŝĨĞĂŶĚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĂŚƵŐĞƉĂƌƚŽĨŝƚ͘dŚĞLJďĞŶĞĨŝƚƵƐŽŶƐŽŵĂŶLJůĞǀĞůƐ͘ dŚĞLJĚŽŶ͛ƚĐŽƐƚƵƐĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐĂŶĚďƌŝŶŐƐƵĐŚũŽLJ͊ǀĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞŚŽǁLJŽƵĨĞĞůǁŚĞŶLJŽƵƐĞĞĂďŝƌĚ͕ŽƌĂĚĞĞƌŽƌĂŶĚŽǁůŽƌ ƐĞĞĂƚƵƌƚůĞŝŶƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͍  /ŶŵĂŬŝŶŐLJŽƵƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ/ŚŽƉĞLJŽƵǁŝůůƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂŶĚŚŽǁǁĞŚĂǀĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĞĚŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŝƌ ŚŽŵĞƐͬŚĂďŝƚĂƚƐ͘   ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕   >ŽƵŝƐĞ,ĂŵŵŽŶĚ ϭϱ^ŚĞĂƌŝǀĞ  0DUOD.HHQH )URP'XQFDQ0XUGRFKGXQFDQKPXUGRFK#JPDLOFRP! 6HQW7KXUVGD\-DQXDU\30 7R0DUOD.HHQH'DYH&UDZIRUG 6XEMHFW5(15&EXIIHUUHFRPPHQGDWLRQIRU'RUVHW0HDGRZV&ODULILFDWLRQ ,ĞůůŽZŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕  /ǁĂƐĂƐŬĞĚŝĨƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĂŶLJƐĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐƌĞĂƐŽŶŝŶŐďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞEZΖƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂůĂƌŐĞƌƚŚĂŶϱϬĨƚďƵĨĨĞƌ͘/ĚŝĚ ŶŽƚƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚůLJĂŶƐǁĞƌƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞ͘,ĞƌĞŝƐŵLJƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞŝŶĂĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŶŐĂďƵĨĨĞƌŽĨϭϬϬĨĞĞƚ͗  ͞^ƚƌĞĂŵƐĂŶĚďƌŽŽŬƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJKǁŶĞĚ>ĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďLJĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůůLJ ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚϭϬϬͲĨŽŽƚƌŝƉĂƌŝĂŶďƵĨĨĞƌnjŽŶĞ͘͟  Ͳ;ƉŐ͘ϭϯͿϮϬϬϰƌƌŽǁǁŽŽĚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕>>ƌĞƉŽƌƚ͞tŝůĚůŝĨĞĂŶĚEĂƚƵƌĂůŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨ ƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐƚYƵĂĚƌĂŶƚ͕^ŽƵƚŚƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶsĞƌŵŽŶƚ͟  dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚǁĂƐĚŽŶĞĂƚƚŚĞůŽĐĂůůĞǀĞů͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚΖƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƐLJŽƵĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĂŶĚďƌŽŽŬƐŝŶ^ŽƵƚŚƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶ͘  /ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞEZ͘  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕  ƵŶĐĂŶDƵƌĚŽĐŚ ĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚEĂƚƵƌĞΘ&ŽƌĞƐƚdŚĞƌĂƉLJ'ƵŝĚĞ ǁǁǁ͘ŶĂƚƵƌĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶŐƵŝĚĞ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘ĚƵŶĐĂŶŵƵƌĚŽĐŚ͘ĐŽŵ ŵ͘ϳϭϴ͘ϳϱϯ͘ϴϰϰϯ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³YHWHUDQODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFW´0LNH%XVFKHUZLWK7-%R\OH$VVRFLDWHVUHVSRQGHG ³WKDWZDVµDOPRVWLPSRVVLEOH¶7KHUHDUHDERXWVL[RUVHYHQUHDOO\QDWLYHWUHHV«KDOIRIWKRVH DUHQ¶WVXLWDEOHIRUVWUHHVFDSHSODQWLQJV´KHVDLG $QLQWHUHVWLQJVWDWHPHQWVLQFHODVW\HDU,PDGHDFDWDORJRIDERXWQDWLYHRU³QDWXUDOL]HG´ QDWXUDOL]HGPHDQLQJHVWDEOLVKHGORQJHQRXJKLQ9HUPRQWLQWKHZLOGWRKDYHVRPHOHYHORIFR HYROYHPHQWZLWKQDWLYHLQVHFWV 9HUPRQWWUHHVLQFOXGLQJWKHRDNVDQGPDSOHV7KHUHDUHDWOHDVW RIWKRVHZKRVHH[LVWHQFHLVQRWFXUUHQWO\WKUHDWHQHGE\VHULRXVSHVWVRURWKHUGLVHDVHVVXFK DVDVKKHPORFNDQGEHHFK +HUHLVWKHUHVXOWRIUHVHDUFK,KDYHGRQHRQFRPPHUFLDODYDLODELOLW\RIWKHVH³UHDOO\QDWLYH´ WUHHVLQ9HUPRQW,VHOHFWHGVSHFLHVFXOWLYDUVFRQVHUYDWLYHO\$PRQJWKHPDUHDVSULQNOLQJRI ODUJHVKUXEVWKDWFDQEHWUDLQHGWREHWUHHOLNH)RXU6HDVRQVVDLGWKDWDGGLWLRQDOVSHFLHV EH\RQGWKHLUFDWDORJVSHFLHVFRXOGEHVRXUFHG % %1XUVHULHV0RUULVYLOOH97VSHFLHV (&%URZQ1XUVHULHV7KHWIRUG&HQWHU97VSHFLHV )RXU6HDVRQV:LOOLVWRQ97VSHFLHV $UHWKHFULWHULDXVHGIRU0U%XVFKHUWRVHOHFWKLVSUHIHUUHGWUHHVLQFOXGHFRQYHQLHQFHRI SXUFKDVHORZPDLQWHQDQFHWUHHVXQLIRUPJURZWKDPRQJWKHPWUHHVWKDWGRQ¶W³GURS´WKLQJV OLNHDFRUQVRIDSSOHVRUQXWVDPRQJRWKHUVLPLODUWKLQJV",IVRSHUKDSVWKHFULWHULDXVHGE\0U %XVFKHUVKRXOGEHUHFRQVLGHUHG +HUHLVZK\ $VDFKLOG,ZDVIDVFLQDWHGE\WKHPDQ\LQVHFWVDQGPRWKVODUJHDQGVPDOORIYDULRXVVKDSHV DQGVL]HVWKDWZRXOGHDFKVXPPHUQLJKWEX]]DQGIOXWWHUDURXQGVWUHHWODPSV±VHHPLQJO\LQWKH KXQGUHGV7RGD\,VHHOLWWOHRIWKLV 2QRWKHUQLJKWVZKHQVLWWLQJRQWKHSRUFK,ZRXOGEHHQFKDQWHGE\WKHFKRUXVVRPDQ\GLIIHUHQW VRXQGV±WKHVRXQGVRIVRPDQ\LQVHFWVPDQ\LGHQWLILDEOH±PRVWQRW±MXVWEDFNJURXQG³ZKLWH´ QRLVH7RGD\VLWWLQJRXWRQWKHSRUFKLQ6%DORQJ6SHHU6WUHHW,VWLOOKHDUWKHVHVRXQGVRIP\ \RXWK%XWZKDW,KHDUDUHLQVHFWVE\WKHWHQV±QRWWKHKXQGUHGVRUWKRXVDQGV ,QDSURWHFWHGIRUHVWLQ*HUPDQ\WKHUHVXOWVRID\HDUVVWXG\WKHUHKDVEHHQDGURSRI RIWKHRULJLQDOQXPEHUVRILQVHFWSRSXODWLRQV±ZLWKRXWDVSHFLILFFDXVHEHLQJLGHQWLILHG KWWSVH\DOHHGXIHDWXUHVLQVHFWBQXPEHUVBGHFOLQLQJBZK\BLWBPDWWHUV KWWSVZZZZDVKLQJWRQSRVWFRPVFLHQFHK\SHUDODUPLQJVWXG\VKRZVPDVVLYH LQVHFWORVV"QRUHGLUHFW RQ XWPBWHUP EGEFEI :RUOGZLGHZHDUHORVLQJVRPHVSHFLHVRIRUJDQLVPVSHUKRXU±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±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¶V\DUGUDWKHUWKDQQDWLYHVSHFLHVLVWKHHTXLYDOHQWRIUHPRYLQJKDELWDW :HXQZLWWLQJO\DUHFRQWULEXWLQJWRWKHZRUOGZLGHORVVRIZLOGOLIHULJKWLQRXURZQ\DUGV 5HPHPEHULQJWKDWLQVHFWVDUHDPDMRUVRXUFHRIIRRGIRUELUGVDQGPDQ\VPDOOPDPPDOVDQG WKH\LQWXUQDUHIRRGIRUODUJHUSUHGDWRUPDPPDOVWKHQLWEHFRPHVREYLRXVWKDWRXUQDWLYH SODQWFRPPXQLWLHVDUHWKHIXQGDPHQWDOEDVHIRURXUZLOGOLIHSRSXODWLRQV6WXGLHVVXJJHVWWKDW 1RUWK$PHULFDQELUGVSHFLHVWKDWGHSHQGRQDHULDOLQVHFWVIRUIHHGLQJWKHPVHOYHVDQGWKHLURIIVSULQJKDYH VXIIHUHGPXFKPRUHSURQRXQFHGGHFOLQHVLQUHFHQW\HDUVWKDQRWKHUSHUFKLQJELUGVWKDWODUJHO\IHHGRQ VHHGV KWWSVZZZWKHJOREHDQGPDLOFRPWHFKQRORJ\VFLHQFHUHSRUWILQGVQRUWKDPHULFDQVNLHVTXLHWHUE\ ELOOLRQIHZHUELUGVDUWLFOH :K\ZRUU\DERXWWKHORVVRIDEXQFKRIEXJV" +LJKHVWRQWKHOLVWRIUHDVRQVIRUSURWHFWLQJDQGUHVWRULQJLQVHFWSRSXODWLRQVLVSROOLQDWLRQ RIDOOIORZHULQJSODQWVQHHGSROOLQDWRUVLQFOXGLQJPDQ\FURSVZHGHSHQGRQIRUIRRG,IGRPHVWLF KRQH\EHHVDUHXVHGH[FOXVLYHO\IRUSROOLQDWLRQZKLFKPDQ\ODUJHLQGXVWULDOIDUPVXVHWKHQZH IDFHWKHXVXDOWKUHDWRIGLVHDVHVSUHDGLQPRQRFXOWXUHVOHDGLQJWRFDWDVWURSKLFSRSXODWLRQ FUDVKHV6RZHQHHGWKHGLYHUVLW\LQKHUHQWLQZLOGSROOLQDWRUVZKLFKLQFOXGHPDQ\LQVHFWVSHFLHV ±DOEHLWZLWKGHFOLQLQJSRSXODWLRQV7KHPRVWLPSRUWDQWRIWKHVHDUHEXWWHUIOLHVDQGPRWKVWKH PDQ\ZLOGEHHVSHFLHVEHHWOHVZDVSVDQGIOLHVDPRQJPDQ\RWKHUFRQWULEXWLQJLQVHFWVSHFLHV 6R,WKLQNWKDW0U%XVFKQHUVKRXOGJREDFNWRWKHGUDZLQJERDUGDQGPDNHUZLVHUFKRLFHVIRU WUHHSODQWLQJV )XUWKHUPRUH,UHFRPPHQGWKDWWKHUHOHYDQWFLW\FRPPLWWHHVPDNHLWDSROLF\WRUHTXLUHQDWLYH ³ZRRG\´WUHHSODQWLQJVRQDQ\QHZGHYHORSPHQWWDNLQJSODFHLQWKHFLW\$OVRWKHVDPH FRQVLGHUDWLRQVKRXOGLQFOXGH³QDWLYH´KHUEDFHRXVSODQWVUDWKHUWKDQDOLHQVLQWKHVDPH ODQGVFDSHSODQV $QGIXUWKHUPRUHWKHFLW\VKRXOGPDNHLWDSROLF\WRDFWLYHO\HQFRXUDJHSULYDWHODQGRZQHUVWR XWLOL]HQDWLYHSODQWVLQWKHLURZQ\DUGV $)HZ5HVRXUFHVIRULQWURGXFWLRQDQGGHHSHUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKLVLVVXH *HQHUDO,QWURGXFWLRQ%ULQJLQJ1DWXUH+RPH'RXJODV:7DOODP\ 1DWLYH3ODQWV1DWLYH3ODQWVRI1HZ(QJODQG*DUGHQV0DUN5LFKDUGVRQDQG'DQ-DIIH (VVHQWLDO1DWLYH7UHHVDQG6KUXEVIRUWKH(DVWHUQ8QLWHG6WDWHV 7RQ\'RYHDQG*LQJHU:RROULGJH 3ROOLQDWRUVLGHQWLILHG$WWUDFWLQJ1DWLYH3ROOLQDWRUV7KH;HUFHV6RFLHW\    EĂƚŝǀĞsĞƌŵŽŶƚdƌĞĞƐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůLJǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ;ƉůƵƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŶĂƚŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŝĨŽƵƚͲƐŽƵƌĐĞĚͿ ZĂLJ'ŽŶĚĂϭͬϮϳͬϮϬϭϵ   ĐĞƌWĞŶŶƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂǀĂŶŝĐƵŵ^ƚƌŝƉĞĚŵĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌ^ƉŝĐĂĚĞƵŵDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶDĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌZƵďƌƵŵZĞĚDĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌ^ĂĐĐŚĂƌƵŵ^ƵŐĂƌDĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌƐĂĐĐŚĂƌƵŵ͕͞ĐŽŵŵĞŵŽƌƵƚƵŵ͟^ƵŐĂƌDĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌ^ĂĐĐŚĂƌƵŵ͞'ƌĞĞŶDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͟^ƵŐĂƌDĂƉůĞ ĐĞƌ^ƉŝĐĂƚƵŵDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶDĂƉůĞ ůďŝĞƐďĂůƐĂŵĞĂĂůƐĂŵ&ŝƌ ŵĞůĂŶĐŚŝĞƌĐĂŶĂĚĞŶƐƵƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞďĞƌƌLJͬ^ŚĂĚďĞƌƌLJͬƐĞǀĞƌĂůĐƵůƚŝǀĂƌƐ ĞƚƵůĂůĞŶƚƌĂ^ǁĞĞƚ;ůĂĐŬͿŝƌĐŚ ĞƚƵůĂƉĂƉLJƌŝĨĞƌĂWĂƉĞƌŝƌĐŚ ĞƚƵůĂŶŝŐƌĂZŝǀĞƌŝƌĐŚ;ďƵƚŶŽƚƚŚĞ͞,ĞƌŝƚĂŐĞ͞ĐƵůƚŝǀĂƌͿ ĂƌƉƵƐĂƌŽůŝŶŝĂŶĂDƵƐĐůĞǁŽŽĚ;ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ,ŽƌŶďĞĂŵͿ ĂƐƚĂŶĞĂĚĞŶƚĂƚĂŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŚĞƐƚŶƵƚ ŚŝŽŶĂŶƚŚƵƐǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂĐƵƐ&ƌŝŶŐĞƚƌĞĞ ŽƌŶƵƐĂůƚĞƌŶŝĨŽůŝĂWĂŐŽĚĂĚŽŐǁŽŽĚ ƌĂƚĂĞŐƵƐ͕ƐƉƉ,ĂǁƚŚŽƌŶĞĐƵůƚŝǀĂƌƐ ŝǀŝĂƉĂƵůƵƐƚƌŝƐĂƐƚĞƌŶ>ĞĂƚŚĞƌǁŽŽĚ :ƵŶŝƉĞƌƵƐǀŝƌŐŝŶŝĂŶĂĂƐƚĞƌŶZĞĚĞĚĂƌ >ĂƌŝdžůĂƌŝĐŝŶĂĂƐƚĞƌŶ>ĂƌĐŚ͕dĂŵĂƌĂĐŬ >ŝŶŶĞƌĂďĞŶnjŽŝŶ^ƉŝĐĞďƵƐŚ Ostrya virginiana/ƌŽŶǁŽŽĚ;ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ,ŽƉŚŽƌŶďĞĂŵͿ WŝŶƵƐƐƚƌŽďƵƐĂƐƚĞƌŶtŚŝƚĞWŝŶĞ WƐLJŽĐĂƌƉƵƐŽƉƵůŝĨŽůŝƵƐEŝŶĞďĂƌŬ YƵĞƌĐƵƐĂůďĂtŚŝƚĞKĂŬ YƵĞƌĐƵƐŝĐŽůŽƌ^ǁĂŵƉtŚŝƚĞKĂŬ YƵĞƌĐƵƐŵĂĐƌŽĐĂƌƉĂƵƌƌKĂŬ YƵĞƌĐƵƐƉĂůƵƐƚƌŝƐWŝŶKĂŬ YƵĞƌĐƵƐƌƵďƌĂEŽƌƚŚĞƌŶZĞĚKĂŬ ZŚŽĚĞŶĚƌŽŶ͕ƐƉƉ͘ZŚŽĚĞŶĚƌŽŶĂŶĚƵůƚŝǀĂƌƐ ZŽďŝŶĂƉƐƵĞĂĐĂĐŝĂůĂĐŬ>ŽĐƵƐƚ dŚƵŐŝƐKĐĐŝĚĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂƐƚĞƌŶtŚŝƚĞĞĚĂƌ dŝůŝĂĂŵĞƌŝĐĂŶĂZĞĚŵŽŶĚŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ;ĂƐƐǁŽŽĚͿ ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ     Native Vermont Flowers (Source: Pollinators of Native plants (Heather Holm)) This first list’s plants serve as Larval or specialist bees hosts as well as sources of nectar and pollen Common name Latin Name Prairie Plants Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa Wild Lupine Lupinus Perennis Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa Spotted Bee Balm Monarda punctata Black-Eyed Susan Rudbekia hirta Golden Alexanders Ziza aurea Woodland Edges Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Large-Leaved Aster Eurybia macrophylla Wild Germanium Aguilegia canadensis Virginia Waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum Bloodroot Sanguinaria Canadensis Zig Zag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis Wetland Edges Swamp Milkweed Swamp Milkweed White Turtlehead Chelone glabra Canada Tick Trefoil Oesmodium canadense Common Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed Eurochium maculatum Great St. John’s Wort Hypericium pyramididatum New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae Blue (Swamp) Vervain Verbena hastata Culver’s Root Veronicastrum virginicum This list is of native plants that provide only nectar and pollen. Prairie Harebell Campanula rotundafolia Prarie (Tall) Cinquefol Potentilla arguta Woodland Edges White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda Sharp-Lobed Hepatica Anemone acutilobayes Dutchman’s Breeches Dicentra cucallaria False Soloman’s Seal Maianthemum Virginianum Bishop’s Cap ( Mitterwort) Mitella diphylla Long-Styled Sweet Cicely Ozmorhiza longistylis Smooth Soloman’s Seal Poilygonatum biflorum Rue Anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Large Flowered Bellwort Uvularia grandiflora Downy Yellow Violet Viola pubuscens Wetland Edges Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis Marsh Marigold Calthra palustris Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewii Great Blue Lobelia Lobella siphilitica Obedient Plant Physostegia virginiana Virginia Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 PHONE 802 861-7000 FAX 861-7007 MSKVT.COM March 6, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Bill Miller, Chair South Burlington Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 C/o Mr. Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Email: pconner@sburl.com Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 Dear Chairperson Miller: I serve as counsel for Tom and Donna Anfuso, 695 Nowland Farm Road; Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road; William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons interested in the above-referenced Applications (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”). I am writing to notify the DRB that on February 19, 2019, Judge Thomas G. Walsh of the Vermont Superior Court – Environmental Division (the “E-Court”) issued a verbal directive in In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2-1-19 Vtec (the “E-Court Appeal”) that the DRB cannot take further action on Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 or Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 during the pendency of the E-Court Appeal. Judge Walsh’s February 19th directive is reproduced on the second page of this letter. I am writing to you to make sure the DRB is aware that Judge Walsh has directed that the pending E-Court Appeal “divests the City from further considering” Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 or Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 “until this [E-Court] appeal is resolved.” See Transcript of Feb. 19, 2019 Status Conference, at page 16, lines 10 to 22: Letter to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller March 6, 2019 Page 2 of 3 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com Transcript of Status Conference at 16, In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2- 1-19 Vtec (Feb. 19, 2019). On request, I can supply the DRB with a PDF version of the full 24- page transcript. SOS South Burlington trusts that the DRB will respect Judge Walsh’s February 19th directive and cancel the March 19, 2019 DRB hearing concerning Dorset Meadows. In addition, SOS South Burlington trusts that the DRB will not take any further action concerning the proposed Dorset Meadows project during the pendency of the E-Court Appeal.1 For the record, if the DRB were to act on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s pending Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications while the E-Court Appeal remains pending, SOS South Burlington would maintain that any such action is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. 1 SOS South Burlington continues to maintain that the DRB lacks jurisdiction to consider Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 due to the DRB’s lack of a final decision and vote on Sketch Plan Application No. SD-18-23. This issue is now the subject of the pending E-Court Appeal. Letter to DRB Chairperson Bill Miller March 6, 2019 Page 3 of 3 275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com On a related note, on March 5, 2019, I e-mailed attorneys Robert H. Rushford and Matthew B. Byrne, who serve as counsel for Dorset Meadows Associates LLC, and asked whether they plan to withdraw Master Plan Application No. MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application No. SD-18-29 in light of last Thursday’s E-Court Decision in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), invalidating the City’s TDR Bylaw on State statutory and federal constitutional grounds. (On request, I can supply the DRB with PDF version of the E-Court’s twenty-four page Snyder Group decision and the accompanying one-page Judgment Order.) Withdrawal of the Dorset Meadows Applications seems to make sense given that they are predicated on sixty-seven (67) units of TDR-based density, and such density is no longer an option after Snyder Group. If Dorset Meadows Associates LLC withdraws its Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications, the DRB, could, in my view, take whatever actions are necessary to remove those Applications from its docket without violating Judge Walsh’s above-quoted February 19, 2019 directive. Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail) Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail) Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail) Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail) Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail) Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail) Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail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³(&RXUW$SSHDO´   ,Q\RXUHPDLOPHVVDJH EHORZ \RXDVNPHWRFODULI\ZKDWDFWLRQ,DPDVNLQJWKH'5%WR WDNH5HVSHFWIXOO\LWGRHVQRWPDWWHUZKDW,ZDQWWKH'5%WRGR5DWKHUZKDWPDWWHUVLVZKDW (&RXUW-XGJH7KRPDV*:DOVKH[SHFWVWKH'5%QRWWRGR  2QWKHVHFRQGSDJHRIP\0DUFKOHWWHU,TXRWH-XGJH:DOVK¶VVWDWHPHQWDVLWDSSHDUV RQSDJHOLQHVWRRIWKHDWWDFKHGWUDQVFULSW-XGJH:DOVKLVDGDPDQW  ³7KHIDFWWKDWWKDWWKHDSSHDOLVKHUH>LQWKH(&RXUW@GLYHVWVWKH&LW\IURPIXUWKHU FRQVLGHULQJWKRVH>'RUVHW0HDGRZV3UHOLPLQDU\3ODWDQG0DVWHU3ODQ@DSSOLFDWLRQVXQWLOWKLV >(&RXUW@DSSHDOLVUHVROYHG´  -XGJH:DOVK³ZDQW>V@HYHU\ERG\WREHFOHDU´DERXWWKHIDFWWKDWWKH&LW\³FDQ¶WWRXFK´WKH 'RUVHW0HDGRZV3UHOLPLQDU\3ODWDQG0DVWHU3ODQDSSOLFDWLRQVZKLOHWKH(&RXUWDSSHDOLV SHQGLQJ³6REHDZDUHRIWKDW´-XGJH:DOVKDGPRQLVKHGWKHDWWRUQH\VLQFOXGLQJWKH&LW\¶V DWWRUQH\DQGWKHDWWRUQH\VIRU'RUVHW0HDGRZV$VVRFLDWHV//&  $V-XGJH:DOVKH[SODLQHGZKHQWKH(&RXUWDSSHDOLVRYHU³MXULVGLFWLRQJRHVEDFNWRWKH &LW\´³%XWLQWKHPHDQWLPHZKLOHWKH>(&RXUW@PDWWHULVSHQGLQJMXULVGLFWLRQLVZLWKWKH (QYLURQPHQWDO'LYLVLRQ´  ,IWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ'HSDUWPHQWOHDUQVEHWZHHQQRZDQGWKH0DUFKWK'5%KHDULQJ WKDWWKH'5%LQWHQGVWRKRQRU-XGJH:DOVK¶V)HEUXDU\WKGLUHFWLYHDQG\RXFRXOGOHWPH NQRZWKDWZRXOGEHKHOSIXO$ORWRISHRSOHZLOOQHHGWRVKRZXSRQ0DUFKWK>XQGHU SURWHVW@LIWKHUHLVQRDGYDQFHFRQILUPDWLRQWKDWWKHVFKHGXOHG'RUVHW0HDGRZVKHDULQJLVRII  ,WKLQNRQHZD\WRVDYHHYHU\ERG\DORWRIWLPHZRXOGEHIRU'RUVHW0HDGRZV$VVRFLDWHV //&¶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ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌůĂ<ĞĞŶĞ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ŵŬĞĞŶĞΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕DĂƌĐŚϬϴ͕ϮϬϭϵϴ͗ϮϳD dŽ͗ĂŶŝĞů͘^ĞĨĨф^ĞĨĨΛŵƐŬǀƚ͘ĐŽŵх͖WĂƵůŽŶŶĞƌфƉĐŽŶŶĞƌΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх Đ͗ŵĂŶĚĂ>ĂĨĨĞƌƚLJфĂůĂĨĨĞƌƚLJΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх͖ĂůŝůĂ,ĂůůфĚŚĂůůΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх͖ŵďLJƌŶĞΛŐƌĂǀĞůƐŚĞĂ͘ĐŽŵ͖ZŽďĞƌƚZƵƐŚĨŽƌĚ фƌƌƵƐŚĨŽƌĚΛŐƌĂǀĞůƐŚĞĂ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗ϭϱϬϱŽƌƐĞƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕DĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEŽ͘DWͲϭϴͲϬϭĂŶĚWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJWůĂƚƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEŽ͘^ͲϭϴͲϮϵ  'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐĂŶŝĞů͕ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌůĞƚƚĞƌ͘/ƚǁŝůůďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƚŚĞƌƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞƉĂĐŬĞƚĨŽƌƚŚĞŽĂƌĚ͘ ƐŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ͕ĐŽƵůĚLJŽƵƉůĞĂƐĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŚĞĨƵůůƚƌĂŶƐĐƌŝƉƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ/ǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͍  &ŝŶĂůůLJ͕ƚŽĐĂŶĐĞůĂŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŝƐŶŽƚĂŶĂĐƚŝŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞŽĂƌĚ͘ŽƵůĚLJŽƵƉůĞĂƐĞĐůĂƌŝĨLJǁŚĂƚĂĐƚŝŽŶLJŽƵĂƌĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŵĂŬĞ͍dŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞƚŽĐůŽƐĞŽƌƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĂŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͕ďŽƚŚǁŚŝĐŚŵƵƐƚďĞĚŽŶĞŝŶĂ ƉƵďůŝĐƐĞƚƚŝŶŐ͘  DĂƌůĂ<ĞĞŶĞ͕W ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁWůĂŶŶĞƌ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚƵƌůŝŶŐƚŽŶ ;ϴϬϮͿϴϰϲͲϰϭϬϲ  &ƌŽŵ͗ĂŶŝĞů͘^ĞĨĨф^ĞĨĨΛŵƐŬǀƚ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕DĂƌĐŚϲ͕ϮϬϭϵϳ͗ϱϬWD dŽ͗WĂƵůŽŶŶĞƌфƉĐŽŶŶĞƌΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх Đ͗ŵĂŶĚĂ>ĂĨĨĞƌƚLJфĂůĂĨĨĞƌƚLJΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх͖ĂůŝůĂ,ĂůůфĚŚĂůůΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх͖DĂƌůĂ<ĞĞŶĞфŵŬĞĞŶĞΛƐďƵƌů͘ĐŽŵх͖  ŵďLJƌŶĞΛŐƌĂǀĞůƐŚĞĂ͘ĐŽŵ͖ZŽďĞƌƚZƵƐŚĨŽƌĚфƌƌƵƐŚĨŽƌĚΛŐƌĂǀĞůƐŚĞĂ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ϭϱϬϱŽƌƐĞƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕DĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEŽ͘DWͲϭϴͲϬϭĂŶĚWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJWůĂƚƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEŽ͘^ͲϭϴͲϮϵ  *RRGHYHQLQJ3DXO$WWDFKHGDVDWKUHHSDJH3')ILOHSOHDVHILQGD0DUFKOHWWHUIURP PHRQEHKDOIRI6266RXWK%XUOLQJWRQWR'5%&KDLUSHUVRQ%LOO0LOOHUFRQFHUQLQJWKH'RUVHW 0HDGRZVPDWWHU  ,ZRXOGEHJUDWHIXOLI\RXZRXOGSOHDVHIRUZDUGWKHDWWDFKHGOHWWHUWRWKH'5%PHPEHUVKLSDW \RXUHDUOLHVWFRQYHQLHQFHDVLWFRQFHUQVDQLPSRUWDQWDQGWLPHVHQVLWLYHPDWWHU  7KDQNVYHU\PXFK  %HVWUHJDUGV  'DQLHO$6HII 06.$WWRUQH\V &ROOHJH6WUHHW32%R[ %XUOLQJWRQ97 3KRQH  [_)D[   GVHII#PVNYWFRP_ZZZPVNYWFRP   7KLVHPDLOPHVVDJHLVIRUWKHVROHXVHRIWKHLQWHQGHGUHFLSLHQW V DQGPD\FRQWDLQFRQILGHQWLDODQGSULYLOHJHG LQIRUPDWLRQ,I\RXDUHQRWWKHLQWHQGHGUHFLSLHQWSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKHVHQGHUE\UHSO\HPDLODQGGHVWUR\DOO FRSLHVRUUHFRUGVRIWKHRULJLQDOPHVVDJH  0DUOD.HHQH )URP/RXLVH+DPPRQGNDUPDNRVPR#DROFRP! 6HQW7XHVGD\0DUFK30 7R0DUOD.HHQH &F'DOLOD+DOO 6XEMHFW6RPHRIWKH:LOGOLIIHLQWKH6(4XDGUDQW DĂƌůĂ͕  dŽŐŽĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĞƚƚĞƌ/ǁƌŽƚĞďĂĐŬŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞĂĨĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƉŚŽƚŽƐ/ŚĂǀĞƚĂŬĞŶŽĨƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ ŝŶƚŚĞ^Y͘  WůĞĂƐĞƐŚĂƌĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZ͘  EŽƚŝĐĞƚŚĞŽƉŽƐƐƵŵĂƚƚŚĞǀĞƌLJĞŶĚ͘/ũƵƐƚƌĞĂĚƚŚĂƚsĞƌŵŽŶƚŚĂƐŵŽƌĞĐĂƐĞƐŽĨ>LJŵĞ͛ƐĚŝƐĞĂƐĞƚŚĂŶ ĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐƚĂƚĞ͊͘>ĂƐƚLJĞĂƌsd͘ŚĂĚϲϭϲϭĐĂƐĞƐ͘͘  KƉŽƐƐƵŵĞĂƚƚŝĐŬƐ͕ǁĞŶĞĞĚƚŚĞŵ͊>Ğƚ͛ƐŶŽƚƐŶƵĨĨŽƵƚƚŚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͊͘KǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚƚǁĞůǀĞLJĞĂƌƐŽĨďĞŝŶŐŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶƌĞĚƵĐĞĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚϱϬй͊͊ /ŚŽƉĞƚŚĞďŽĂƌĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƚŚŝƐǁŚĞŶŵĂŬŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͘   ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕   >ŽƵŝƐĞ,ĂŵŵŽŶĚ