HomeMy WebLinkAboutIZ-12-06 - Supplemental - 0201 Allen RoadKimberly Murray
From: Kimberly Murray
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:59 PM
To: patn1553@gmail.com; 'cashaw@post.harvard.edu'
Cc: Pam Mackenzie; Bob Rusten (brusten@sburl.com)
Subject: RE: IZ-12-06 201 Allen Road, Farmstand South
Councilors,
My apologies for lack of background information I realized you hadn't received yet. At the next Council
meeting, Mon. 3/18 on the agenda will be a discussion regarding this application pertaining only to setting a
date to reopen it and warn it in the paper by 3/21 (for the next possible Council meeting date which would
likely be 4/15,) OR a possible motion rescinding the original motion made to reopen the hearing. It is required
that you both have thoroughly read and become familiar with the application so if the motion is rescinded you
are prepared to deliberate Mon. night with the other Councilors who are already familiar with the
application. If this happens, then a decision must be issued by 3/21 as that is the end of the 45 day period to
issue a decision. Please refer to the packet dates which match the date the City Council meeting was taped to
view the pertinent cable access tv recordings on line as well.
I am here to assist you in this task. Bob, will also be sending along an email from our attorney giving you
additional detail in preparation for this item Mon. night. Please let me know how I may be of further
assistance.
Thanks,
Ki,wAizrl.y
Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City gffcial yr stiff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made con1idential by law. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify its
immediately by return entail. Thank you. for your cooperation.
From: Kimberly Murray
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:28 PM
To: patn1553@gmail.com; 'cashaw@post.harvard.edu'
Cc: Pam Mackenzie; Bob Rusten (brusten@sburi.com)
Subject: IZ-12-06 201 Allen Road, Farmstand South
Dear Councilors,
On your ipads in good reader you should be able to sync the new IZ 2013 folder. In that folder will be the
IZ-12-06 folder which contains all the previous Council packets related to IZ Application #IZ-12-06 which is still
outstanding. The 2/4/13 packet has the soil explanation material. The 1/7/13 packet has the soil map of the
property. The 11/19/12 packet has the revised site plans and latest narratives. Also in that file is a summary
sheet of the IZ criteria related to that application that I put together for you today, most of which I pulled out
of the draft decision which was prepared for the 2/26/13 open deliberative session. You will also see today
uploaded the draft decision. This is the same draft decision as in the 2/26/13 packet except I typed 2013
instead of 2012 on a few of the hearing dates on page 1 so I have corrected that.
You should also have access to the Final IZ Decisions folder under IZ 2013 which contains all the signed
decisions to date for your information.
Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. I am happy to meet with you and go over all of it, or if you'd
like to review it on your own first and call or meet with questions that would be fine too.
Thank you,
V-,M LAJ
KIMBERLY L. MURRAY, AICP
Development Coordinator
t 802-846-4131
f 801-846-4101
kmurray@sburl.com
www.sburl.com
575 Dorset Street I South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received orpreparedfor use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
#IZ-12-06
Summary of IZ Highlights
201 ALLEN ROAD
INTERIM ZONING CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #IZ-12-06
Form Based Code:
The proposed planned unit development is not located in the City Center / Williston Road area, but it is
within an area of the City in which the City is contemplating the adoption of Form Based Code
regulations. Forty units of housing are proposed. Housing is oriented to face the street, and includes a
variety of styles and types that are clustered on the lot near Allen Road. The applicant is encouraged to
incorporate additional FBC style design elements into the design of the buildings as the project moves
forward.
Open Space and SusAg:
The proposed planned unit development of 26.2 acres creates a 16 acre area of open space which also
conserves forested areas, and wetland area and buffer. A suggested condition in the draft decision
states that the plat submitted to the DRB should delineate the 16 acres of undeveloped land and
designate said 16 acres of land as open space that shall not be developed. In addition, sustainable
agriculture is supported through the dedication of fifty (50) garden plots of 200 square feet each
delineated on the site plan.
Affordable Housing:
The proposed planned unit development creates forty (40) units of housing of various types and for
various income levels. What staff can glean from the minutes, narratives and notes, this is what the
applicant has specified at a minimum: Of the forty (40) units proposed, at least fifteen (15) units contain
two bedrooms, at least fifteen (15) units contain three bedrooms, at least two (2) units contain four
bedrooms, and at least four (4) units contain one bedroom. Applicant proposes in one of the narratives to
sell most of the units at or below $239,000. To address this proposal from the applicant, staff noted in
draft decision the following condition for the Council's review: At least 27 of the 40 proposed residential
units shall be sold at a sales price at or less than $239,000 which is affordable to families making 80% of
Chittenden County median income. (About two-thirds of the units)
IZ Conditional Use Standards:
Review of standards listed in Section VI of the Interim Bylaw in order for the proposed development to
receive conditional use approval under the Interim Bylaw. See 24 V.S.A. §4415(d), (e). No undue
adverse impact noted and see note regarding traffic under C.
A. The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or lands.
B. The existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
�'.. Traffic nn rnnrlc and highways in the vicinity.
Any changes to the project resulting from the DRB's review will require additional review by
City Council. If the applicant receives approval from the Development Review Board, then
the proposed planned unit development will not have an undue adverse effect on traffic on
roads and highways in the vicinity.
D. Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites.
E. Utilization of renewable energy resources.
F. Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect.
Kimberly Murray
From: Bob Rusten
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:13 AM
To: Amanda Lafferty
Cc: Kimberly Murray; Paul Conner
Subject: RE: IZ-12-06 - Confidential Attorney -Client privileged communication
HI Amanda.
Thanks.
This issue was not on Council's agenda last night so they will have to take it up at their meeting on March 18tn
As the previous Council voted to reopen, can the two new Councilors decide on a date for a new hearing prior to their
review of the material as you describe below? Or do they have to do the review prior to even setting a date for a
reopened hearing?
Also, I plan to share with Council the message below as well as your response to the questions above.
Thanks
Bob Rusten
Deputy City Manager
City of South Burlington
Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or
prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City
business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made
confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notes us immediately by return email. Thank you for your
cooperation.
From: Amanda Lafferty [mailto:ALafferty@firmspf.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:51 PM
To: Bob Rusten
Cc: Kimberly Murray; Paul Conner
Subject: IZ-12-06 Confidential Attorney -Client privileged communication
Bob,
We are writing in connection with the above -referenced matter in response to questions raised in
connection with Application #IZ-12-06 (hereinafter the "Application") to the City Council (hereinafter the
"Council") for approval under the Interim Bylaw. The Council opened the hearing on the Application on June
11, 2012, continued it several times and closed the hearing on February 4, 2013. Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. section
4464(b)(1), the Council was required to issue a written decision no later than March 21, 2013. On February 26,
2013, the Council deliberated in public and voted to reopen the hearing so that the Council could consider new
information prepared by/for the Form Based Code and Sustainable Agriculture Committees.
The two Councilors who to date have not participated in the review of the Application may participate in
the decision on the Application if, prior to the deliberation, they have listened to (or watched) the recording of
the testimony they have missed and reviewed the application and all exhibits and other evidence. However, one
of two things must occur no later than March 21, 2013: the Council must either issue a written decision, or warn
tlwseopened heewing on the Application pursuant to 24 V.S.A. section 4464(a).
If the Council votes tonight to rescind its previous decision to reopen the hearing and proceed with the
deliberation, then the Council must issue a written decision on the Application no later than March 21, 2013. If
the Council decides tonight to proceed with the reopened hearing, then no later than March 21, 2013, the
Council must give notice of the date of the reopened hearing. Alternatively, the Council could take no action
tonight regarding the Application, in order to give the two Councilors, who to date have not participated in the
review of the Application, the opportunity to review the application, testimony, and evidence. The Council then
could decide later, at a Special Meeting, if necessary, whether to rescind its previous decision to reopen the
hearing or to warn the reopened hearing. If the Council votes to rescind its previous decision to reopen the
hearing, then the two "new" Councilors are prepared to deliberate and decide the Application and issue a
written decision no later than March 21, 2013. If the Council decides that it wishes to proceed with the
reopened hearing, then no later than March 21, 2013, the Council must give notice of the date of the reopened
hearing.
You also have asked about steps that the Council could take to mitigate any litigation risk going forward
to the extent that the Council decides to warn the reopened hearing. While the Council is not required to hold
the reopened hearing before March 21, 2013, it should hold the reopened hearing as soon as possible while
providing the required 15 days of notice. See 24 V.S.A. section 4464(a). In addition, the Council should close
the hearing promptly after receipt of all requested or additional information. See 24 V.S.A. section
4464(b)(1). While it is our understanding that the applicant has not always responded promptly to requests for
information or appeared at the continued hearing, the Council should proceed with the reopened hearing
efficiently and only to the extent necessary to obtain all necessary evidence. Upon closing the hearing, the
Council will have 45 days to issue a written decision, but if the Council is prepared to issue a written decision
sooner, then it should.
Please call with any further questions. Thank you.
Amanda
Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq.
Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C.
171 Battery Street
P.O. Box 1507
Burlington, VT 05402
Telephone: 802-660-2555
Fax: 802-660-2552
Website: www.firmspf.com
This Electronic Mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which are CONFIDENTIAL and legally
PRIVILEGED. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission was addressed, as indicated above. If you are not
the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender at 802-660-2555 or the above e-mail address and delete this message and all attachments
from your storage files. Thank you.
S F 2a, 3 b,
101, a b .
s�
b ; rs�It3
/ 7 2l
Ate k ��� ;
3
a/a-7�j3
,83 � �c�-ytie�-tea
.. 3,
S� � �-�—'��, �c•ri ��e�.-Gem
4Z , -
1Y 1 '70 �—., Af)6 e_t
p az-.� cam- �.1 . — G.a
w
� r'
M
U
:T?� - o(:2? - /�.?�
F.4 -4, -'j"a �r
V
r-
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & Interim City Manager
FROM: Kimberly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06 (201 Allen Road) &
Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-14 (462 Shelburne Road)
DATE: February 26, 2013 City Council meeting
Please find enclosed the draft Interim Zoning decision for #IZ-12-06, Larkin Realty, 201 Allen
Road and draft Interim Zoning decision for 4IZ-12-14 Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, 462 Shelburne
Road. These decisions have been reviewed by the City's Attorney.
Please note that the public hearings have been closed and decisions needs to be issued by March
21, 2013.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com
#IZ-12-06
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
CITY COUNCIL
201 ALLEN ROAD
INTERIM ZONING CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #IZ-12-06
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
John Larkin, hereafter referred to as the applicant, requests conditional use approval under 24
V.S.A. §4415 and the Interim Bylaw to construct a forty (40) unit planned unit development
(PUD) (Phase One of a seventy-one (71) unit project) on 26.2 acres at 201 Allen Road.
The City Council held a public hearing on June 11, 20 )August 20, 20P;�September 18,
2CV, October 22, 2611ovember 19, 2012, DecemlNer 17, 2012, January 7, 2013, and
February 4, 2013. Skip McClellan from Ruggiano Engineering, Inc. represented the applicant at
these hearings.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing, the plans and supporting
materials contained in the document file for this application, the City Council finds, concludes,
and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant requests conditional use approval under 24 V.S.A. §4415 and the Interim
Bylaw to construct a forty (40) unit planned unit development (Phase One of a seventy-
one (71) unit project) on 26.2 acres at 201 Allen Road. Applicant has not yet requested
approval of, and the City Council has not reviewed, the 31-unit Phase Two.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is John Larkin.
3. The application was received on April 3, 2012.
4. The subject property is located in the Residential One and Two Zoning Districts. Of the
26.2 acres only 1.2 acres is in the R-1 District. The minimum lot size for these Districts
is 12,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling.
5. The plans indicate two (2) triplexes, six (6) single family dwellings and fourteen (14) two
family dwelling units for a total of forty (40) dwelling units.
6. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans, entitled "Farm Stand South
Sketch Plan," prepared by Ruggiano Engineering, Inc., and dated 10/23/12.
7. Applicant's testimony at the hearing indicates at least fifteen (15) two bedroom units,
fifteen (15) three bedroom units, two (2) four bedroom units and four (4) one bedroom
units would be constructed on site. The remainder would be some combination of units.
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinRealty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
8. Applicant's written testimony proposes that most of the units would be priced at or below
$239,000.
9. The written testimony stated that fifty (50) garden plots of 200 square feet each would be
provided on the northeast side of the property.
10. The resulting development will leave about 16.0 of the 26.2 acres of open space,
consisting of open fields, mixed tree forest and either wetland or wetland buffer, for the
purpose of screening and protecting the proposed homes and roadways and to be an
asset for the future homeowners and the City.
11. In this area along Allen Road there is existing residential development including multi-
family and single family dwelling units.
12. There are wetlands located along the southern portion and the middle of the property.
No other environmental limitations (steep slopes, shallow depth to water tables) or
significant natural resources (wildlife habitat or corridors, rare tree stands, etc.) are
apparent on the subdivision site.
13. The proposed subdivision does not include renewable energy production on site.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. APPLICABILITY OF INTERIM BYLAW, ADOPTED FEBURARY 21, 2012
Interim Bylaw Section 11: Description of Districts Affected
This Interim Bylaw shall apply to all Districts established and listed in Article 3.01(A)(1)-
(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations except for:
A. Airport Industrial
B. Airport
C. Institutional Agricultural — North
D. Queen City Park
E. Lakeshore Neighborhood
F. Municipal
G. Park and Recreation
H. Southeast Quadrant — Village Commercial
I. Mixed Industrial and Commercial District
J. Industrial and Open Space District
The proposed residential development is within the Residential 2 District and is therefore
subject to the Interim Bylaw.
2
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinReaity_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
Interim Bylaw Section Ill: Limitations on Land Development
Within the areas affected by this Interim Bylaw, the following shall not be allowed.
A. New Planned Unit Developments.
B. New subdivisions.
C. New principal buildings that require site plan approval.
D. Alterations to existing principal buildings.
E. Alterations to any other existing structures used for commercial or industrial
purposes.
F. Amendment of a master plan or any related site plans or plats that deviates
from an approved Master Plan in one of the respects set forth in Article 15.07(D)(3)(a)-(e)
of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
The main purpose of an interim bylaw is to temporarily preserve the existing land uses and
maintain the status quo while the municipality formulates its permanent zoning bylaws. See
Town of Mendon v. Ezzo, 129 Vt. 351, 356-357, 358 (1971); see also Section I of the Interim
Bylaw ("[T]he purpose of this Interim Bylaw is to provide the City time ... to prepare and adopt
amendments to the Land Development Regulations that implement the City's goals and
objectives."). For the reasons set forth in the Purpose of the Interim Bylaw, and to temporarily
preserve the existing land uses and maintain the status quo while the City formulates
amendments to its Land Development Regulations, the City Council determined that six types of
development will or could be contrary to the amendments to the Land Development Regulations
and the Comprehensive Plan the City presently is contemplating.
The proposed development, to construct a forty (40) unit planned unit development (Phase One
of a seventy-one (71) unit project) on 26.2 acres at 201 Allen Road is prohibited by the Interim
Bylaw pursuant to Section III (A and B) above, and does not qualify for an exemption under
Section IV of the Interim Bylaw.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Interim Bylaw Section VI: Review of Applications
The City Council may, upon application, authorize the issuance of permits for any type of
development as a conditional use not otherwise permitted by this Interim Bylaw, after
public hearing preceded by notice in accordance with 24 V.S.A. section 4464. The
authorization by the legislative body shall be granted only upon a finding by the Council
that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the
municipality and the following standards. The proposed development shall not result in
an undue adverse effect on any of the following;
A. The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or lands.
B. The existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
C. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
D. Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource
areas and sites.
E. Utilization of renewable energy resources.
F. Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in
effect.
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_Larkin Realty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
The applicant has submitted a complete application for Conditional Use approval by the City
Council pursuant to this section.
As set forth above, the proposed project is prohibited by the Interim Bylaw. Despite this
prohibition, the City Council may authorize the issuance of a permit for any type of development
as a conditional use not otherwise permitted by the Interim Bylaw if the City Council concludes
that the proposed development is consistent with both the health, safety, and welfare of the
municipality as well as the standards identified as A through F in Section VI of the Interim
Bylaw.
A. Is the Proposed Development Consistent with the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the
City of South Burlington?
To determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the health, safety, and
welfare of the City of South Burlington, the City Council considers whether the specific
development proposal is the type of development that will or could be contrary to the
amendments to the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan presently
being contemplated by the City.
The goals discussed in the Purpose statement in Section I of the Interim Bylaw guide the City
Council's analysis of whether the proposed development is the type of development that will or
could be contrary to the anticipated amendments. The Purpose statement is a summary both of
the rationale for adopting the Interim Bylaw and of the studies and planning process that are
underway in the City.
The goals include the adoption of Form Based Code -style regulations for the City Center and
adjacent Williston Road area and possibly other areas of the City; the update of the
Comprehensive Plan to include as City goals the support of sustainable agriculture, the
conservation of open space, and the promotion of housing for people of all incomes and stages
of life; and the preparation and adoption of amendments to the Land Development Regulations
that implement the City's goals and objectives.
The City is in the process of formulating Form Based Code regulations for the City Center and
adjacent Williston Road area and determining to what additional areas of the City, if any, the
Form Based Code regulations will apply. (Form Based Codes focus on physical form rather
than on uses and address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the
form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and
blocks.)
The proposed planned unit development is not located in the City Center / Williston Road area,
but it is within an area of the City in which the City is contemplating the adoption of Form Based
Code regulations. Forty units of housing are proposed. Housing is oriented to face the street,
and includes a variety of styles and types that are clustered on the lot near Allen Road. The
applicant is encouraged to incorporate additional FBC style design elements into the design of
the buildings as the project moves forward. The proposed development will not be contrary to
any Form Based Code regulations that the City is contemplating for this area.
4
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinRealty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
The proposed planned unit development creates a 16 acre area of open space which also
conserves forested areas, and wetland area and buffer. In addition, sustainable agriculture is
supported through the dedication of fifty (50) garden plots of 200 square feet each.
The proposed planned unit development creates forty (40) units of housing of various types and
for various income levels. Applicant proposes to sell most of the units at or below $239,000.
These efforts further the goal of promoting housing for people of all incomes and stages of life.
Based on this analysis, the Council concludes that the proposed development is not the type of
development that will or could be contrary to the contemplated amendments to the Land
Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, is consistent with health,
safety, and welfare of the City of South Burlington.
B. Is the Proposed Development Consistent with the Standards Identified as A through F
in Section I/1 of the Interim Bylaw?
Even when the City Council concludes that a proposed project in consistent with the health,
safety, and welfare of the City of South Burlington, the Council also must conclude that the
proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on any of the standards listed in
Section VI of the Interim Bylaw in order for the proposed development to receive conditional use
approval under the Interim Bylaw. See 24 V.S.A. §4415(d), (e).
Interim Bylaw Section VI(A): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on the capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or
lands.
The proposed planned unit development will result in new demands on existing municipal water
and wastewater services but sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the development. Any
adverse effect is not considered undue. The City Council therefore concludes that the proposed
planned unit development will not have an undue adverse effect on the capacity of existing or
planned community facilities, services or lands.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(B): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on the existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
Because the proposed planned unit development creates residential development similar to that
existing in this area along Allen Road, the City Council concludes that the proposed planned
unit development will not have an adverse effect on the existing patterns and uses of
development in the area.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(C): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed planned unit development, which includes forty (40) dwelling units, will result in
an increase in traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The City Council is confident with
the standards for review in the Land Development Regulations and that traffic generated by the
proposed project will be reviewed in detail by the Development Review Board. Any changes to
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinRealty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
the project resulting from the DRB's review will require additional review by City Council. As the
City Council concludes below, if the applicant receives approval from the Development Review
Board, then the proposed planned unit development will not have an undue adverse effect
on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(D): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural
resource areas and sites.
There are wetlands on the site. The applicant proposed to preserve 16 acres of open space
which will include the wetland areas and the buffer, open fields, and forested areas. No other
environmental limitations (steep slopes, shallow depth to water tables) or significant natural
resources (wildlife habitat or corridors, rare tree stands, etc.) are apparent on the subject
property. There are no adjacent connected environmental limitations or significant natural
resources.
Based on these findings, the City Council concludes that the proposed planned unit
development will not have an adverse effect on environmental limitations of the site or area and
significant natural resource areas and sites.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(E): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on utilization of renewable energy resources.
While the proposed planned unit development does not include renewable energy production on
site, the proposed planned unit development does not preclude the use of renewable energy by
adjacent properties. Thus, the City Council concludes that the proposed planned unit
development will not have an adverse effect on utilization of renewable energy resources.
Interim Bylaw Section VI(F): The proposed development shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or
regulations in effect.
South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Goals (adopted March 9, 2011)
Upon review and consideration of the goals in the existing Comprehensive Plan, the City
Council concludes that the proposed planned unit development will not result in an undue
adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Development Regulations (amended May 7, 2012)
If the following conditions are met, the proposed planned unit development will not result in an
undue adverse effect on the existing Land Development Regulations:
1. The applicant shall receive approval from the Development Review Board prior to
issuance of a zoning permit.
2. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the commencement of any land
development.
6
FAUSERSTIanning & Zoning\Development Review
Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinRealty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
All other city ordinances
If the following condition is met, the proposed planned unit development will not result in an
undue adverse effect on all other City ordinances.
Applicants shall receive all other applicable City permits.
Subject to the three conditions identified above, the City Council finds that the proposed
planned unit development will not have an undue adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan
and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect.
For the reasons set forth above, the Council concludes that the proposed project is
consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the City of South Burlington and the
standards set forth in Section VI(A)-(F) of the Interim Bylaw.
DECISION
Motion by , seconded by , to
approve Interim Zoning Conditional Use Application #IZ-12-06 of John Larkin, subject to the
following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended
herein.
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on
file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. Of the forty (40) units proposed, at least fifteen (15) units must contain two bedrooms, at
least fifteen (15) units must contain three bedrooms, at least two (2) units must contain
four bedrooms, and at least four (4) units must contain one bedroom.
4. At least 27 of the 40 proposed residential units shall be sold at a sales price at or less
than $239,000 which is affordable to families making 80% of Chittenden County median
income. G 7 S �. " v/3
5. The plat submitted to the DRB shall delineate the 16 acres of undeveloped land and
designate said 16 acres of land as open space that shall not be developed.
6. The applicant shall receive approval from the Development Review Board prior to
issuance of a zoning permit.
7. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the commencement of any land
development.
7
F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen —Larkin Rea lty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
#IZ-12-06
8. Applicant shall receive all other applicable City permits
9. Any changes to the project plans shall require approval of the South Burlington City
Council so long as the Interim Bylaw remains in effect.
Rosanne Greco— yea/nay/abstain/not present
Helen Riehle — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Pam Mackenzie — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Sandra Dooley — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Paul Engels — yea/nay/abstain/not present
Motion
by a vote of
Signed this day of February 2013, by
Rosanne Greco, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of
this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court,
Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be
mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street,
South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental
Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontoudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for
more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
8
FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review
Board\Findings_Decisions\2013\IZ_12_06_201 Allen_LarkinRealty_FarmstandSouth_ffd.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Kimb ly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06
(201 Allen Road)
DATE: February 4, 2013 City Council meeting
This is a continued public hearing from January 7, 2012. The Council requested additional soil
information on the property. Attached is the Vermont Soil Fact Sheet -Detailed Definitions and
Explanations, submitted by the applicant for review. Staff is also attaching for your reference,
the Farmland Classification Systems for Vermont Soils, USDA, NRCS, June 2006, which
contains some of the same information as the Soil Fact Sheet but does include some additional
detail. Staff is also including specific fact sheets describing the four main soils on the property
for your information.
The application involves a 40 unit planned unit development (phase 1 of 71 unit project) at 201
Allen Road. The parcel is located in the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts.
Our understanding is Skip McClellan from Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. will be in a tendance at the
public hearing on Monday. hC
P PA
P
1)16
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
h o �Gi �c�i� C— i h c�u�-►O , ur �'
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Kimberly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06
(201 Allen Road)
DATE: January 7, 2013 City Council meeting
This is a continued public hearing from December 17, 2012. Attached is an email and site plan
addressing the soil types on the property and the open space criteria in more detail as requested
by the Council.
The application involves a 40 unit planned unit development (phase 1 of 71 unit project) at 201
Allen Road. The parcel is located in the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts.
Our understanding is Skip McClellan from Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. will be in attendance at the
public,hearing on Monday.
5O�
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com
From: Skip McClellan
To: Kimberly Murray
Cc: iohn(4larkinrealty. net
Subject: Farmstand South
Date: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:47:58 AM
Attachments: Farmstand South Existino Soils Plan to SB City Council 122712.pdf
Hi Kimberly,
Hope you made it to work on this very snowy day. In response to your request for
more information concerning Sustainable Agriculture and Open Space, please find
attached a map of the existing soils on the property.
Sustainable Agriculture: As you can see, very little of the parcel has soils
considered "prime" and future farming operations would probably not be
economically feasible. Small plot gardening however, could be a very good use for
portions on the project. Small gardens tended by a single homeowner could be
fertilized and enhanced in small amounts to allow fruits, flowers and vegetables to
grow on the less desirable soils.
Open Space: In the previously submitted drawings we delineated and designated
large portions of the project as "Open Space". Please refer to the two letters
submitted to the Council for specifics about sizes and shapes.
We hope this will provide the City Council with enough information to conclude
with a favorable response. We are anxious to see the smaller, more affordable homes
be constructed in order to allow more homeowners to live in South Burlington.
Thank you.
Skip McClellan
ski @p shrugg.com
RUGGIANO ENGINEERING INCORPORATED
20 Kimball Ave. Suite 202N
South Burlington, VT
www.ruggianoengineering.com
ZZ
HmA ', ;''I
II
j'i` ' - I �
II
— -- — -- -- — ---- Y
-----
— ------- - — ---- — -------- --- — ---- — ---- —
— - — -----
rzono
— ----- — --- — ----
-GeB
\- ------
HnA
-
-�
i- - - ` -;
BIB
J—
AdA
&B
C.0
EwA
VeC
WB
iI
TOTAL PARCEL AREA
I
26.2 ACRES
ri
EXIS�?ILS PLAN
FARM STAND SOUTH
Existing Soils Plan
Phase One for City Council Application
ZT 7= V.
J�TUJGGIANO engineering, inc.
C-1
r I BlA i ,
i
I
I
I 1 J I I
1
-- ----- ---- --- :� :--------J---------------- ------------ -----
-- ---
---------------
----"---- - --- - - --------
\- ---- _________________
____________l_____——__—____________________
ALLENROAD
_____—____ --
11 '1
_
____
GeB
---—----------------— --__T_—__—_
------------
ETA
I=
I
I ,--------------------�:; ,,
BIB 1
\ AdA
I ,
1 I I I
� GrB I --------� I '----*--' C I I
\'I
HnC
GeC
_ 1 1
VeC
\ EwA -------------``I I
VeB
I
I
TOTAL PARCEL AREA
26.2ACRES
fj
_
1,t
EXISTING SOILS PLAN
c'1 SCALE:1" = 80'
Graphlc Scale
80 0 90 160 320
PLAN REFERENCES: ON THE WEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ALL ROADWAYS TO BE CITY STREETS WITHIN 50'
WID UG -OF-WAYS. PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED ATEACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING. �yy, piuvn �varv�rvc
1) PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION FROM DIGITAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BLUTON MUNICIPAL LMLDTE5 ARE AVAILABLE AND WILL BE LRBIZED.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS, W KIMBALL AVE, SO. BURLINGTON, YI'
`.SQ� CLASSIFICATIONS, WD5O LOAM,"NDAGRm T"RA` TSLOPE FARM STAND SOUTH
ON-SITE
PHOTOGRAP TAKEN FROM AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS,CONDUCTED.
LR)AR AERIAL SURVEYING AND Hd ADESBURG ME
SAND LOAM, TOS,OT05PERCENESLOPFS PRIME
6 O
ON -SITE PHOTOGRAPHY. NO GROIINDSURVEY CONDUCTED. E,,A EOIVESENCMURG AND
WHADYL SOHJ% 0 TO PERCENT SLOPES PRIME 3
= BELGRADE AND ELDRID E SOBS, B T03 PERCENT SLOPES STATEWIDE 2 South Burlin t Vermont
B0 BELGMDE AND ELLURIDGESNDYL AM, 5 TCENTSLENT STAT:WID6 3 gon
NOTES: GIB CROTON GRAYELLY ENE SANDY LOAM,5T012 PERCENT SLOPES STATEWIDE T
GC GEORGIASTONYLOAM,STOI5PERCENTSLOPES STATEWIDE Existing Soils Plan
FW
LOWNEROFRECORD: Hn FBNESBURCESANDYL°AM.BT015PERCENT5LOrES STATE ME 7
JOFB4TARKW YeC vERGENNFscLAY,EID]zrFxcENTSLQrEs STATEWIDE 7 TBSHELBURNE ROAD Phase One for City Council Application
SOUTHBURLPIGNN,VT0540J MOW DRAWER 6NLAN BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAT.BOUNDARYLWEWFORMATION
SHOWN LS BASED ON PLANS REFERENCED. THE PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS AND OTHER SHEET NO.
]. APPLARA REAL PROPERTY DFSCRIPHONS PROVIDED ON THIS DRAWING ARE FOR ILLUSPRATION PROJECT NO .......... 2010036
LARKTN REAL ESTATE PURPOSES ONLY. THEY DONOT DEFW E LEGAL RIGHTS OR MEET LEGAL REQUNEMENTS FOR A
TB SHELBURNE ROAD LAND SURVEY AS DESCRIBED N VSA.TITLE S7 SECTION 1403 AND SHALL NOT BE USED IN LMU UGGIANO DRAWN BY .................. SLNI
SOUTH BURUNGTON, VT 3 OFASURVEYASTHEBASISOFANYLANDTRANSFERORESTABLBSW OFANYPROPERTY
RIGHT. ngineering, inc.
3. PARCEL AREA:263 ACRES 5LAKE STREET
4. PROWUHASCRBTION: PHASE ONE OFTHE DEVELOr IN3]BU DINGS FONFD OFALLEN
9T. ALBANS, VERMONT 05479
ROADWRHAPIFIGURATIONS.PMSEONENTIALUORUI31 BULLNM FONE,TWOAND I'IiONC•-(802)524-9300FAX -(802)52411. DATE .......................... 12/26/12
THREEIWPP CONFIGUMTONS. PHASE ONE WRLBE40 REIDENMLIWFR W2?BUILDWCS HT QrN1-RUGclgrvolO+cINEEwrvc INC. 1 OF 1 SHEETS
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Kimberly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06
(201 Allen Road)
DATE: November 19, 2012 City Council meeting
This is a continued public hearing from October 22, 2012 to allow the applicant more time to
submit additional material for the Council's review. Attached is another narrative dated
11/12/12 and two revised sketch plans.
The application involves a 40 unit planned unit development (phase 1 of 71 unit project) at 201
Allen Road. The parcel is located in the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts.
Our understanding is Skip McClellan from Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. will be in attendance at the
public hearing on Monday.
�✓� P I t X" S w" , t�e�.f Gat 3 6^
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
:�RGIANOg><neering, inc.
Civil Engineers • Land Use Planners
November 12, 2012
City of South Burlington
City Council
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: 40 Unit (Phase One) PUD - 201 Allen Road
Interim Zoning Conditional Use Application #IZ-12-06
File: 2010036
Councilors,
During the process of review for Phase One of the proposed 26.2 acre development on Allen
Road, Farm Stand South, several questions have been posed and answered in the forum of the
City Council hearing room. In the interest of having a
written record of those items, and an effort to clarify
the important points of the Interim Zoning
conditions, we offer this document to the Council.
Affordability is a very big concern for most of our
friends. Friends who would like to become our
neighbors. During the hearing process it was
determined that a closing price of $239,000 would be
o� considered "affordable" for the purposes of this approval. We can commit to staying at or
below that cost for most of the units in this Phase One proposal. In order to present all types of
housing to future homeowners, homes will be widely ranging in size and therefore in price.
Single family homes could be two or three bedroom units and range from 1,500 to 2,000 square
feet. Duplexes will be two bedroom units of 1,200 to 1,600 square feet each. The triplex
5 Lake Street 0 St. Albans, VT 05478 0 Ph. 802.524.9300 6 Fax. 802.524.9700
structures could contain one bedroom units of 850 square feet, two bedroom units of 2,500
square feet and larger units with three or four bedrooms each.
-Topography-also aids- m--keeping-the- costs -down- and
screening the units from view along the Allen Road
corridor. Most of the structures (20 buildings) will be at a
lower elevation than almost all the surrounding homes
but still essentially level with Allen Road. Utilities can be
easily routed into the site and therefore, construction
costs will be minimal. The remaining open fields are 10'
to 60' higher in elevation allowing them to stand out in
the eye of the viewer and letting the existing homes along
Spear Street have a clear view over the most of the new homes.
Although this area has not been specifically identified for the change to Form Based Codes, the
development will be a perfect fit. The units have been packaged in combinations of one, two
and three unit structures of two and three story
configurations. Each building type has been placed to
comfortably blend with the surrounding residential
housing types. The smaller single and duplex ■■ i pa
existingsingle family home and an existing church. / w
structures 20 buildings) are to the west near an
� g Y g
The triplex structures (2 buildings) have been located
along Allen Road, directly across the street from the
larger homes in the Irish Farm subdivision.
Community gardens are an amenity to any modern housing development. Abutting a 10' wide
asphalt paved recreation path, two areas have been set aside in Phase One (see Sketch Plan) to
provide approximately 50 individual garden plots
of 10'x20' each. Four parking spaces will be
0 provided along the future Phase Two access
�r
�) roadway for use of the gardeners and to provide
(. k access to the recreation path. Infrastructure, such as
water and electrical connections, will be brought
into the growing areas and a community "Tot Lot"
playground abuts the same recreation path less
than 30 yards away.
After Phase One, 16.0 acres of the 26.2 acres will remain undeveloped. Largely open fields and
mixed tree forest, those areas will be left unchanged at this time in order to screen and protect
the proposed homes and roadways. The forested areas, approximately 10.4 acres, containing
valuable wetlands and other habitats, will be perpetually undeveloped and remain an asset to
the homeowners and to the City.
Please find attached copies of the enhanced
Sketch Plans to clarify the proposal. We remain
open for any questions and will attend the next
hearing, November 19, to present this proposal
and answer questions from the Council, Staff
and public. Thank you.
Sincerely,
RUGGIANO ENGINEERING INCORPORATED
)&, X0- Qjh _
Skip McClellan
RECRlW1IONPA`M�aGENt7YACC—TOMOPO5FD ---------
WATER SUPPINSYMN �MM
-- ----------------------------------------------- ------____________
----------- ----------------------- ='7------— ----------------- :: - -----
----------------
-
--------- --------------- -
--=--
--
-------------- ----
--- — — — — --- -- — — — — —
-----------
------------- ---------
- — ------ ---- — ------ ---------- .1 ALIGN PROPO�PD ROADWAY WIM E—ING IN MEC110ti
PROIX)SED PEDESTRIAN CRMING IV �JING RIECREA:EOIN PATH
ALLEN ROAD -- ----------- I- - ---- --------- — ---- ,-'
---------- -7 -------- 11 --------
----- ----------------- --------- - ------ -------
10
I VX OOM M I N M1 GARDEN
,� tl 1- I pitmsw G-vi IY, SANITARY T-
SEWIER 5n5]MSI
Ir
N,
t
' E=)
� WATER
Q EQ
X
0
Sbl!
♦
VPRO"' EWMI?"S.AIV=
%
PROP05EDWATER
SITPLY SYSTEM r— PAMMFOROPRIMMYGARDINS
ANDRECR—PAMAMM
jl
PR.-- RRAVTTYSANTIARY
J
RV_
SYSTEM
0
it
;MRMWA ttt WAMSTIMIIGARDYN—AR�FRID
TREA—RT --
AREA
"N
10—COMMi—RDENPIA>. CNISHOWNT)
A5SL'M DPRO"EDMNffARY V
,J
PHASE J/
7-
II
Two
FUTURE
CONSTRUMON
DOTTED LINE MACAWS 41TTAND LIMI'T
If
NATURAL AREA 1
MA
AWRWRFA
OPEN SPACE
NATURAL AREA
OPEN SPACE
J
FARM'L
South Burlington
Phase One for
SKETCH PLAN RUGGIANO
%ea&eering, inc.
Graphic Scale 5 1 AKE STREET
fm ST AIBANSVFRM0N 05478
4,! 40 80 160 PHONE .(802) 524.9" FA.X - (802) 524-9,700
PYRIGNtC)"Ij. R—No �-.—P—Nt
SKETCH PLAN
SCAI.F.1' = 80'
Gleph,, Scalp
Met
BU 0 80 160 320
PLAN REFERENCE:
SHOWN 15BASED ON PLAN REFERENCE I1. THE PROPERTY LINTS, EASEMENTS AND OTIIFR
S.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PRASE ONE OF TILE DEVELOPMENT ON TIM SOUTH SIDE OF ALIEN
REAL PROPERTYDESCRUTIONS PROVIDED ON THIS DRAWING ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION
1)PROPERTYLWEINI. RMAT1ON'MOMDIGRALINFORMATIONPROVIDEDRYBi1TTON
ROAD WITH A PUD CONSISTEN�GMMSITMNJ 1, UNITS IN M BUTDAGS OT ONE, TWOAND
PURPOSLSONLY. TIM DO NOT DUNE LEGAL RIGITS OR MELT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FORA
PROFESSIONAI.IAND.SIIRIRY(JR.2U KiMBA1.I.AVESD BIRI.NGTON. VT
THREFIINITCO'NHGIIRATIONS.PHASF.ONFWR.I.NE40RFSIDFNTIALVNITSN22BI'II.DNGS
ON THE WEST PORTION OF THE. WITHOF
(IL.
LA ND SURVTiY AS DESCRIBED IN VSA.TTRE 27 SECTION TIM AND SHALL NOT RE USED IN LRU
A SURVEY AS THE BASIS OF ANY LAND TRANSFER OR ESTABLLSHMP.NTOF ANY PROPERTY
2)EXISTING FEATURES TAKEN FROM AERIAL PiO .RAPH.S, LIDAR AERIAL SURVEYING AND
1 - F-WAYE. A PROVTDE.AT EACH NDIVIECAL BUiI.DING.
RIGHT.
ON51'11 PHOTOGRAPHY. NO GROUND SURVEY CONDUCTED.
MINIC.IPAI. UTR ITIFE ARE AVAILABLE AND WI.I. BE LTII.1].BD. SETBACK WAIVERS W II..I. BE
REQUITED ANU REQUFSTEU FOR SEVERAL OF THE STRUCTURES.
11.'THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING AND DETERMINING THE
NOTES:
6.DE'TAILED EIORMWATER QUANTITY AND TREA'IMEN'I CALCULATIONS REMAIN I'OUE
LCtiA'T ION, SIZE, AND ELEVATION OFALL EXISTING UT'ILHIES PRIOR'I'O'THE STARTOF
CONSTRUC'HON.THE ENGINIMRSHALLBE NCTMIED N WRHWGOP ANY 0-11ANIMSOR
C'ONDUCT'ED AT'THE TIME OF THIS PLAN. HNISHEU GRATING SHOWN IS APPROX-1I.
U'HLLUESAJUNDIN'IIm, MGWH'HTHEPROI'USEDCONSTRUCITON.API'ROI'RIA'IE
L OWNEROF RECORD:
REMEDIAL ACTION SHALL BETAKEN BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
JOINIARI(N
210 SHEI.BIRNF. ROAD
7.NOEX5TNCORPROP0.5EDTRAFFICCMCIMUONORQUANTITYSTUDIESPERFO2 EDAT
TIR TIME OF TITS PLAN.
12 TITLS TOPOGRAPIIC SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITH OUT TILE BENEFH OF'DIG SAFE'
SOUTH BI'RI.L.NGTON, VT 11W
MARKNGS. LTI]TY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE NOT WARRANTED TO
1APPLICANT:
A NNDE.RGROUND ITII.IIIFS LOCATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM SURROUNDING PROJBT.1'.S,CTY
RRCORDSANDVIBUAI. CNFSTIGAHIONSANDSHOLIIDBECO F.RHDAPPROXI`AAIE.T tI
BE EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT" DIG SAES" BEFORE
COMMENCING ANY WORK AND SI IALL PRESERVE ALL EMSTING UTILITIES NOT SPECIFIED TO
LAMIN REAL ESI A I'E
PIANDOFSNOTREPRESENTANINDERGROUND LTI.IFYSURVBY. NOTIFY D—Iff, BEFORE.
BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED AS PART OF THE PROTECT.
21U SIIEWURNE ROAD
A --AY HON ACTIVIPFS BEGIN.
5OU'HTBURLING'I'ON. V/'OS103
I. PARCEL AREA —ACRES
RPOLLOWrHE VER(INFEROSIONPRelENT1ONANDSEDI.ETTC(lillOL HANDBOOK
cFRMONT DEPAR MEN r OF ENVItONMEN IAL CONSERVA DON, WATER QUAulY DNIS'ION
TOTAL PARCEL AREA
i. ]ONMG/DENSIrv: RESIDE\TL1C 2(R2) ]SAACRESX2UNITS/ACRE-MUNHS
STORMWATER SECTION, AUGUST 2W6) FOR APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ON
TIES SITE.
r�/
26.2 ACRES'
RESIDENTIAL 1(Ri) 1.2 ACRES %1 1 VNH
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS • 51 UNITS
IU, TI IS DRAWING 15 NOT A BOUNDARY St`RVEY PLAT. BOUNDARY IYNE INFORMATION
southburlington
VERMONT
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Kimberly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06
(201 Allen Road)
DATE: September 18, 2012 City Council meeting
This is a continued" ublic hearing from August 20, 2012. The applicant has submitted a
narrative regarding the Interim Zoning criteria per the City Attorney's guidance and is attached
along with the site plan. Staff would like to clarify from review of the applicant's narrative that
the DRB has not approved this project and the applicant has completed sketch plan review only.
Having reviewed the December 6, 2011 minutes of the last DRB meeting on this project, it is
clear that the DRB continued to have concerns about maximizing open space and suggested the
applicant look into moving the access road between the building clusters and also suggested
moving two (2) buildings closer together.
The application involves a 40 unit planned unit development (phase 1 of 71 unit project) at 201
Allen Road. The parcel is located in the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts.
Our understanding is Skip McClellan from Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. will be in attendance at the
public hearing on Monday.
CAI
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, T 05403 tel 802. 46.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
LLEWELLYN • HOWLEY
I N C O R P O R A T E D
September 11, 2012
City of South Burlington
City Council
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: 40 Unit PUD - 201 Allen Road
Interim Zoning Conditional Use Application #IZ-12-06
File: 2010036
Councilors,
We provide this response in support of the above referenced application to construct a 71 unit PUD (in
two phases of 40 and 31 units) adjacent to Allen Road. This narrative addresses the Standards for
Review and the concerns listed in Section VI of the Interim Bylaw.
Zoned R2 on the Official City Zoning Map, the property is currently an undeveloped, open hayfield and
mixed leaf forest. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential development with Allen Road,
woods and a church along the remainder. An existing residential subdivision, Irish Farm, and a higher
density residential development, Farm Stand, is directly across Allen Road to the north.
This proposal is in support of Phase One of a two phase, 71 unit, development on the south side of Allen
Road. This initial application is for Phase One, consisting of 40 units to be constructed in duplex and
triplex configurations, clustered along the west and north boundaries of the property.
Our recent application was to the Development Review Board for Sketch Plan consideration. The
project underwent Staff review, presentation at four hearings, and consideration of impacts to the
capacity of City facilities. This has been a thorough, well thought out application. No concerns were
raised and it is clear City services will not be compromised by the addition of these homes within an
area currently developed with residential structures in varying configurations. This residential use, with
access on a main connector road, will have minimal impact on neighboring developments.
The site is currently undeveloped with forested areas separating open fields. The forested areas
comprise approximately one third of the property and contain wetlands and wildlife habitat. None of
these forested areas and the features they protect will be affected by this project. We have worked,
through many meetings with Staff and the DRB over the years, to avoid impacts to these sensitive
Engineering • Land Development • Permitting
20 Kimball Ave., Ste. 202N • South Burlington • Vermont • 05403
T 802.658.2100 • F 802.658.2882 • e-mail: info@lhivt.com
www.lhivt.com
City of South Burlington City Council September 11, 2012
environmental assets of the City of South Burlington. Considering the location, shape, slope and
general attributes of the property, the homes will be placed in "correct" locations, best suited to
compliment environmental and natural uses.
The design of the homes will be of the most modern and environmentally sensitive construction
materials and methods possible ensuring energy efficiency within the financial means of most of the -
State and City's residents. Moderately sized, low rise homes will be attractive and favor young and old
homeowners. Considering affordability as an important factor in today's housing market, this site easily
lends itself to this type of development. It is an essentially a level site with municipal utilities nearby
providing an easily constructed and economical project. The careful review and acceptance by the
Development Review Board, presumably considering the best use of the area and city (as would the City
Council), ensures the design is positioned to fit within the current, and future regulations. Although
future regulations may not encourage "Form Based Codes" in this area, the homes and structures
surrounding the project are of one, two, and three story construction, and any "Form Based Codes" style
regulations that may override the current zoning will fit comfortably in the moderate sized massing of
this proposal.
As much as one third of the parcel has been left undeveloped and open in nature and function. The
structures are clustered in spaces surrounded by forest and placed on individual lots to allow sufficient
"elbow room" and open space within the development itself. Each lot of the Phase Two subdivision is
large enough to support a private garden. In addition, a community garden area is devoted entirely to
public use. Until the Phase Two portion of the development is approved and constructed, the open SPA
fields currently evident along Allen Road will be maintained and cut regularly.
It is presumed, by the City Council's attorneys that this project will contradict permanent bylaws yet to
be adopted. This seems highly unlikely due to the extensive review by the Development Review Board.
We assume the DRB will continue to improve the City's growth and encourage a vibrant economy similar
to the interests of the City Council. The Board's approval indicates the likelihood of future compliance.
Sincerely,
L ELLYN-HOWLEY INCORPORATED
7
Skip McClellan
LLEWELLYN • HOWLEY
I N C O R P O R A T E D
Locus
Notes
ia..../A...s
aM�-.a,.e:nr.< v,a..,. <rre...•..o�.+o, r...m...N..r
J� 1..1r
RvO� nD m*®9��>(MYWvb O?]pY1POmtMN
0.M1W.urrt9rPW.rmlrv/fkrhWrrorx9��,Ysri6u[Ornrof.r
t
� h.Ogrq,lTQf1t0
N •.•r.�3.—f+lwrs r�w�m
u�5�ik.bmrkv� wa M1vnumKreP^kN•.OM
JyrOrr'�"°""'�gq/
��
,rA..hO-4/anonml ayrrnWa.r.rrenpwrmegarM
M/es.m+'bHS.rM...14pwMIAr, 5..0.vlv4r-t Yr
Mfi..e.rN ve.warFnwvmrwrbnm+seaunrJ�nN,b.tecl
N rlgvn.ov NBeWrrnN4wuweca. wmr Qadry dnex
L (OrtlN.. 161mu
L L.YyGwN): WWnrHe(PP)�flOmea�SWr✓ .IOO.H
bMetrdnvra.errPa�heW rrMm.nrmbbW.a n.r:.nM
seMrrbor rle rwu el OL,1+r F+:OvdV.aY! LMp^^*-re
rwvh rSNbaAMXtl6)IagP4.br.vmmm�mYrouwm
AOWw6Yl R,)-12 ara.t•lur.
ieNWIdrN4�Wn=Stern
>.r^�rp9(ernne Na /ro..rbN+rWV•SYLAf.vWO.vOWW
n»n pnryoply.lBgwNp.wvtoW rm
awenewuaE
LLEWELLYN - HOWLEY
w
1 e�
�
MEON.OIlAT0.0
Ye
FARM STAND SOUTH
Sketch Plan - Phase One foe
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Kimberly L. Murray, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06 (201 Allen Road) —
DATE: August 20, 2012 City Council meeting
The applicant requested that the City Council continue this hearing from June 11, 2012 to August
20, 2012 in order for them to prepare a written statement regarding the Interim Zoning criteria
per the City Attorney's guidance. Staff communicated with the applicant last week and no
additional materials were submitted by the time Council packets were prepared. Attached is the
original application materials submitted (site plan) including a letter provided by a neighbor to
the project for the Council's records.
The application involves a 40 unit planned unit development (phase 1 of 71 unit project) at 201
Allen Road. The parcel is located in the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts.
Our understanding is representatives for the applicant will be in attendance at the public hearing
on Monday.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com
tAcus
Notes
LMwe/Rem.R lMjredaryrhs Kae Pv dlalwpsMmhnm d9dAM
J,MLsIA WW,H.O m�e9�]risdbWvb M1.tO4Wit,do-a MrY 0.wurri9rPW.r-/rrvpk rlobrlaaf�m+�rysf�6ui.'/a�rdar
.W SYbm.W1 uMm'Me+4-Auv On.a Ir IW,6rYy.M Iwee/rwrw
San.FKylm YfiSgl h enLLndhmv-te Al �tib CyMrb MF6OWr 9. WfsywMmYMu 4mMoaw kW M1w r.+wW'YP^rJrrr.aM
.'�. dm»�a. ra°�'s.m.u..w�w ww+L.,Fwwe. rim.dr+wM..rynwrwmwarmwraaa+�%"+r..rw�
a�.w.ew�.ew ror."w �wm.w,yw�,nnnw..r. wrrryoy«lea/w ey.
zawm"wa"e
ad1Oe4'9rm lTfiN! SMyvryM F/w-nin/ 4'mIF/wmewweA/Mh".nw
M/utivro'lNSmspr..V KedWIAr", Sa R.lnpro�Y/
L 3brtlAr.s 16Lwu 0.arddr/wsrrpmr�ryeaf irmrme"rmN4n'w..,.:"r.a
a.Lwydwy. RukmrHL/eel•SSomrwiviuA"".•lOu.M1 mlrrlydar Mer:ne/rwpw F:areY-W dan4av^u..x.
TddP"iinitlu.Tr-51 wY, LFMYy/ 2W /rc.euvlpYrrym4Lt0/R rAY+mMs!
..dr. wryw+r. ne a»✓+.+...ve.rm
owHitSCALE
i..n. so rt
ry raprmur,/6nruw.r"ralsrmaiw. W.rr 4><.rY Gvatai
ennnr. rsdw Ap.r mro//=wr.r«r.w�rmm,�.�.em
'NI LLEWELLYN - HOWLEY UCIty
ARMSTANDSOUFIi
_ a Iweo.ro. o etch Plan - Phase One foi
Council Application
Alan F. Sylvester
1985 Spear Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
May 30, 2012
Rosanne Grecco, Chair
South Burlington City Counsel
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-06 of John Larkin
Dear Ms. Grecco:
I received your notice of public hearing scheduled for June 11, 2012 on the above. It was
my understanding that the Interim Zoning By-law specifically prohibited a planned
development unit in this area.
There have been so many applications for the development of this area by Mr. Larkin in
the last year or.so_ I have had trouble keeping track. It looks like this latest one is exactly
the same as the objectionable sketch plan submitted in the Fall of 2011 with one
exception. He is now trying to phase in this massive development. I don't see how that
makes it any less objectionable.
I am enclosing a letter my wife and I sent to the Development Review Board on
December 29, 2011 relating to Larkin's Sketch Plan Application #SD-11-21. I would like
to make this letter a matter of record to this latest application since the comments apply
equally to both.
One additional observation: The longstanding zoning laws for this area allows for a
maximum of 51 residential units consisting primarily of two residences per acre. I simply
can't understand why an applicant should be allowed to increase the number of units by
over 40% with two and three story buildings and infrastructure that would pretty much
cover all of the land.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Alan F. Sylvester
December 29, 2011
City of South Burlington
Development Review Board
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Larkin Sketch Plan Application #SD-11-21
Dear Board:
I am writing to comment on the latest version of the applicant's sketch plan.
It appears the application covers pretty much every square inch of available land
with buildings and infrastructure.
The land is zoned R-1 and R-2. This designation has been in effect for at least 40
years. The zoning regulations specifically state that an R-1 district is where low -
density single family residential uses are encouraged. And, R-1 districts are
located in areas where low densities are necessary to protect scenic views and
cultural resources to provide compatibility with adjacent natural areas. The long
standing neighborhood immediately adjacent to this plan is the perfect example of
compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning laws. The sketch plan is
totally incompatible with the zoning laws, the importance of providing open
spaces, and the protection of natural areas and wildlife habitat.
We have lived on a roughly 14 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to the
applicant's parcel for close to 40 years. At the time of purchase we, and I am sure
others, researched exactly the regulations and policy of the City in this area. If we
thought a project such as the one most recently proposed was going to be an
acceptable use, we would have never purchased and built. Our Northern
boundary line of approximate 900 feet adjoins the applicant's southerly boundary.
Before we built, we had discussions with our neighbors to our immediate west
concerning possible obstruction of their views, and the views from Spear Street.
We eventually built a one-story home in order preserve the views. Several years
ago we received a call from a real estate broker advising she had a client interested.
in 1971 Spear Street, but was reluctant to buy due to a concern we might build a
2nd level causing views to be obstructed.
The homestead located at 1855 Spear Street directly east of the proposed
development was in existence prior to our construction in the early `70's. It
originally comprised roughly 2 1/2 acres. Recently, an additional 1'/2 acres directly
north and east of the proposed development were added.
The homestead formerly owned by the Brousseau's at 191 Allen Road has also
been in existence since the late 1960's or earlier. This home directly adjoins the
proposed development on the west and south and sits on an acre of land.
The Gentile homestead at 195 Allen Road immediately to the south of the
proposed development is well over an acre.
All of the foregoing homes, that totally surround the proposed development, are
single family one-story, split level, or two stories. Most of them greatly exceed
the zoning acreage requirement. None are non -compliant. To allow three-story
triple occupant buildings would be totally out of character for the long standing
neighborhood, have a significant impact on the views, and transform it from a
relatively quiet, low density, aesthetically appealing, environmentally beneficial
neighborhood into a mishmash of buildings. The applicant is trying to jam 70
living units plus parking plus all other forms of impervious surfaces on a piece of
land surrounded by single family homes, wetlands, and natural areas.
We are particularly sensitive to the effect any development of this parcel of land
will have on the adjacent wetlands and natural areas. For those of you who may
not be familiar with the devastating 1996 proposed development of this land, I
would strongly urge you to review the file. Very simply put, the natural areas and
wetlands were almost completely destroyed before the State and the City
interceded to stop the project. Before this debacle, flora and fauna were bountiful.
There were deer, grouse, pheasant, fox, bobcat, opossum, ermine, skunks, rabbits,
nesting red tail hawk, nesting horned owl, saw whet owl, turkey, etc. Wild flowers
2
such as lily of the valley, jack-in-the-pulpit, white and pink hepatica and all of the
other common wild flowers abounded. There were blue jays, meadowlarks,
goldfinches, nut hatches, chickadees, finches, phoebes, Baltimore orioles,
cardinals, red -winged blackbirds, cow birds, pilated woodpeckers, salamander,
peepers, frogs, turtles etc. The area is in the process of recovering. But, some
flowers, animals and amphibians have been lost forever.
The neighborhood that exists today is a perfect gateway for vehicles using Allen
Rd. to enter our City from the south. It has open spaces, wetlands, natural areas,
and scenic views. It would be against everything the City promotes to change it.
Any development should continue the minimum practice of single family homes
on one acre or more.
As you know, there have been multiple sketch plans. Most of them were totally
incompatible with the policy, goal, and regulations of the City. However, the
sketch plan previous to this latest one, makes some sense. That plan clustered
townhouses against a backdrop of woods in the southwest corner of the property.
The rest of the land would remain vacant. This would provide for much needed
open space, and would give the wetland and natural areas an opportunity to
continue to recover from the debacle of 1996. And, it is at least somewhat
compatible with the massive four-story building complexes directly across the
street. Fortunately, there is a significant amount of open space between them and
the residences to the east.
Very t ly yours,
(%y _
Alan F. Sylvester
Diane H. Sylvester
1985 Spear St.
So. Burlington, VT 05403
cc: South Burlington City Council
3
Table 2. Status of Soil Surveys in Vermont
Addison yes
Berman yes
Caledonia
2007
h* den
21a0 '
Essex
2010
'ranin
yes
Grand Isle
yes
I aniollo
yes
Orange
yes
C)rleans- -
� des`
Rutland
yes
-Washington
yes
Windham
yes
17
Table 1. Agricultural Value Groups of Vermont Soils by Important
Farmland Rating, Acres, Percentage of State Land Area, and Relative
Value compiled in 1985.
1 ` Prime
91983
1.56
100
2i taleujde
10,9 19,
U.1,8
97
3 Prime
289654
4.88
84
tate cie'
81,568�
L, 7
82_
r.
5 Statewide
115,386
1.94
69
,,,ttew. „"� J169,321
7,92
63
7 Statewide
284,026
4.80
57
[G
CONTACT INFORMATION
Stephen H. Gourley, State Soil Scientist
USDA-NRCS
356 Mountain View Drive, Suite 105
Colchester, VT 05446
802-951-6796 ext. 236
steve. og urleyna,vt.usda.gov
For an update on the work in on -going soil surveys:
Robert F. Long, MLRA Soil Survey Project Leader
USDA-NRCS
59 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 12
Newport, VT 05855-4877
802-334-6090 ext. 20
robert.long2vt.usda. gov
To obtain the Important Farmland CD:
Caroline Alves, Soil Scientist/GIS Specialist
USDA-NRCS
1193 South Brownell Rd., Ste. 35
Williston, VT 05495
802-865-7895 ext 23
caroline.alveskvt.usda.gov
Link to the eFOTG web site:
htlp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
For instruction on how to use the site go to the soils section of the VT NRCS web site:
hqp://www.vt.nres.usda.gov/soils/so_databases.html
slope do not qualify as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
b - One or more of the soils in this soil map unit have a severe wetness limitation due to
the presence of a shallow water table during the cropping season. Areas of this soil map
unit do not qualify as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance if artificial
drainage is not installed.
c Bedrock outcrops commonly cover more than 2 percent of the surface. Areas of this
soil map unit will not qualify as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance if
bedrock outcrops are extensive enough to prohibit efficient farming.
d- The soils in this soil map unit have a wetness limitation that may not be feasible to
overcome. Agricultural Value Group assignments are based on the assumption that
installing artificial drainage is feasible. Feasible means it is possible to install artificial
drainage. Areas of this soil map unit where artificial drainage is not feasible should be
placed in Agricultural Value Group 11. Normally, the cost of installing artificial drainage
and laws governing the installation of artificial drainage should not be considered when
making this determination. In some situations, if laws prevent the installation of
corrective measures, the area in question should be placed in Agricultural Value Group
11. This footnote is assigned to Agricultural Value Groups 1 through 8.
e - Bedrock outcrops cover more than 2 percent of the surface. Areas of this soil map
unit should be placed in Agricultural Value Group 11 if bedrock outcrops are extensive
enough to prohibit efficient farming. This footnote is assigned to Agricultural Value
Groups 1 through 8.
f - The soils in this soil map unit are frequently flooded. Flooding is likely to occur often
under usual weather conditions, and there is more than a 50 percent chance of flooding in
any year. Typically, however, flooding occurs outside of the growing season. During the
growing season, flooding is expected infrequently under usual weather conditions, with a
5 to 50 percent chance of flooding in any year.
14
crop production.
The soil potential ratings are based on the integration of numerous data derived from
literature and the knowledge of technical specialists. Some of this data was estimated
based on the knowledge and judgment of the technical specialists. Crop yields on
specific soils are examples of such estimates. The estimates and ratings are subject to
change when more precise data becomes available.
Monetary benefits and costs associated with crop yields and soil corrective measures
may change due to inflation and/or technology changes. Such changes may affect the
soil potential ratings and thereby warrant an update of this report.
The SPI is used to rank soils from very high potential to very low potential and is
derived from indices of soil performance, cost of corrective measures, and costs of
continuing limitations. The SPI indicates a soil's agricultural profitability potential
relative to other soils in the study area. The SPI is expressed by the equation:
SPI = P — CM — CL, where:
P = performance index (P is determined by a soil's estimated corn silage yield/acre
converted to dollars)
CM = index of costs of corrective measures needed to overcome or minimize the
effects of soil limitations (CM is expressed in dollars/acre/year)
CL = index of costs resulting from continuing limitations (CL is expressed as
maintenance costs of reduced yields converted to dollars)
DIGITAL INFORMATION
Agricultural Value Groups and Important Farmland Ratings for most counties are
available as part of the TOP20 attribute data table. TOP20 is available through the
Vermont Center for Geographic Information (http://www.vcai.orsz� or from NRCS
(http//www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/).
FOOTNOTES
Listed below are the footnotes for the county Agricultural Value Groups and Important
Farmland rankings in the county soil survey legends.
a - For this soil map unit, one of two qualifications apply: 1) if the upper slope limit is
between 9 and 15 percent, then the areas of the soil map unit that exceed 8 percent slope
do not qualify as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; or 2) if the upper
slope limit exceeds 15 percent, then the areas of the soil map unit that exceed 15 percent
13
subclasses have been used in this study. Capability classes are designated by Roman
numerals I through VIII in older soil survey reports, and by Arabic numerals 1 through 8
in newer soil survey reports. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and
narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows:
• Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
• Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
moderate conservation practices.
• Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special
conservation practices, or both.
• Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require
very careful management, or both.
• Class 5 soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove,
that limit their use.
• Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for crop
production.
• Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for crop
production.
• Class 8 soils and miscellaneous land areas have limitations that nearly preclude their
use for crop production.
Capability subclasses indicate the major kinds of limitations within each capability class.
Within most capability classes there can be up to four subclasses. Adding a small letter e,
w, s, or c, to the class numeral indicates the subclass. An example is 2e.
• The letter a represents a risk of erosion,
• w means that water in or on the soil will interfere with plant growth or crop production,
• s represents a shallow, droughty, or surface stoniness limitation, and
• c represents a climate limitation that is very cold or very dry.
2) Soil Potential Study
A soil potential study conducted by NRCS formed the numerical basis for developing the
Agricultural Value Groups and their relative values. Soil potential ratings are expressed
by a soil potential index (SPI), which is a numerical rating of a soil's relative potential for
12
• rating of agricultural soils for appraisal under Vermont's Use Value Program of
Agricultural and Forest Land;
• rating of agricultural soils for appraisal under Town Tax Stabilization Programs;
• assessment of agricultural soils by land trusts, landowners, bankers, realtors; and
• broad resource planning by state agencies and town and regional planning
commissions.
Note that the relative values are only index numbers and do not represent dollar net
returns for a given agricultural use. Determinations of the absolute profitability of
agricultural production on a given soil map unit is not possible from these relative
values. However, relative values may be used to compare the relative profitability of
farming on various soil map units.
The user must consider the appropriate footnotes. With the exception of broad
planning activities, on -site investigations are recommended when using this report
because of the following needs:
• To assess wetness, surface stones and boulders, and bedrock limitations.
• To access the steepness of soils on slopes ranging from 15 percent to at least 25
percent. The steeper areas may be unsuitable for crop production.
• To access landscape pattern limitations. Some areas with good potential may be
non-farmable because of irregular slope patterns and the presence of small
streams and drainage ways. Landscape patterns can result in small inefficient
tract sizes, hamper the operation of farm equipment, and make a site
unproductive without additional and expensive land shaping activities.
Definitions
1) Land Capability Classification System
The Land Capability Classification system shows the suitability of soils for most
agricultural uses. Soils are grouped according to their limitations for agricultural crops,
the risk of damage when they are used, and the way they respond to management. The
grouping does not consider major, and generally expensive, landforming activities that
would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor does it consider major
land reclamation projects.
Soils are grouped at three levels: capability class, subclass, and unit. Classes and
production. If it is determined that corrective measures can't be installed
successfully, then the area in question should be placed in Agricultural Value
Group 11. Normally, the cost of overcoming corrective measures and laws
governing the installation of corrective measures should not be considered when
making this determination. In some situations, if laws prevent the installation of
corrective measures, the area in question should be placed in Agricultural Value
Group 11. Most of the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 5, 6, or 7. Their
relative value is 43.
10- The major limitations for crop production include slope, wetness, surface
stones, and bedrock outcrops. They can be used as cropland only after intensive
and expensive installation of various corrective measures. On -site investigations
are strongly recommended to determine feasibility of installing corrective measures
and using these soils for crop production.. If corrective measures can't be installed
then the area in question should be placed in Agricultural Value Group 11.
Normally, the cost of overcoming corrective measures and laws governing the
installation of corrective measures should not be considered when making this
determination. In some situations, if laws prevent the installation of corrective
measures, the area in question should be placed in Agricultural Value Group 11.
Most of the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 5, 6, or 7. Their relative
value is 22.
I I- These soil map units are considered to have very limited potential for crop
production. Most of the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 7 or 8. Only in
rare situations, and usually after great expense, are these soil map units converted
for crop production. Their relative value is 0.
12- These soil map units are areas within a digitized or published soil survey that
have never been mapped because of restricted access or the policy on not mapping
urban areas that was in place at the time of the survey. An on -site investigation
should be conducted to determine if areas of these soil map units should be
assigned to a different Agricultural Value Group. No relative value is assigned.
Possible Uses
Agricultural Value Groups and relative values may be useful in many state and local
programs, including:
• design and implementation of Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) systems;
• implementation of Public Law 97-98, the Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA);
Interpretation and Use
Soil map units were placed in their respective Agricultural Value Groups assuming
that it was feasible to apply the corrective measures needed to overcome the soil
limitations identified in the soil potential study. Soil map units associated with
bedrock or wetness are identified by footnotes, defined in the section Footnotes, and
are listed on the soil survey legends. Users of this report are encouraged to consider
the footnotes and the need for on -site investigations.
Agricultural Value Groups Descriptions
Agricultural Value Groups consist of soil map units that have similar characteristics,
limitations, management requirements, and potential for crop production. Soil map
units in Group 1 have the most potential for crop production and soil map units in
Groups 11 and 12 have the least potential for crop production. The description and
makeup of the Agricultural Value Groups are as follows:
1 — These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Prime. Most of the
soil map units are in Land Capability Class 1 or 2. Their relative value is 100.
2 — These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Statewide. Most of
the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 2. Their relative value is 97.
3 — These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Prime. Most of the
soil map units are in Land Capability Class 2 or 3. Their relative value is 84.
4 — These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Statewide. Most of
the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 2, 3, or 4. Their relative value is 82.
5- These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Statewide. Most of
the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 3. Their relative value is 69.
6- These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Statewide. Most of
the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 2, 3, or 4. Their relative value is 63.
7- These soil map units have an Important Farmland rating of Statewide. Most of
the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 3. Their relative value is 57.
8- The major limitations for crop production include low available water capacity,
erosion, and slope. This group includes a few soil map units that have an Important
Farmland rating of Local. Most of the soil map units are in Land Capability Class 4
or 6. Their relative value is 52.
9- The major limitations for crop production include slope, wetness, surface stones,
and bedrock outcrops. On -site investigations are recommended to determine the
feasibility of installing corrective measures and using these soils for crop
E
6. miscellaneous land types (beaches, escarpments, gravel pits, urban areas,
etc.).
• Soil map units with no relative value assigned
Some soil map units within a digitized or published soil survey have never been
mapped because of restricted access or because they are in urban areas that were
outside the scope of the soil survey at the time. These soil map units are assigned
to Agricultural Value Group 12 and not assigned a relative value.
• The following soil map units are in Agricultural Value Group 12:
Caledonia County
900 - Denied Access
Chittenden County
BUR - Burlington (Limit of Soil Survey)
MTFA -Military Test Firing Area
Essex County
900 - Denied Access
Results
In 1985, all soils were rated and placed into one of eleven Agricultural Value Groups.
Relative values for each group were developed on a scale of 0 to100, with 100
representing the highest agricultural value.
In 1999, Agricultural Value Groups were assigned to each soil map unit in Vermont.
Soil map units that consisted of a phase of one major soil (for example, Berkshire fine
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes) were assigned the relative value of that soil phase
based on the 1985 report. Soil map units that consisted of phases of 2 or more major
soils (for example, Tunbridge -Lyman complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes) were assigned
one relative value based on the relative values and extent of each soil phase in the
1985 report. The results for Agricultural Value Groups are listed by county soil survey
legend. Relative values are listed in table 1.
As of May, 2006, the soil surveys in Caledonia and Essex counties are ongoing and
the soil survey legends are subject to change. When using the information from these
soil surveys, one should verify that the information is up-to-date with the contacts
listed in this report.
8
During the late 1980's, a number of county Agricultural Value Group studies were
completed. These reports ranked the potential of soil map units within a specific county
for crop production. The information in these reports can only be used within the
specified county.
This report replaces all previous editions of statewide and county reports.
Agricultural value groups are a land classification system that can be used to compare the
"relative value" for crop production of one soil map unit to another. They can be a useful
tool in administering national, state, and local land use programs and regulations.
This report contains Agricultural Value Group rankings for all soil map units in Vermont
as of March 2003. The soil map units are listed by county soil survey legend in separate
eFOTG county soils folders.Because soil survey mapping is still ongoing in some soil
surveys, this report will continue to be updated on a regular basis. See Table 2 for the
status of county soil surveys in Vermont.
Preparation of Agricultural Value Groups
The Agricultural Value Groups were derived by integrating three land classification
systems: land capability classification, Important Farmland classification, and soil
potential ratings. Other factors were also considered, including slope, parent material,
and general knowledge of the use and management of specific soils. Soil map unit
acreage was used to help derive the relative value of each group.
Relative Values
The relative value assigned to each Agricultural Value Group is a weighted average
for the group and was derived using the soil potential indices (SPI's) (see Soil
Potential Study) and the acreage of each soil map unit (see table 1). Acres represent
the estimated acreage of each soil map unit.
• Soil map units with a relative value of 0
Over 300 different soil map units were considered to have a very limited potential
for crop production and were assigned to Agricultural Value Group 11 and given a
relative value of 0. These map units include the following types of soils:
1. soils with an extremely stony, very bouldery, or extremely bouldery surface,
2. very poorly drained organic soils,
3. very shallow soils(less than 10 inches to bedrock),
4. soils with slopes greater than 25 percent,
5. soils above 2500 feet elevation (soils in the cryic soil temperature regime),
and
VA
Agricultural Value Group 8 that are rated as Local qualify as Primary Agricultural Soils.
Soil map units in Agricultural Value Group 12 have never been mapped and require an
on -site investigation to determine the presence of Primary Agricultural Soils.
Criteria 9C - Productive Forest Soils
The definition of Productive Forest Soils can be found in ACT 250, Vermont's Land Use
and Development Law, 10 V.S.A. section 601 (8) as revised in May 2006 with the
passage of Senate Bill 142.
"Productive forest soils" means those soils which are not primary gricultural soils but
which have a reasonable potential for commercial forestry and which have not been
developed. In order to qualify as productive forest soils, the land containing such soils
shall be of a size and location, relative to adjoining land uses, natural condition, and
ownership patterns so that those soils will be capable of supporting or contributing to a
commercial forestryoperation. Land use on those soils may include commercial timber
harvesting and specialized forest uses, such as maple sugar or Christmas tree production.
Reasonable potential for commercial forestry is not defined in ACT 250. Because it is
not defined, criteria for the determination of reasonable potential of the soil map units is
not included in this document.
Location and ownership patterns are site -specific and are not related to soils.
Determination of whether location or ownership patterns criteria are met is not made by
NRCS.
Forestland Management and Productivity Tables and databases, found in soil surveys,
can be useful in helping to determine if the natural condition of the land has potential for
commercial forestry or other specialized forest uses, such as sugarbushes or Christmas
trees.
Primary Agricultural Soils and Productive Forest Soils Determinations
1. NRCS soil maps can be used to determine the presence and extent of Primary
Agricultural Soils on a plot of land.
2. NRCS soil maps can be useful in determining the presence and extent of
Productive Forest Soils on a plot of land but cannot be used as the sole
determining factor. Until further guidance on this issue is developed, the
landowner should consult with the VT county forester or private foresters.
AGRICULTURAL VALUE GROUPS
In October, 1985, the Natural Resources Conservation Service published "Agricultural
Value Groups for Vermont Soils." This publication was revised in March 1995, August
1999, and November 2002.
P
built-up areas. A delineation of a Prime, Statewide, or Local soil map unit which has
been converted to urban land or build-up areas should no longer be considered Important
Farmland.
Delineations of some soil map units that are Prime, Statewide, or Local have limitations,
such as excessive wetness, limited depth to bedrock, or slope. These soil map units are
footnoted on county Important Farmland lists. It is assumed that delineations of these
map units are Prime, Statewide, or Local, unless an on -site determination finds that the
delineation should not be Important Farmland. A determination that the delineation is not
Important Farmland doesn't require a change of the soil map unit symbol. See the
FOOTNOTES section for more details.
ACT 250 -PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL SOILS and PRODUCTIVE FOREST
SOILS
Primary Agricultural Soils and Productive Forest Soils are defined in Vermont's Land
Use and Development Law, Act 250.
Criteria 9B - Primary Agricultural Soils
The definition of Primary Agricultural Soils can be found in ACT 250, Vermont's Land
Use Development Law, 10 V.S.A. section, 601 (15) as revised in May 2006 with the
passage of Senate Bill 142.
"Primary agricultural soils" means soil map units with the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics that have a potential for growing food, feed, and forage
crops, have sufficient moisture and drainage, plant nutrients or responsiveness to
fertilizers, few limitations for cultivation or limitations which may be easily overcome
and an average slope that does not exceed 15 percent. Present uses maybe cropland,
pasture, regenerating forests, forestland, or other agricultural or silvicultural uses.
However, the soils must be of a size and location, relative to adjoining land uses, so that
those soils will be capable, following removal of any identified limitations, of supporting
or contributing to an economic or commercial agricultural operation. Unless contradicted
by the qualifications stated in this subdivision, primary gricultural soils shall include
important farmland soils map units with a rating of prime, statewide, or local importance
as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (N.R.C.S.) of the United States
Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.).
Soil map units with an Important Farmland rating of Prime, Statewide, or Local meet the
criteria contained in the definition of Primary Agricultural Soils, subject to a
determination of whether such land is of a size capable of supporting or contributing to
an economic or commercial agricultural operation. Determination of whether the size
criteria is met is not made by NRCS.
Any soil map unit in Agricultural Value Groups 1 through 7 and those soil map units in
In Vermont, a few soil map units in some counties have been identified as Additional
Farmland of Local Importance. Soil map units in Agricultural Value Group 8 could
potentially be Additional Farmland of Local Importance. These soil map units have
limitations for crop production that can be overcome. Many areas of these soil map units
are currently being used for hay or pasture.
The local Natural Resources Conservation Districts make these designations, with
assistance from local NRCS personnel and concurrence by the NRCS State
Conservationist.
The following soil map units are considered Additional Farmland of Local Importance:
Addison County
Adams Loamy Fine Sand, 5 To 12 Percent Slopes
Colton Gravelly Sandy Loam, 5 To 12 Percent Slopes
Raynham Silt Loam, 6 To 12 Percent Slopes
Franklin County
Missisquoi Loamy Sand, 8 To 15 Percent Slopes
Rutland County
Adams Loamy Fine Sand, 8 To 15 Percent Slopes
Hinckley Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand, 8 To 15 Percent Slopes
Windsor Loamy Sand, 8 To 15 Percent Slopes
Important Farmland Determinations for USDA programs
An Important Farmland classification of Prime, Statewide, or Local is assigned to soil
map units based on the characteristics of the dominant soils in the soil map unit.
Determinations of Unique are based on the specific crop and are not directly related to
the soil map unit.
In most cases, Important Farmland determinations for USDA programs are made on a
soil map unit basis. For example, if the area in question is a delineation of a Prime soil
map unit, the whole area is considered Prime regardless of any map unit inclusions within
the delineation. Important Farmland determinations are never made for individual
components of a soil map unit delineation.
The Important Farmland designation of individual delineations of a soil map unit cannot
be changed without an on -site investigation and a change in the Official Copy of the soil
map where the area is located. This would only occur after an evaluation of a
representative sample of all delineations of the specific soil map unit within the soil
survey area.
There are exceptions. Prime, Statewide, and Local soil map units cannot be urban or
4
Has a moisture supply that is adequate for the specific crop. The supply is from
stored moisture, precipitation, or a developed irrigation system.
• Combines favorable factors of soil quality, growing season, temperature,
humidity, air drainage, elevation, aspect, or other conditions, such as nearness
to market, that favor the growth of a specific food or fiber crop.
Many crops that could fall under the definition of Unique Farmland are currently grown
on Prime or Statewide soil map units. Other crops such as maple sugarbushes are
commonly grown on soil map units in Agricultural Value Groups 8, 9, and 10, on land
that is not Important Farmland.
For more information about the status of Unique Farmland in Vermont, see the contacts
listed below.
Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance (Statewide)
This is land in addition to Prime and Unique Farmland that is of Statewide importance for
the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. In Vermont, criteria for
defining and delineating Farmland of Statewide Importance was determined by the
appropriate state agencies, working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The dominant soils in these soil map units have limitations resulting from one or more of
the following conditions:
• Excessive slope and erosion hazard,
• Excessive wetness or slow permeability,
• A flooding hazard,
• Shallow depth (less than 20 inches) to bedrock or to other layers that limit the
rooting zone and available water capacity,
• Moderately low to very low available water capacity.
Additional Farmland of Local Importance (Local)
In some areas, there is a need to identify additional farmland for the production of food,
feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops that has not been identified by the other categories
in the Important Farmland system. These lands can be identified as Additional Farmland
of Local Importance by the appropriate local agencies. In places, Additional Farmland of
Local Importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by
local ordinance.
water and air, are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of
time, and don't flood frequently or are protected from flooding.
To qualify as a Prime Farmland soil map unit, the dominant soils must meet all of the
following conditions:
• Soil temperature and growing season are favorable.
• Soil moisture is adequate to sustain commonly grown crops throughout the growing
season in 7 or more years out of 10.
• Water moves readily through the soil and root -restricting layers are absent within 20
inches of the surface.
Less than 10 percent of the surface layer consists of rock fragments larger than 3 inches
in diameter.
• The soils are neither too acid nor too alkaline, or the soils respond readily to additions
of lime.
• The soils are not frequently flooded (less often than once in 2 years) and have no water
table, or the water table can be maintained at a sufficient depth during the growing
season to allow for the growth of commonly grown crops.
• Slope is favorable (generally less than 8 percent) and the soils are not subject to serious
erosion.
• The soils are typically deep (greater than 40 inches to bedrock), but include moderately
deep soils (20 to 40 inches) with adequate available water capacity.
Unique Farmland (Unique)
There is currently no Unique Farmland identified in Vermont.
Unique Farmland is land other than Prime Farmland that is used for the production of
specific high value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality,
location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained
high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to
acceptable farming methods.
Specific characteristics of Unique Farmland are:
• It is used for high value food or fiber.
2
INTRODUCTION
This report describes several farmland classification systems in use in Vermont. It
provides information that can be used in making Important Farmland evaluations and
ACT 250 Primary Agricultural Soils (criteria 913) and Productive Forest Soils (criteria
9C) evaluations.
This edition updates the definitions of ACT 250 Primary Agricultural Soils (criteria
913) and Productive Forest Soils (criteria 9C) that were signed into law in May, 2006.
NRCS soil mapping is still ongoing in several counties in the Northeast Kingdom (see
table 2). The information for these ongoing surveys is subject to change.
IMPORTANT FARMLANDS
Important Farmland ratings help to identify soil map units that represent the best land for
producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Important Farmland inventories
identify soil map units that are Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Additional Farmland
of Statewide Importance, and Additional Farmland of Local Importance.
Important Farmland ratings are listed under each county's folder in the electronic Field
Office Technical Guide (eFOTG), on county Soil Fact Sheets, and on Vermont Important
Farmlands CD. Important farmland maps can be downloaded from the Web Soil Survey
(http://websoilsurvey.usdA_gov) for most counties in Vermont.
Prime Farmland (Prime)
The national definition of Prime Farmland was modified to include information that
applies to soils in Vermont. The national definition can be found in the Code of Federal
Regulations (7CFR657).
Soil map units are Prime Farmland if they have the best combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for producing food, feed fiber, forage, and oilseed crops and are
also available for these uses. The present land use may be cropland, pasture, forestland,
or other land uses, but not urban and built-up or water. Location, tract size, and
accessibility to markets and support industries are not considered when making a Prime
Farmland determination.
Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to
economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed
according to acceptable farming methods. These soils have an adequate and dependable
water supply from precipitation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable
acidity or alkalinity, and few or no surface stones or boulders. They are permeable to
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1
IMPORTANT FARMLANDS 1
Prime Farmland
Unique Farmland
Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance
Additional Farmland of Local Importance
Important Farmland Determinations
Act 250 - PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL SOILS AND
PRODUCTIVE FOREST SOILS 5
Criteria 9B - Primary Agricultural Soils
Criteria 9C - Productive Forest Soils
Primary Agricultural Soils and Productive Forest Soils
Determinations
AGRICULTURAL VALUE GROUPS 6
Preparation of Agricultural Value Groups
Relative Values
Results
Interpretation and Use
Definitions
DIGITAL INFORMATION
FOOTNOTES
CONTACT INFORMATION
13
13
15
Table 1. Agricultural value groups of Vermont by
Important Farmland Rating, acres, percentage of state land area,
and Relative Value 16
Table 2. Status of soil surveys in Vermont 17
Cover photo ofAddison County, Vermont, from Mt. Defiance, NY, by Steve Gourley
Farmland Classification Systems
for
Vermont Soils
June, 2006
United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its
programs on the basis of race, color, national origins, sex, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs and marital status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs).
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of
Communications at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-8909 (TDD).
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, 20250 or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202 720-1127 (TDD). USDA
is an equal employment employer.
Prime and Important Farmlands (VT)
Chittenden County, Vermont
Map
symbol
Soil map unit name
Vermont Important
Farmland Rating
(with footnote)
Vermont Agricultural
Value Group
(with footnote)
Rk
Rockland
NPSL
11
ScA
Scantic silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
6d
ScB
Scantic silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
6d
Sd
Scarboro loam
NPSL
10
StA
Stetson gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Prime
3
StB
Stetson gravelly fine sandy loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7
Stc
Stetson gravelly fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
8
SuB
Stockbridge and Nellis stony loams, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Prime
1
SuC
Stockbridge and Nellis stony loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide
5
SuD
Stockbridge and Nellis stony loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
SxC
Stockbridge and Nellis extremely stony loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes
NPSL
11
SxE
Stockbridge and Nellis extremely stony loams, 15 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
TeE
Terrace escarpments, silty and clayey
NPSL
11
VeB
Vergennes clay, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Statewide
6
VeC
Vergennes clay, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7
VeD
Vergennes clay, 12 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
VeE
Vergennes clay, 25 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
W
Water
NPSL
11
WO
Winooski very fine sandy loam
Prime
1
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service Tabular Data NASIS Export Date: 09/30/2005
Page 3
Prime and Important Farmlands (VT)
Chittenden County, Vermont
Map
symbol
Soil map unit name
Vermont Important
Farmland Rating
(with footnote)
Vermont Agricultural
Value Group
(with footnote)
GrB
Groton gravelly fine sandy loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
7
GrC
Groton gravelly fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
8
GrD
Groton gravelly fine sandy loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
8
GrE
Groton gravelly fine sandy loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Hf
Hadley very fine sandy loam
Prime
1
Hh
Hadley very fine sandy loam, frequently flooded
Prime (f)
1
HIB
Hartland very fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Statewide
1
HIC
Hartland very fine sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
5
HID
Hartland very fine sandy loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
HIE
Hartland very fine sandy loam, 25 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
HnA
Hinesburg fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Prime
3
HnB
Hinesburg fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Prime
3
HnC
Hinesburg fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide
7
HnD
Hinesburg fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
HnE
Hinesburg fine sandy loam, 25 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Le
Limerick silt loam
Statewide (b)
4d
Lf
Limerick silt loam, very wet
NPSL
10
Lh
Livingston clay
NPSL
6d
Lk
Livingston silty clay, occasionally flooded
NPSL
10
LmB
Lyman -Marlow rocky loams, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7e
LmC
Lyman -Marlow rocky loams, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
10
LyD
Lyman -Marlow very rocky loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
10
LyE
Lyman -Marlow very rocky loams, 30 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
MaB
Marlow stony loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7
MaC
Marlow stony loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
7
MaD
Marlow stony loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
8
MeC
Marlow extremely stony loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
11
MeE
Marlow extremely stony loam, 20 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
MnC
Massena stony silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
7d
MoC
Massena extremely stony silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Mp
Muck and Peat
NPSL
11
MuD
Munson and Belgrade silt loams, 12 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8d
MyB
Munson and Raynham silt loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
4d
MyC
Munson and Raynham silt loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
7d
PaB
Palatine silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Prime
3
PaC
Palatine silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide
5
PaD
Palatine silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
PaE
Palatine silt loam, 25 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Pc
Peacham stony silt loam
NPSL
10
PeA
Peru stony loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Prime
6d
PeB
Peru stony loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7d
PeC
Peru stony loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
8d
PeD
Peru stony loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
8d
Psc
Peru extremely stony loam, 0 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
11
PsE
Peru extremely stony loam, 20 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Qd
Quarries
NPSL
11
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Tabular Data NASIS Export Date: 09/30/2005
Page 2
Prime and Important Farmlands (VT)
Chittenden County, Vermont
[This information is intended to be used in making Important Farmlands and Vermont Act 250 Primary Agricultural Soils evaluations. These ratings
are based on the USDA-NRCS report "Farmland Classification Systems for Vermont Soils", revised June 2006.
Map
symbol
Soil map unit name
Vermont Important
Farmland Rating
(with footnote)
Vermont Agricultural
Value Group
(with footnote)
AdA
Adams and Windsor loamy sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Statewide
6
AdB
Adams and Windsor loamy sands, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
6
AdD
Adams and Windsor loamy sands, 12 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
8
AdE
Adams and Windsor loamy sands, 30 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
AgA
Agawam fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Prime
1
AgD
Agawam fine sandy loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
8
AgE
Agawam fine sandy loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
An
Alluvial land
NPSL
11
Au
Au Gres fine sandy loam
Statewide
6d
Be
Beaches
NPSL
11
BIA
Belgrade and Eldridge soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Prime
1
BIB
Belgrade and Eldridge soils, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Statewide
2
BIC
Belgrade and Eldridge soils, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide
7
BID
Belgrade and Eldridge soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
8
Bo
Blown -out land
NPSL
11
Br
Borrow pits
NPSL
11
CaA
Cabot stony silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
6d
CaC
Cabot stony silt loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
7d
CbA
Cabot extremely stony silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
NPSL
11
CbD
Cabot extremely stony silt loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes
NPSL
11
CoA
Colton gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Statewide
6
COB
Colton gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
7
COC
Colton gravelly loamy sand, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
10
CsD
Colton and Stetson soils, 20 to 30 percent slopes
NPSL
10
CsE
Colton and Stetson soils, 30 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Cv
Covington silty clay
Statewide (b)
6d
DdA
Duane and Deerfield soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Statewide
6
DdB
Duane and Deerfield soils, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide (a)
7
DdC
Duane and Deerfield soils, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
8
EwA
Enosburg and Whately soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
4d
EwB
Enosburg and Whately soils, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Statewide (b)
4d
FaC
Farmington extremely rocky loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
8e
FaE
Farmington extremely rocky loam, 20 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
FsB
Farmington -Stockbridge rocky loams, 5 to 12 percent slopes
Statewide
7e
FsC
Farmington -Stockbridge rocky loams, 12 to 20 percent slopes
NPSL
9
FsE
Farmington -Stockbridge rocky loams, 20 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Fu
Fill land
NPSL
11
Fw
Fresh water marsh
NPSL
11
GeB
Georgia stony loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Prime
3
GeC
Georgia stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Statewide
7
GgC
Georgia extremely stony loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
NPSL
11
GgE
Georgia extremely stony loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes
NPSL
11
Gpi
Pits, sand and Pits, gravel
NPSL
11
GrA
Groton gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Statewide
4
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service Tabular Data NASIS Export Date: 09/30/2005
Pagel