HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-03-48 - Decision - 0102 Ethan Allen DriveCITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING & ZONING
WHITE ROCK ESTATES — FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-48
FINDINGS of FACT AND DECISION
White Rock Development, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting approval
of a Final Plat amendment consisting of a planned unit development application for
encroachment in the rear of lots # 13, 14, and 15 pursuant to Section 12.01(C)(4) of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations, at 620, 636, and 654 Country Club Drive. The
subject property contains 14.68 acres. The South Burlington Development Review Board
(DRB) held a public hearing on September 2, 2003. David Burke represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the DRB finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Plat amendment consisting of a planned unit
development application for lawn encroachment in the rear of lots #13, 14, and 15 pursuant to
Section 12.01(C)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, at 620, 636, and
654 Country Club Drive.
2. The owner of record is White Rock Development, LLC.
3. The subject property contains 14.68 acres and is located in the Residential 4 (R4) District.
4. The plans consist of one (1) sheet entitled "White Rock Country Club Estates, South
Burlington, VT, Site Plan", prepared by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates on 12-13-00, last
revised on 3-22-01 and two (2) sheets entitled "White Rock Landscape Plan Conservation
Buffer", prepared by TK Landscape Architects on 1-24-03.
5. The DRB reviewed this application in April of this year, during the transition to the new
South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The old Zoning Regulations did not
provide for any encroachments into the buffer, even when precluding such an encroachment
created a counter -productive situation.
6. The Final Plat application can now be considered under the new Surface Water Protection
Standards in Article 12.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
7. The Natural Resources Committee reviewed this application on March 6, 2003.
Proposed Encroachment: The applicant proposes to create building envelopes, including
yard areas, for lots 13, 14 and 15. Homeowners would be allowed to develop building and
lawn areas extending 100 feet from the front property lines; the rest of the development has
building and lawn envelopes roughly 110 to 125 feet from the front property lines.
The rear yards created range from 22 feet to 30 feet from the rear of the units. This is
consistent with the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement for the R4 District, and creates what
staff considers a minimum usable yard area. The greatest encroachment into the required
100-foot setback from the edge of the channel of the Winooski River in 23 feet on lot # 13.
Stated conversely, the buffer for the Winooski River ranges from 77 feet to 100 feet
throughout the project.
Proposed Plantings: At the 100 foot line, the applicant proposes to create a thick dogwood
hedge. This is intended to deter mowing beyond the designated back yard areas. Beyond the
dogwood hedge, the applicant proposes to seed the area with a specified mix of grasses and
allow natural succession to fill in the area between the hedge and the existing tree line, which
is to remain undisturbed.
The NRC had requested that a mix of woody shrubs and trees be planted in the "no -mow"
area. The applicant had not proposed to do this, for two stated reasons: 1) because succession
is already occurring in the area and woody shrubs and vegetation have begun to establish
themselves; and 2) because of the intensive nature and presumable expense of the dogwood
hedge.
Staff feels the dogwood hedge, as proposed, is an appropriate way to clearly delineate the
boundary between the lawn areas and the "no -mow", successional regrowth area. Landscape
architect Terry Krinksi has represented that in his professional opinion, additional plantings in
the successional area are not necessary. What is required for this plan to be successful is
vigilance on the part of staff to ensure that no mowing or removal of the dogwood hedge
occurs. The longevity of the dogwood hedge is also a key factor in making this project work.
Standards for Review: The lawn encroachment is considered under Section 12.01(C)(4) of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulation, which provides for new uses and
encroachments within stream buffers under specific circumstances. The applicable section is
as follows:
12.01(C)(4) The encroachment of new land development activities into the City's stream
buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within
stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB
may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate
conditional use review...
(b)Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the
extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or
conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that:
i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the
stream buffer; and
ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings,
protection of existing vegetation, and/or other materials.
Evaluation of Criteria: This application is the type of situation contemplated by this section
of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. While it is clearly preferable to
locate lots entirely outside the stream buffer, this is a pre -approved development with three
lots that cannot be reasonably utilized without the encroachment.
As stated in the memorandum dated April 15, 2003, the applicant has proposed a very
aggressive landscaping and planting plan for the remainder of the buffer, including woody
shrubs, plants, and seeding. This planting plan has been endorsed both by staff and the
Natural Resources Committee as an excellent approach that will meet the standards of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations and protect the Winooski River.
DECISION
Motion by C-� t 4 +"� , seconded by �� to
approve Final Plat Application #SD- 3-48, 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 plans submitted by the applicant, as
amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning &
Zoning.
3. A construction erosion control plan that meets all standards of Article 16 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations shall be submitted prior to recording of the final
plat plan.
4. Grading shall be done in such a manner that the slope of the bank behind the dogwood
hedge shown on the plans does not undermine the viability of the hedge.
5. A revised seed list shall be submitted prior to recording of the final plat plan and shall not
include Birdsfoot Trefoil.
6. Any failed shrubs within the hedgerow within a four-year period from the date of final
approval shall be replaced.
7. A four-year landscaping bond shall be submitted prior to issuance of a zoning permit for
any of the affected lots.
8. Prior to recording of the final plat plans, the City Attorney shall review the deeds fof the
three affected lost to ensure that all deeds clearly state that (1) no herbicides or pesticides
shall be used in the rear yards of these lots, and (2) no mowing or clearing is allowed between
the 100 foot line and the Winooski River.
9. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
10. The final plat plan shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days of the date of this
motion, or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or
Clerk prior to recording.
Chuck Bolton nay/abstain/not present
Mark Boucher - yea/abstain/not present
John Dinklage e nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley - e nay/abstain/not present
Michele Kupersmith - yea/nay/abstain/of presen
Larry Kupferman e ay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby - e nay/abstain/not present
Motion Carried by a vote of 'S_ - I - I
Signed this 16`h day of September, 2003, by
Lt,
Gayl uimby, Clerk