HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_SD-19-27_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐19‐27 1505 Dorset Street
DATE: November 5, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC has submitted final plat application #SP‐19‐27 for a planned unit development
on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 94
single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one
existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐
site through the purchase of 71 Transferable Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.
The application was continued without being heard from the October 15, 2019 meeting. Staff did, however,
publish the staff notes for that scheduled hearing, and shared them with the applicant. Since that time, the
applicant has provided materials and responses addressing those staff comments which they felt could be
addressed in advance of receiving Board feedback, which are summarized and reviewed in this memorandum.
This meeting’s packet is organized as follows:
A. Staff memorandum [this document], which includes a subset of the staff comments previously
highlighted in red, followed by updates to that item from the October 15th packet. These are intended to
supplement the numbered item comments from that prior packet
B. Updated applicant materials [cover memo, selected plan sheets, landscape budget]
C. Original staff memo
D. Original full applicant submission
UPDATES TO NUMBERED ITEMS FROM OCTOBER 15TH STAFF MEMO:
5. Staff recommends the Board impose timelines on when the open spaces must be constructed, perhaps at a
percent completion or unit count for each phase.
The applicant has proposed a condition requiring that the open space associated with each phase be
complete prior to the zoning permit issuance for the unit representing more than half of the units in that
phase.
6. An additional comment from the Fire Chief is that the turning movement plan at the multifamily homes on
Nowland Farm Road should be revised to show whether a WB‐40 can go behind the western homes without
hitting the curb. The Fire Chief has also requested signage indicating no parking between the designated
#SP‐19‐35
2
parking areas on this driveway. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require a slightly enlarged
area to allow intermittent parking of service vehicles, so that service vehicles do not end up parked in the area
needed for emergency vehicle movements.
The applicant has provided an updated turning movement exhibit and signage plan. The turning movement
plan shows a WB‐40 can make the turn. Staff considers the signage is not in the location the Fire Chief
indicated and can demonstrate where the Fire Chief requested signage at the hearing. Staff considers
amending the signage can be a condition of approval. The applicant has indicated to Staff that the driveway
segments in front of each garage are sufficiently large to allow parking of services vehicles.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether to require the applicant to clear a pedestrian
path within the proposed easement. On one hand, the easement dead‐ends at a different property (which is
controlled by the applicant), which may create conflicts. On the other hand, the Board requested the
easement in order to set up the project for long‐term pedestrian connectivity to the Underwood parcel, and
if walking trails are left to develop naturally they may not be located within the proposed easement.
The applicant met with Staff to discuss this comment. The easement is not intended to represent a fixed
location in space; it’s final configuration will depend on how things evolve with connectivity to the Underwood
parcel over the next several years. The applicant has suggested they clear the path at the time of Phase 4
zoning permit because that is when then adjacent path will be constructed, which should allow more clarity in
terms of desired connectivity. Staff, with the support of the City Attorney’s office, recommends the Board
require an irrevocable offer for the 10‐foot wide pedestrian easement, with language similar to the following.
A 10‐foot wide pedestrian easement, with substantially the same access and connectivity and in a
similar location to the pedestrian easement shown on PL1, recorded at map & slide no __. The
easement shall extend to either the north or west property boundary.
The applicant has indicated they are amenable to such a condition.
10. Staff recommends the Board confirm the above‐referenced values represent the value of trees and shrubs
only, and excludes perennials and grasses. If it does not, then Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to update their provided landscape values to evaluate whether the minimum required landscape
value is provided.
The applicant has corrected their proposed landscape budget so that it includes trees and shrubs only. The
required minimum landscape budget is $150,887. The applicants proposed landscaping consists of a total of
$293,990 in trees and shrubs, which includes plantings in the areas of the duplexes on shared lots, the multi‐
family homes, the greenspace and stormwater buffer areas, and in the wetland buffers.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to bond for the total $291,600 landscape value if this is
the value the Board considers necessary to meet the landscaping requirements of 13.06. Staff recommends
the Board give the applicant the opportunity to provide a breakdown of landscape costs by project phase in
order to allow landscape bonding to run by phase rather than overall.
Staff continues to recommend the Board require the applicant to bond for the full landscape value. The
applicant has provided the following breakdown of landscaping value by phase.
‐ Phase I: $58,000
‐ Phase II: $74,982
#SP‐19‐35
3
‐ Phase III: $49,746
‐ Phase IV: $35,454
‐ Phase XX: $75,808
Additional landscaping bonding will be required for the street trees on a per phase basis.
Staff supports the applicant’s requested to bond by phase.
12. The City Arborist provided comments on the plans in an email dated September 3, 2019. It appears the
applicant addressed these comments in a submission on October 4, 2019. Staff has forwarded the revised
plans to the City Arborist and anticipates receiving confirmation by the time of the hearing.
On October 15, 2019, the City Arborist indicated by email their comments have been addressed.
13. Staff recommends the Board review whether the provided landscaping meets the screening standard of
13.06C.
13.06C requires all utility improvements such as transformer(s) to be effectively screened. Such screening shall
be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, or
a solid fence. The applicant has provided a revised landscaping plan which shows the transformers and
secondary pedestals will be fully screened, though the applicant has indicated in a note on landscaping plan
sheet L205 that Green Mountain Power standards dictate that trees and shrubs must be set back 5 feet from
the sides and rear and 10 feet from the front of transformers. Only herbaceous plans are allowed within the
setback. The applicant has proposed to screen the transformers on three sides with shrubs but on the fourth
side with ornamental grasses, and has proposed to screen the secondary pedestals on all sides with ornamental
grasses. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to accept the applicant’s proposed screening.
14. The applicant provided a new sheet, L‐206 Open Space & Vegetation Management Plan. It does not appear
to include specific language for maintenance of the recreation trail easement located within the Natural
Resource Protection zone, other than to note its existence. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to amend this plan.
Since the recreation trail easement will be deeded to the City, Staff retracts this comment.
15. Staff notes those trees do not appear to be shown on the current planset and recommends the Board
require the applicant to show those trees on both the erosion control plans and the landscaping plans.
The applicant has modified their plan to show the existing trees on both the landscape plans and the erosion
control plans. Staff considers this criterion met.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a well‐thought‐out buffering plan prior to
closing the hearing.
The applicant has revised the landscaping in the vicinity of units 88 to 91 to provide buffering consistent with
the adjacent single family homes, in the form of a combination of split rail fence and plantings.
18. The Fire Chief reviewed the plan on October 8, 2019 and requested verbally that the applicant make minor
modifications to the driveway entrance to the multifamily homes on Nowland Farm Road to allow a fire truck
to better make the turn, and to add no parking signs along the central section of the driveway to the rear of
the units. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the Fire Chief’s request.
#SP‐19‐35
4
See comment #6 above.
20. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant a timeline that provides a final date for application
for the roadways in the final phase. If the applicant does not meet the agreed upon timeline, Staff
recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to reapply for final plat approval for any
of the phases which have not yet been issued their first zoning permit.
The applicant originally proposed to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance
of all State and Local approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty
period for the Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase II
roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II roadway, a zoning permit will be applied
for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase III
roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase IV roadway. A zoning permit for
Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases of the project, due to the lack of public
infrastructure.
The applicant has amended their proposed phasing plan by stating they will apply for the next phase within
5 years of the previous phase’s zoning permit issuance, rather than the start of the roadway warranty
period. The zoning permit for the first phase will be applied for 18 months after all State and Local
approvals have been granted and all appeals have been exhausted. LDR 17.04 allows the Development
Review Board to grant a longer period than the standard six months for an applicant to obtain a zoning
permit for projects that may reasonably require a longer period before commencement. Staff considers
the applicant’s amended proposal as still not adequately tied to dates. Instead of an 18 month timeline
from issuance of state and local approvals, Staff recommends an 18 month timeline from issuance of local
approval with the option for a one year extension. Staff notes if local or state approvals for the project are
appealed, the 18 month timeline would stop until the appeal is concluded. Staff further notes that LDR
14.08 allows administrative reapproval if a plan is expired within the previous six months and no changes of
any kind are proposed.
21. Staff recommends the Board require the applicants proposed timeline include a maximum number of units
which can be built prior to completion of the amenitized open spaces (ie the playground, the basketball court,
and the trail network)
See comment #5 above.
23. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant if their intent in discussing roadway segments
individually (rather than phases as a whole) is to ask for a certificate of occupancy (CO) for each roadway
segment. Staff considers that without an affirmative decision of the Board to consider each roadway
segment, the Zoning Administrator may only issue a CO for entire phases. If the applicant wishes to receive
COs for less than entire phases of infrastructure, Staff recommends the Board require them to provide a
specific bonding/CO phasing for discussion. Staff notes the applicants preliminarily approved phasing
provides excellent access and open space distribution, and suggests that should the applicant request smaller
bonding phases, those factors be taken into consideration.
The applicant has indicated it is their intent to apply for a CO for entire phases, therefore Staff considers this
comment not applicable.
#SP‐19‐35
5
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified in this memo and in the
staff comments for the October 15, 2019 hearing.
T.J. Boyle Associates | 301 College Street • Burlington VT 05401 | www.tjboyle.com
DORSET MEADOWS - LANDSCAPE BUDGET
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Costs
Landscape Percent of Total
Construction / Improvement Cost
Cost of Proposed Project
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $138,387
Total Minimum Landscaping* $150,887
*Project cost used to calculate the landscape budget is $14,058,750, which includes construction of 24 duplexes ($220,00
per unit), 35 townhomes ($150,000 per unit), and 6,925 L.F. of roadway ($550/L.F).
OPINION OF POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COST
Total Buildings Cost per Building Total Potential Cost
Typical Duplex Foundation Planting 12 $1,010 $12,120
Typical 5 Unit Townhouse Foundation Planting 4 $1,900 $7,600
Typical 4 Unit Townhouse Foundation Planting 3 $1,600 $4,800
Typical 3 Unit Townhouse Foundation Planting 1 $1,300 $1,300
Townhome Surrounding Area Plantings - - $82,000
Duplex Surrounding Area Plantings - - $12,970
Phase 1 Greenspace Areas and Stormwater
Pond Buffer Areas
- - $50,000
Phase 2 Greenspace Areas and Stormwater
Pond Buffer Areas
- - $18,000
Phase 3 Greenspace Areas and Stormwater
Pond Buffer Areas
- - $29,000
Phase 4 Greenspace Areas and Stormwater
Pond Buffer Areas
- - $25,000
Phase xx Greenspace Areas and Stormwater
Pond Buffer Areas
- - $14,000
Wetland Buffer Planting Areas (Total Site) - - $37,200
Total: $293,990
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COSTS
Street Trees (Total Site) $233,500
Small Typical Single Family Lot (per unit) $2,100
Large Typical Single Family Lot (per unit) $2,700
E E E E E E E E E
NRP GREEN / OPENSPACE SEQ -
N
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CENTRAL AVENUE WITH VIE
W TO CA
M
EL'
S HUMPSTORM-WATERTREATMENTAREA10' WI
D
E
R
E
C
R
E
ATI
O
N /
BI
K
E
P
A
T
H
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTIONDISTRICT (SEQ - NRP) SEQ - VR
D
I
S
T
RI
C
TSTORM-WATERTREATMENTAREASPLIT-RAIL FENCE(TYP.)SPLITRAILFENCETYP.SPLITRAILFENCETYP.revisionsdate revisions date301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn by datesheet no:Landscape Key PlanDorset MeadowsL-2001" = 100'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign bymjbchecked byjkh/mjb/dja 09/21/2018mjbLEGENDSTREET TREESHADE TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL TREECONIFER TREESDECIDUOUS SHRUBCONIFER SHRUBMEADOW PLANTING MIXEXISTING TREE TO BE PRESERVEDPROPOSED WETLAND BUFFEREXISTING VEGETATIONPROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCEOwner / Applicant:44 Park Street, Essex Jct. VT 05452Dorset Meadows Associates, LLCENGINEER:13 Corporate Drive, Essex Jct. VT 05452O'Leary-Burke Civil AssociatesPLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW10/14/2019L202 LANDSCAPE PLAN SOUTHL201 LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTHL203 TYP. LARGE S.F. LOTPLANTING PLANL203 TYP. SMALL S.F. LOTPLANTING PLANL204 TYP. TOWNHOMEPLANTING PLANL204 NOWLAND FARM TOWNHOMEENLARGEMENTL203 TYP. DUPLEX PLANTING PLANL205 TRILLIUM TOWNHOMEENLARGEMENTSCALE 1" = 100'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)REVISED PER PRELIM. PLAT COMMENTS12/7/2018INCLUDE TREE PRESERVATION12/10/2018PLANTING/SITE REVISIONS PER COMMENTS01/17/2019L206 OPEN SPACE & VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT PLANREVISED PER FINAL PLAT COMMENTS07/17/2019Nowland Farm RoadDorset Street WETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BUFFERCLASS IIWETLANDSCLASS IIWETLANDSCLASS IIWETLANDSCLASS IIIWETLANDSWETLAN
D
B
U
F
F
E
R WETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BUFFERPLANTING REVISIONS PER COMMENTS09/26/2019REVISIONS PER COMMENTS10/14/2019
E E E E
PLAYGROUNDBNH(2)HVG(3)QRMBW(2)PG(4)PS(2)BNH(2)SATPS(3)CPOP(2)CMGGAB(3)TON(16)TON(8)MBW(2)TON(11)PS(15)CMGG(2)AB(3)PG(3)PS(2)ABSAT(2)SAT(2)HVGTON(3)QE(2)ABCPOP(2)TON(16)TON(8)TON(9)TON(3)WETLANDSWETLANDSWETLANDSWETLANDSWETLAND BUFFERPLANTING AREAWETLAND BUFFERPLANTING AREAWETLA
N
D
B
U
F
F
E
R
PLAN
TI
N
G
A
R
E
A
WETLAND BUFF
E
R
PLANTIN
G
A
RE
A WETLANDSWETLAND B
U
F
F
E
R
PLANTING
A
R
E
A
WETLAN
D
B
U
F
F
E
R
PLANTIN
G
A
R
E
A
WETLAN
D
B
U
F
F
E
R
PLANTIN
G
A
R
E
AEXISTINGVEGETATION EXISTINGVEGETATIONEXISTINGVEGETATIONEXISTINGVEGETATION SEQ - N
R
DI
S
T
RI
C
T
CENTSTORM-WATERTREATMENTAREA10' WIDE
RE
C
RE
ATI
O
N /
BI
K
E
PA
T
H SEQ -
V
R
DI
S
T
RI
C
TSTORM-WATERTREATMENTAREATON(6)UA(6)GTH(12)PCCS(6)ZS(5)CO(5)AxFS(6)CO(5)GBAG(6)ZS(5)BNH(6)PSG(3)PCCS(4)CO(4)QM(4)NS(4)UA(6)UT(6)GBAG(4)AxFS(2)GBAG(3)GTH(9)PSG(6)UA(7)AxFS(3)BNH(7)CO(4)PO(3)AxFC(4)PSG(8)PO(7)ZS(5)PCCS(8)CCG(3)MAS(5)SRI(6)AxGR(2)GTHAB(2)CMGG(2)QEPG(3)BNH*TC(3)ABPG(4)AS(3)BNH*(4)GDALAxFC(5)PG(2)QR(9)AB(2)AB(2)UT(5)SJR(7)QE(2)AL(4)PS(6)CPOP(2)AS(2)ABPG(3)UA(3)PS(3)HVG(2)HVG(3)HVG(3)HVG(2)HVG(3)BNH*(3)AS(2)MBWTC(3)SPLIT-RAIL FENCING(TYP.)CPOPQEPG(5)MBW(2)PG(4)TC(2)BNH*(3)UT(11)PO(4)AB(2)CPOPCPOPCPOPLANDSCAPEBOULDERS (TYP.)GD SEE SHEET L205 FORTRILLIUM ST. TOWNHOMEPLANTINGSSEE SHEET L204 FORNOWLAND FARMTOWNHOMEAREA PLANTING PLANPO(3)AL(5)ABABALTON(3)TONTON(2)PSPGPG(2)revisionsdate revisions date301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn by datesheet no:Landscape Plan NorthDorset MeadowsL-2011" = 50'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign bymjbchecked byjkh/mjb/dja 09/21/2018mjbOwner / Applicant:44 Park Street, Essex Jct. VT 05452Dorset Meadows Associates, LLCENGINEER:13 Corporate Drive, Essex Jct. VT 05452O'Leary-Burke Civil AssociatesMATCHLINE L-201MATCHLINE L-202SCALE 1" = 50'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)REVISED PER PRELIM. PLAT COMMENTS12/7/2018INCLUDE TREE PRESERVATION12/10/2018QEPLANTING/SITE REVISIONS PER COMMENTS01/17/2019WETLAND BUFFER PLANTING NOTES:xPLANTS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN WETLANDBUFFER PLANTING AREAxQUANTITIES OF INDIVIDUAL SPECIES MAY BEADJUSTED TO ADDRESS FIELD CONDITIONSREVISED PER FINAL PLAT COMMENTS07/17/2019LEGENDSTREET TREESHADE TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL TREECONIFER TREESDECIDUOUS SHRUBCONIFER SHRUBMEADOW PLANTING MIXEXISTING VEGETATIONPROPOSED WETLAND BUFFERPLANTING REVISIONS PER COMMENTS09/26/2019PLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW10/14/2019REVISIONS PER COMMENTS10/14/2019
WETLANDSEXISTING VEGETATION
EXISTINGVEGETATIONWETL
A
N
D
B
U
F
F
E
R
PLANT
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
R EXISTINGVEGETATIONCENTRAL AVENUE WITH VIEW TO CAMEL'S HUMPNATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTIONDISTRICT (SEQ - NRP)UA(3)CCG(5)SRI(6)AxGR(2)AxGR(3)PSG(3)AxFC(4)BNH(5)PCCS(5)QM(2)GBAG(4)PCCS(3)PSG(6)ZS(4)GTH(7)AxFS(3)UT(4)GTH(6)PSG(3)CO(4)NS(5)CO(4)BNH(5)ZS(5)UT(2)GTH(2)SRIMAS(3)GBAG(6)CO(3)UA(7)BNH(5)CO(2)AL(2)PG(2)AB(4)QEPG(3)AB(2)ALSAT(2)TC(4)PG(4)PS(3)QBPG(8)MBWPS(2)ASCPOPPS(3)ALQBAxFS(2)PS(4)AL(2)PG(3)MBWASCPOP(2)BNH*(3)AS(2)ALGDAB(3)CMGGALAS(2)PS(5)HVG(3)CPOP(2)HVG(2)SPLIT-RAIL FENCE(TYP.)TC(2)CPOPCPOPMBWGTH(6)LANDSCAPEBOULDERS (TYP.)PS(7)TON(10)TON(17)PGALTON(18)AB(2)PS(3)MBWALASASPS(15)ASPG(3)CMGG(5)QE(4)ALAB(2)CPOP(2)SPLITRAILFENCETYP.PS(2)TON(5)revisionsdate revisions date301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn by datesheet no:Landscape Plan SouthDorset MeadowsL-2021" = 50'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign bymjbchecked byjkh/mjb/dja 09/21/2018mjbOwner / Applicant:44 Park Street, Essex Jct. VT 05452Dorset Meadows Associates, LLCENGINEER:13 Corporate Drive, Essex Jct. VT 05452O'Leary-Burke Civil AssociatesMATCHLINE L-201MATCHLINE L-202SCALE 1" = 50'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)REVISED PER PRELIM. PLAT COMMENTS12/7/2018INCLUDE TREE PRESERVATION12/10/2018PLANTING/SITE REVISIONS PER COMMENTS01/17/2019REVISED PER FINAL PLAT COMMENTS07/17/2019LEGENDSTREET TREESHADE TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL TREECONIFER TREESDECIDUOUS SHRUBCONIFER SHRUBMEADOW PLANTING MIXEXISTING VEGETATIONPROPOSED WETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BUFFER PLANTING NOTES:xPLANTS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN WETLANDBUFFER PLANTING AREAxQUANTITIES OF INDIVIDUAL SPECIES MAY BEADJUSTED TO ADDRESS FIELD CONDITIONSPLANTING REVISIONS PER COMMENTS09/26/2019PLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW10/14/2019REVISIONS PER COMMENTS10/14/2019
EEETON(71)GTH(4)PG(2)CO(3)CMGG(2)CMGGMBWHVGMBWTON(11)TC(2)SAT(2)TON(14)TC(3)TON(6)MLMSAT(2)CMGGHVG(3)MBWAB(3)BNH*HVGTON(9)HVGTON(10)AAB(3)VD(1)VD(3)AAB(3)GTH(2)24'EQUALLY SPACED8'8"5'8x8 PT POSTSCOMPACTED CRUSHEDAND WASHED STONE8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"6'4-6" REVEALEQUALLY SPACED8'EQUALLY SPACED8'8"8"8"PRESSURE TREATEDWOOD PRIVACY SLATSWITH MATCHING GATESrevisionsdate revisions date301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn by datesheet no:Landscape Details & Typical LotsDorset MeadowsL-205as notedT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign bymjbchecked byjkh/mjb/dja 09/21/2018mjbOwner / Applicant:44 Park Street, Essex Jct. VT 05452Dorset Meadows Associates, LLCENGINEER:13 Corporate Drive, Essex Jct. VT 05452O'Leary-Burke Civil Associates1L-205LANDSCAPE PLAN: TRILLIUM TOWNHOUSE AREAPLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'ASGMHVGSEE SHEET L-201 FORSTREET TREESASGM(2)REVISED PER PRELIM. PLAT COMMENTS12/7/2018INCLUDE TREE PRESERVATION12/10/2018HVGFENCED INDUMPSTER AREAFENCED IN DUMPSTERAREAPLANTING/SITE REVISIONS PER COMMENTS01/17/20192L-205TYPICAL UTILITY SCREENING: PRIMARY TRANSFORMER & SECONDARY PEDESTALSCALE: 1" = 4'5' CLEARANCEFRONT OF PRIMARY TRANSFORMER3L-205DUMPSTER SCREENING DETAILNTSDUMPSTER SCREENING DETAIL NOTES:xSEE TRILLIUM TOWNHOUSE AREA ANDNOWLAND FARM TOWNHOUSE AREALANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPECIFICDUMPSTER SCREENING PLANTINGSSIDEWALK (AS PER PLAN)SIDEWALK (AS PER PLAN)REVISED PER FINAL PLAT COMMENTS07/17/2019SECONDARY PEDESTALWETLANDSWETLANDSEXISTING VEGETATIONWETLAND BUFFERPLANTING AREAWETLANDSPLANTING REVISIONS PER COMMENTS09/26/2019UTILITY SCREENING DETAIL NOTES:xPER GMP STANDARDS, ALL TREESAND SHRUBS SHALL BE SETBACK 5FEET FROM THE SIDES AND REARAND 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT OFTHE TRANSFORMER. ONLYHERBACEOUS PLANTS AREALLOWED WITHIN THE SETBACKPLAN ISSUEDFOR REVIEW10/14/2019REVISIONS PER COMMENTS10/14/2019
#SD‐19‐27
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐27_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow_2019‐10‐
15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: October 10, 2019
Application received: August 22, 2019
1505 Dorset Street
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐27
Meeting date: October 15, 2019
Owner/Applicant
Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC
44 Park Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Engineer
O’Leary Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Dr.
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0570‐01475, 0570‐01505
SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,
SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection
69.86 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐27
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on
two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 94
single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one
existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55
acres off‐site through the purchase of 711 Transferable Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received preliminary plat and master plan approval on June 28, 2019. The approvals were
appealed to the Environmental Court July 26, 2019. The Environmental Court issued a Stipulated Order
of Dismissal without Prejudice on September 27, 2019. This order states that the appealing bodies may
raise all matters raised in their original appeal in an appeal of the currently pending application (SD‐19‐
27).
The preliminary plat and master plan stipulated certain matters to be reviewed further and decided at
Final Plat. The following document notes where matters were decided at master plan or preliminary
plat, and whether any changes affecting those criteria have been made in the current submission. In
general, the project is consistent with the preliminary and master plan approvals, with changes as
necessary to address outstanding items from those approvals. The development is subject to
subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design
review.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project includes the purchase and use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In a
separate case, In re: Snyder Development Company, the Environmental Court issued a decision in March
2019 invalidating a portion of the City’s Land Development Regulations pertaining the TDR provisions.
That Court decision has been appealed by both the appellant and the applicant to the Supreme Court
and therefore the status of the TDR provisions has not been ultimately decided. Oral arguments before
the Supreme Court took place in that case last month and a decision is expected to be issued at some
point during the winter of 2019‐2020.
In the meantime, the applicant for this project has elected to proceed to preliminary plat and now final
plat at their own risk. Without a final decision on the status of the TDR provisions, the Board determined
that it should continue with its review under the Regulations in effect at the time of submittal of the
preliminary plat application.
Preliminary & Final Plat
Having issued a preliminary plat decision, the Board’s review at final plat is narrowed to those issues not
yet decided at preliminary plat, those topics reserved in the Regulations for final plat, and changes or
1 It appears an error was made in calculation of TDR requirements at preliminary plat. All of the input data was
correct (lot coverage and unit count) but the required number of TDRs was erroneously reported to be 68. The
applicant needs 70.2 TDRs. Since TDRs can only be purchased in whole increments, the applicant needs 71 TDRs.
#SD‐19‐27
3
modifications in the plans from the preliminary plat submission. Staff notes herein reflect those
narrowed subject areas.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following
comments.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
DENSITY
At preliminary plat, the Board approved the applicants’ request that the boundary of the SEQ‐NR sub‐
district be adjusted 50 feet to the west in the SEQ‐NRP sub‐district, as allowed under LDR Section 15.03C,
and approved replacement of the lands removed from the SEQ‐NRP with conserved lands adjacent to the
NRP within the SEQ‐NR district. Including the area of the NRP where the regulations of the NR apply, the
Board approved construction of 35 dwelling units within the 14.97‐acre SEQ‐VR sub‐district, and 120 units,
including the existing single family home, within the 38.89‐acre SEQ‐NR sub‐district. As approved at
preliminary plat (and as presented in this application), the project proposes to use 71 TDRs. As required
at preliminary plat, the Applicant has provided proof of an option to purchase sufficient TDRs as part of
this application.
1. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that the zoning permit for the 83rd dwelling
unit not be approved unless and until the applicant records the conservation easement and density
transfer documents approved by the City Attorney.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
At master plan and preliminary plat, the board approved the following dimensional standard waivers.
Standard SEQ‐NR
Requirement
SEQ‐VR
Requirement
Requested Revised
Standard
Min. Lot Size, Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 4,600 sq. ft.1
Max. Building Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
15% 15% 30%
1
Max. Overall Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
30% 30% 45%
1
Min. Front Setback, Single,
Two and Multi‐Family
20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft.
Min. Side Setback, Single
and Two Family
10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
Min. Rear Setback, Units 88
to 91
30 ft. N/A 10 ft.
1. Lot size and coverage waivers were approved in master plan MP‐18‐01.
#SD‐19‐27
4
Aside from units 88 to 91, no waivers are requested for rear setbacks or for side setbacks for the multi‐
family homes. The Board preliminarily found the front setback waiver request supports the goal of an
activated street presence with open spaces interwoven throughout the development and recommends
the Board accept the front setback waiver request. No changes to the requested setback waivers have
been presented in this application. The applicant has revised the plan to show how the 10‐foot rear
setback waiver could be met by units 88‐91.
Regarding side setbacks and as discussed at preliminary plat, the narrowest lots are located in the interior
of the development and appear to have a minimum width of 46 feet. Based on the provided elevations,
it appears that only two of the provided single family home types would fit within the remaining 36 feet
on the interior lots. For the exterior lots, it appears the widest home types (the ranch‐style single family
homes) will use the entire available width within the requested setback but the other home types will not
require a setback waiver. With these considerations regarding width, the Board required the applicant to
record a notice of conditions requiring that no more than two homes of the same type be located adjacent
to one another. The applicant has incorporated this as an element of their design guidelines.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to record the Unit Design Guidelines document as
a condition of approval.
Preconstruction Grade
At preliminary plat, the Board approved the applicant’s request for an adjusted preconstruction grade as
allowed under Section 3.12 to minimize the amount of fill while still allowing for sewer and drainage flows
without the need for pumps.
3. Staff notes it does not appear the applicant has made any modifications to the approved adjusted
grades but recommends the Board confirm this with the applicant.
Dorset Park View Protection Zone D
Much of the subject acreage is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone D. The maximum
elevation is based on an equation taking into consideration the distance of the building from the baseline,
located on Golf Course Road. Within the limits of the area proposed for development, the limiting
maximum elevation is 433.6 feet. This maximum elevation is in the area where single family homes are
proposed to have an adjusted preconstruction grade in the range of 397 feet, resulting in a maximum
total height at the peak of the roof of 36.6 feet.
4. Buildings meeting the allowable height of 28 feet at the midpoint of the roof will likely fall below the
maximum allowable elevation. The applicant has stated in their cover letter their willingness to
demonstrate that each proposed structure is compliant with the View Protection Zone prior to the
issuance of the zoning permit for each building. Staff recommends the Board include this as a condition
of approval.
B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with
the following standards and conditions:
#SD‐19‐27
5
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
The Applicant obtained preliminary water allocation for 164 units on August 8, 2018. The Applicant is
currently proposing 154 units.
The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 154 units on July 15, 2019. At preliminary
plat, the Applicant has proposed to provide a $350 per unit fee to cover their share of upgrades to the
Vermont National pump station. The applicant has provided a payment schedule and inflation adjustment
methodology in their cover letter for this application. Staff considers this criterion met.
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties.
The Project will require either an individual or general State construction stormwater permit. The
Applicant has submitted a detailed erosion control plan as part of this application, which was not part of the
previous application. Staff notes the plan appears to meet the requirements of Article 16, but has some
concerns about the proposed location of soil stockpile areas in the open spaces for each phase. Staff notes
that soil stockpiles are typically present until a phase is fully built‐out and that this could preclude use of the
open space associated with each phase until the end of construction of that phase.
5. Staff recommends the Board impose timelines on when the open spaces must be constructed, perhaps at
a percent completion or unit count for each phase.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. The Fire Inspector reviewed the plans on
September 19, 2019 and requested the applicant widen Bellflower Court to 20‐feet. The applicant
provided a revised plan set on October 4, 2019 reflecting this change. Other Fire Inspector comments are
discussed below. Staff considers no other changes have been made affecting compliance with this
criterion. Staff considers this criterion met.
(A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
Compliance with this criterion is discussed in the findings for MP‐18‐01. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. The only changes at the perimeter
of the development are a five‐foot shift to the east of the two eastern multifamily structures on
Nowland Farm Road, and a 10‐foot shift to the east of the two multifamily buildings on the south side of
Trillium Street. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
6
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
In an email to staff dated September 18, 2019, the Fire Inspector provided the following comments.
Upon review of the Dorset Meadows proposed overall site plan dated July 2019, the SBFD FMO
has the following comments.
1) WB 40 1990 driving template. All trees, street signs, light post or any other obstructions shall
support the template. Mountable curbs maybe required at all intersections at the discretion of
the SBFD FMO.
2) Fire hydrants shall remain clear of any obstructions at a minimum of 36" in all directions.
3) Parking allowed only on one side of a street that is less than 20' wide.
4) Bellflower Court shall be increased to a minimum of 20' wide.
If there are any changes to the plan we received from The Planning and Zoning Office dated July
2019, we would review those plans for further comment.
We highly recommend that the developer meet with the SBFD FMO prior to construction to clarify
the plans and expectations.
The applicant made the requested changes to the plans on 10/4/2019. Staff provided the revised plans
to the Fire Inspector, who provided the following follow‐up comment on 10/9/2019.
I took a look, just want to repeat the comment of having signs, trees, light poles or any other
obstructions to be pushed back at all the intersections.
6. An additional comment from the Fire Chief is that the turning movement plan at the multifamily homes
on Nowland Farm Road should be revised to show whether a WB‐40 can go behind the western homes
without hitting the curb. The Fire Chief has also requested signage indicating no parking between the
designated parking areas on this driveway. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require
a slightly enlarged area to allow intermittent parking of service vehicles, so that service vehicles do
not end up parked in the area needed for emergency vehicle movements.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have
been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to
adjacent landowners.
#SD‐19‐27
7
At preliminary plat, the Board noted concerns of the Stormwater Services Division related to compliance
with this criterion. The applicant made requested changes to the plans and the stormwater services
division reviewed the plans on September 6, 2019 and considered their comments addressed.
7. The Stormwater services recommends the DRB include a condition requiring the applicant to
regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Otherwise Staff considers this criterion met.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement
with the Applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect
Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and
sidewalks.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
8. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans and indicated by email on 10/10/2019 he has no
additional comments. They have addressed all earlier concerns and everything appears in order.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
This criterion was discussed extensively at preliminary plat and the Board ultimately found this criterion
met. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall
require site plan approval. Excluded from site plan review are one and two family dwellings on a single lot.
This means that the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots within the Proposed
development are subject to these standards, because they are not located on single lots. Section 14.06 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards
for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit
Development Standard (A)(10) above.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
#SD‐19‐27
8
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing
a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated
adjoining buildings.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
See also section 9.08C and 9.09C for a discussion of SEQ housing styles
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed
layout of site utilities, including electric cabinets, as part of the final plat application. The applicant
has done so, generally locating the utility cabinets to the rear of the sidewalk. Utilities are
proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
Staff recommends the Board incorporate the Unit Design Guidelines as a condition of
approval.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific
standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
#SD‐19‐27
9
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
The applicant has proposed a street and recreation path connection to the south adjacent
property for future connection and a pedestrian trail easement to the west. At preliminary plat,
the Board required the applicant to update their plat plan to reflect the pedestrian trail easement.
The applicant has done so.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether to require the applicant to
clear a pedestrian path within the proposed easement. On one hand, the easement dead‐ends
at a different property (which is controlled by the applicant), which may create conflicts. On
the other hand, the Board requested the easement in order to set up the project for long‐term
pedestrian connectivity to the Underwood parcel, and if walking trails are left to develop
naturally they may not be located within the proposed easement.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall
be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a
harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
The applicant has proposed a dumpster location for the multifamily units. At preliminary plat, the
Board required the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for complete
enclosure of the solid waste areas as part of the final plat application. The applicant has provided
a 6‐foot tall enclosure constructed of wood privacy slats and matching gates. Staff considers this
criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. The applicant had to make
updates to the landscaping plan and budget based on other plan changes. The applicant
estimates the total minimum required landscape budget to be $150,887 based on a total
building cost of $14,058,750 (excluding single family homes2, which are exempt from minimum
landscape budget standards). The applicant has proposed to provide $1,500 to $1,600 in
landscaping for each duplex or townhome, and $2,100 to $2,500 for each mutilfamily building.
They are also proposing additional plantings around the townhome and duplex areas, for a total
provided landscaping of $151,400. They are also proposing additional $140,200 in site
landscaping in the open spaces, wetland buffers and stormwater treatment areas, which Staff
considers can be considered as contributing to the minimum required landscape value.
2 Duplexes on their own lot are also exempt from landscape budget standards, but none are proposed.
#SD‐19‐27
10
10. Staff recommends the Board confirm the above‐referenced values represent the value of
trees and shrubs only, and excludes perennials and grasses. If it does not, then Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to update their provided landscape values to
evaluate whether the minimum required landscape value is provided.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to bond for the total $291,600 landscape
value if this is the value the Board considers necessary to meet the landscaping requirements
of 13.06. Staff recommends the Board give the applicant the opportunity to provide a
breakdown of landscape costs by project phase in order to allow landscape bonding to run
by phase rather than overall.
12. The City Arborist provided comments on the plans in an email dated September 3, 2019. It
appears the applicant addressed these comments in a submission on October 4, 2019. Staff
has forwarded the revised plans to the City Arborist and anticipates receiving confirmation
by the time of the hearing.
The provided Utility Screening Primary Transformer and Secondary Pedestal details on sheet L‐
205, showing that the front of the transformers will face the sidewalk and not be screened from
the sidewalk, though they will be screened on the sides and the side facing the homes. 13.06C
requires all utility improvements such as transformer(s) to be effectively screened. Such
screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs, or a solid fence.
13. Staff recommends the Board review whether the provided landscaping meets the screening
standard of 13.06C.
D. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore, it is subject to the
provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts. The following standards
shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the
maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers area not available for
structures with the SEQ zoning district.
The Project is located within the SEQ‐NRP, SEQ‐NR, and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. The Board
found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance
with this criterion have been made.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
11
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at
the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management
shall be established by the applicant.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide an open space and tree
management plan to be incorporated into the HOA documents and as a condition in the event of
final plat approval. The open space and tree management plan is required to have wetland
buffers clearly delineated, and should indicate that open spaces and trees shall be maintained as
designed, including language allowing for appropriate maintenance of the recreation trail
easement located within the Natural Resource Protection zone.
14. The applicant provided a new sheet, L‐206 Open Space & Vegetation Management Plan. It
does not appear to include specific language for maintenance of the recreation trail easement
located within the Natural Resource Protection zone, other than to note its existence. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to amend this plan.
In the wetland buffer area, the applicant is proposing the following maintenance plan:
Buffer area are to be planted using a matrix of grassland/shrubland community plant
species, as well as several native tree species. Upon establishment of plantings, buffer
areas are to be left to vegetate naturally, except in height management area.
The wetland buffer occurs at the toe of a proposed slope which ranges in height from three to
approximately eight feet. The applicant is proposing a moderately dense row of trees along the
buffer, which staff estimates will mark approximately 50% of the line. Staff considers wetland
buffers adequately delineated.
There are some existing trees located within the development. At preliminary plat, the Board
approved the applicant to preserve approximately 3 maples and 9 pines during development of
the parcel but that the HOA shall not be required to retain them should management become
an issue in the future.
15. Staff notes those trees do not appear to be shown on the current planset and recommends
the Board require the applicant to show those trees on both the erosion control plans and
the landscaping plans.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the
Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the
General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental
#SD‐19‐27
12
Conservation.
See discussion under PUD Criteria A(2).
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or
primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically
compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural
purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of
natural materials is encouraged.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide a plan as part of their final plat
application for additional landscaping and/or fencing that will protect the conservation areas
adjacent to units 88 to 91 in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding
landscape. It appears the applicant has revised the footprint of units 88 to 91 slightly to meet the
10‐foot rear yard setback, but was unable to locate any information pertaining to landscaping and
fencing.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a well‐thought‐out buffering
plan prior to closing the hearing.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development
plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing
agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new
opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐
supported agriculture.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review
Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development,
the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned
public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths,
streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the
needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as
evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water
and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation as discussed above.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting
shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
#SD‐19‐27
13
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement
with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,
minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions
where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location
of hydrants.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.
D. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity
for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles
between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on
the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services
and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to
maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.
9.07 Regulating Plans
A. ...
B. General Provisions
(1) …
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district
shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios
of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
C. …
D. Parks Design and Development.
#SD‐19‐27
14
(1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park
Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000
square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.
Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free
destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of
life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the
neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,
local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and
there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every home.
(2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐
NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC districts:
a. Distribution and Amount of Parks:
i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to
meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the
outdoors, and active recreation.
See discussion under SEQ Criterion 9.06B above.
ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the
heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by
development.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be
provided within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by
an existing City park or other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be
approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained
permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to submit a draft of the
homeowners’ association agreement describing the management of open spaces as part
of the final plat application, which clarifies which if any of the proposed open spaces are
#SD‐19‐27
15
proposed to be public and which are proposed to be maintained by the homeowners’
association.
17. The provided homeowners’ association documents state that the open space parcels
are common elements which will be owned and shared by members of the HOA. It
does not appear the pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City within the NRP
zoning district is explicitly excluded. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to exclude the pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City from the
common elements.
c. Design Guidelines
i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to
make them sociable, safe and attractive places.
ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle
connections.
iii. To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to
natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and
public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource
and not extended yard areas.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
9.08 SEQ‐NR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐NR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500
linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid‐block public
sidewalk or recreation path connections.
At preliminary plat, the Board found the finds the designed functionality of the mid‐block
public sidewalk and recreation path connections exceeded the minimum of this criterion.
Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent
parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead
end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
16
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio
of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
See discussion under 9.07 above.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are
intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and
are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. The applicant has, at the request of
the Fire Inspector as discussed above under PUD criterion #7, widened Bellflower Court to
20‐feet from 18‐feet. No other changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been
made. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(2) Sidewalks.
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional
minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from
the street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(3) Street Trees
(a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five
feet wide.
(b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to
the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size
of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on
center.
As discussed above, the City Arborist provided comments on the final plat
application which have been addressed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) On‐street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on‐street parking shall be provided
on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ‐VC and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. This
requirement may be waived within the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district provided the DRB finds
sufficient off‐street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of
the uses adjacent to the street.
The Board preliminarily found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic.
#SD‐19‐27
17
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to work with the fire department to
assure emergency vehicle access while meeting this standard prior to final plat approval.
The applicant has provided a vehicle turning movement plan using the City fire truck
template.
18. The Fire Chief reviewed the plan on October 8, 2019 and requested verbally that the
applicant make minor modifications to the driveway entrance to the multifamily
homes on Nowland Farm Road to allow a fire truck to better make the turn, and to
add no parking signs along the central section of the driveway to the rear of the units.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the Fire Chief’s
request.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather
than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public
safety.
At preliminary plat, proposed fixtures were mounted at a 13‐foot pole height and
concentrated around pedestrian crossings. The Board found the overall illumination
levels appropriate for the lower intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ
with minimum trespass.
Minor modifications to the lighting plan have been made since preliminary plat approval.
Specifically, the applicant has removed one fixture from the driveway on Nowland Farm
Road, and one fixture at the entrance to the open space across from Unit 91.
19. Staff recommends the Board review the proposed lighting at the entrances to the
interior open spaces and make a determination on whether lighting should be
provided. Staff does not consider the change at the driveway on Nowland Farm Rd to
be detrimental. This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR sub‐district.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building
entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to
arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent
windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district,
residential buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the
extent possible within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.
At preliminary plat, the Board granted that for buildings where the side is oriented to the
south, only 20% of the translucent windows must be located on the south facing wall, and
found the applicant must submit sufficient information to allow translucence criteria to be
evaluated by the administrative officer at the time of zoning permit application. Staff
recommends the Board include this as a condition of final plat approval as well.
#SD‐19‐27
18
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should
be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and
balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.
See discussion of building elevations under Site Plan Review standard above.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is
critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty‐five feet (25’) from the back
of sidewalk.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front
setbacks.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a
front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back
a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.
(a) For the purposes of this subsection:
(i) The building width of a single or two‐family dwelling, not including the garage,
shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side‐by‐side primary
entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not
including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’)
(ii) The portion of the single or two‐family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line
may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’)
wide.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(b) …
(c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and
townhouses.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(d) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial,
etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments.
These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather
than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made. This comment also applies to
the SEQ‐VR sub‐district.
#SD‐19‐27
19
9.09 SEQ‐VR Sub‐District; Specific Standards
The SEQ‐VR sub‐district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400
linear feet; see Figure 9‐2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks
400 feet or longer must include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path
connections.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff this criterion met.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sac or hammer‐head) that are not constructed to
an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged.
Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
Buildings in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot and therefore at
preliminary plat the Board found the lot ratio described in this criterion, intended for
single family home lots, to be not applicable.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the
VR sub‐district are intended to be low‐speed streets for local use that discourage
through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this criterion
met.
(2) Sidewalks
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional
minimum five‐foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the
street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a
pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may
in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this
purpose.
#SD‐19‐27
20
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers these criteria
met.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(4) On‐street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9‐6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian‐scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower‐intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather
than hot‐spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary
building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design
guidelines apply to arterial streets).
See discussion under Site Plan Review standard above.
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades
should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches,
stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are
encouraged.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the
building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
21
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front
setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be
enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.
Within the SEQ‐VR, porches are proposed to project into the setback by
approximately 6‐feet. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been
made.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7.
Section 9.08C(4) does not apply to multi‐family homes. Site Plan general review standard
B addresses parking for multi‐family buildings and is addressed above.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,
and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should
be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above.
E. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion
control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
The applicant is proposing one wetland crossing and has provided documentation of communication
with the US Army Corps of Engineers and State Wetlands program indicating they are generally
supportive of the applicant’s proposed configuration as long as the existing driveway crossing is
removed and the remaining wetlands and buffers are demarcated and set aside as no mow zones,
which they are on the provided plans. The applicant is also proposing a small amount of
encroachment into Class III wetland buffers which are not regulated by either the State or the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
i. The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
At preliminary plat, the Board found the required stream alteration permit will result in
compliance with this criterion and found the Applicant must demonstrate that they have obtained
#SD‐19‐27
22
that permit prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. Staff recommends the
Board incorporate this as a condition of final plat approval.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The Stormwater Services Division has reviewed the proposed plans and has not expressed any
concern about this criterion. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff
considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values
identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate
landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
At preliminary plat, the Board found the Applicant must obtain their State wetland permit prior
to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. Staff recommends the Board incorporate
this as a condition of final plat approval.
Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one‐
half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit
Development Standards above.
F. ENERGY STANDARDS
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
G. PROJECT & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING AND BONDING
The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance of
all State and Local approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty
period for the Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase II
roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II roadway, a zoning permit will be
applied for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for
the Phase III roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase IV roadway. A
zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases of the project, due to
the lack of public infrastructure.
Staff considers the applicants proposed timeline to not be adequately connected to dates, as there is
no limit for how long the applicant may take between requesting the first zoning permit and the start
of the warranty period for the roadway.
20. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant a timeline that provides a final date for
application for the roadways in the final phase. If the applicant does not meet the agreed upon
timeline, Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to reapply for
final plat approval for any of the phases which have not yet been issued their first zoning permit.
#SD‐19‐27
23
21. Staff recommends the Board require the applicants proposed timeline include a maximum number
of units which can be built prior to completion of the amenitized open spaces (ie the playground,
the basketball court, and the trail network)
Staff notes that the proposed phasing results in a second entry point to the development prior to 50
units being constructed, and it precludes the construction of dead‐end streets, so compliance with
15.12J is not a concern.
The applicant has requested in their application narrative that they would like to provide a detailed
estimate of public infrastructure cost immediately prior to the construction of each proposed roadway
segment in lieu of having bonding amounts set at final plat.
22. Staff recommends the Board evaluate the applicant’s request to have infrastructure bond amounts
set at the time of zoning permit application for each phase or roadway, as discussed in the
following staff comment. Should the Board wish to grant the applicants’ request, and in order to
reduce conflicts at time of zoning permit application, Staff recommends the Board establish
bonding amounts for each phase or roadway, and provide a condition which allows the zoning
administrator to adjust bonding amounts based on updated costs. The applicants’ estimated
infrastructure costs are below.
#SD‐19‐27
24
23. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant if their intent in discussing roadway segments
individually (rather than phases as a whole) is to ask for a certificate of occupancy (CO) for each
roadway segment. Staff considers that without an affirmative decision of the Board to consider each
roadway segment, the Zoning Administrator may only issue a CO for entire phases. If the applicant
wishes to receive COs for less than entire phases of infrastructure, Staff recommends the Board require
them to provide a specific bonding/CO phasing for discussion. Staff notes the applicants preliminarily
approved phasing provides excellent access and open space distribution, and suggests that should the
applicant request smaller bonding phases, those factors be taken into consideration.
H. Homeowners Association Declaration and Bylaws
The applicant has submitted the proposed homeowners’ association declaration and bylaws as part
of their application package. Staff considers it appears the only relevant information to the DRB’s
decision in those documents are the elements relating to open space maintenance, including wetlands
and wetland buffers.
24. Staff considers the applicant may amend other elements of the homeowners’ association documents
without City review or approval, and therefore instead recommends the open space management plan
be the subject of a separate Notice of Conditions to be recorded.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SD‐19‐27
1505 Dorset Street
Dorset Meadows
Packet for 10/15/2019 Hearing
Table of Contents
Principal Application Documents
Civil Plans
Architectural Drawings
Applicant Cover Letters in Chronological Order
List of Requested Waivers
Design Narrative
Supporting Application Documents
Fire Truck Turning Movement Plan
Landscaping Budget
Street Tree Cost Estimate
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Green Mountain Power ability‐to‐serve letter
Vermont Gas ability‐to‐serve letter
Preliminary Wastewater allocation
TDR Option Agreements
Materials Supplied by Others
Public Comment Letters
1
Marla Keene
From:Bryan Currier <bcurrier@olearyburke.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:29 PM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:Peter K
Subject:RE: 1505 Dorset St final plat completeness
Attachments:Waiver List 8-9-19.pdf
Good Afternoon Marla
Please see attached and below in red for the additional information. If possible, we would like to be scheduled for the
September 17th hearing.
1. As discussed with Bryan, arch plans lack preparation/revision date. It would be helpful for everyone in the long
run if they also had a title block so the decision could reference the exact approved plan list.
Please download the submitted building elevations that now have a title block and date from the following dropbox
link. They also all have the revision date of 7‐17‐19, so you can refer to them as a single building elevation plan set. Do
you need hard copies of these? Or can we submit them as the “approved plan set” as a condition of approval?
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fuphq0kc3kwbom8/AADydxjXKtrhoMezZewPJcdEa?dl=0
2. Perhaps I missed this in the package? A list of requested waivers is required.
Please see attached for the waiver list associated with the project. At this time, the list of waivers is the same as the
ones approved under the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat.
3. It is to your benefit to request a phasing schedule for the zoning permit for each phase of roadways, otherwise
the Board will determine one for you.
The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance of all State and Local
approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase I roadway, a
zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase II roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for
the Phase II roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of
the warranty period for the Phase III roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase IV
roadway. A zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases of the project, due to the
lack of public infrastructure.
4. I need to look into whether we need monuments to have coordinates. Can you let me know if this is something
you already have?
We will submit a DXF of the existing and proposed project property lines as a condition of approval. The DXF will be on
State Plane and will contain the coordinates of all monumentation.
5. Dumpster screening description of type or, alternatively, a detail, is needed
Please refer to SH 205 – Landscape Details & Typical Lots for the dumpster screening detail.
2
6. Can you please describe the level of detail known about the shown utility cabinets? We’ve had some recent
trouble with utility cabinets not being adequately planned for in terms of setbacks, street trees, screening, and
need assurance that the required cabinets can be accommodated
Please refer to SH 205 – Landscape Details & Typical Lots for the utility cabinet screening details. Please refer to SH
L201, SH L202, SH 3, SH 4 and SH PL1. For this project GMP required a 10’ utility easement outside of the proposed
right‐of‐way for the main underground power line and primary utility cabinets. As the street trees are located within the
right‐or‐way the power layout should not conflict with the street tree placement.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Bryan Currier, PE
O'Leary‐Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive | Essex Jct., VT 05452
p: (802)878‐9990
bcurrier@olearyburke.com
From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@sburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Bryan Currier; Peter K
Subject: 1505 Dorset St final plat completeness
Peter, Bryan,
I’ve reviewed the Dorset Meadows application for completeness and note the following items are required in order to
be eligible for scheduling. All told, the application is pretty close to complete. At this time I can still put it on the
schedule for September 17 if you can get me the required materials by Friday. The Board would be down to a bare
quorum if it goes to Oct 1.
Application Requirement Project‐specific notes
Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and
graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more
than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not
more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots
have less than one hundred (100) feet of
frontage.
As discussed with Bryan, arch plans lack
preparation/revision date. It would be helpful for
everyone in the long run if they also had a title
block so the decision could reference the exact
approved plan list.
List of waivers the applicant desires from the
requirements of these regulations and
accompanying narrative describing the
request(s), detailing the City's authority to grant
the request(s) and describing why the waiver(s)
should be granted
Perhaps I missed this in the package? A list of
requested waivers is required.
Estimated project construction schedule, phasing,
and date of completion, and estimated cost of all
site improvements. (note: for FBC subdivisions,
only public infrastructure information required)
It is to your benefit to request a phasing schedule
for the zoning permit for each phase of
roadways, otherwise the Board will determine
one for you.
3
Permanent reference monuments I need to look into whether we need monuments
to have coordinates. Can you let me know if this
is something you already have?
The location of any outdoor storage for
equipment and materials if any, and the location,
type and design of all solid waste‐related
facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins.
Dumpster screening description of type or,
alternatively, a detail, is needed
The location and details of all the improvements
and utilities, including the location of all utility
poles, utility cabinets, sewage disposal systems,
water supply systems, and all details and
locations of the stormwater management
system.
Can you please describe the level of detail known
about the shown utility cabinets? We’ve had
some recent trouble with utility cabinets not
being adequately planned for in terms of
setbacks, street trees, screening, and need
assurance that the required cabinets can be
accommodated
Sincerely,
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4106
www.southburlingtonvt.gov
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 notify us immediately by
return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Waiver List – Dorset Meadows Final Plat 8-9-19
- DIMENSION AND COVERAGE: See table below.
SEQ-NR Required SEQ-VR Required Waiver Request
Min Lot Size Single
Family 12,000 SF 12,000 SF 4,600 SF
Min Lot Size Two
Family 24,000 SF 24,000 SF N/A
Min Lot Size Multi
Family 40,000 SF 40,000 SF N/A
Max Building Coverage 15% 15% 30%
Max Overall Coverage 30% 30% 45%
Min Front Setback 20’ 20’ 15’
Min Side Setback,
Single and Two-family 10’ 10’ 5’
Min Side Setback
Multi-family 20’ 20’ N/A
Min Rear Setback 30’ 30’ N/A
Max Building Height
Single or Two-Family 28’ 28’ N/A
Max Building Height
Multiple Family 28’ 35’ N/A
Stories facing Street,
Single and Tow-Family 2 2 N/A
Stories below roofline,
Single and Two-Family 2 3 N/A
- ADJUSTMENT OF PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE: Please refer to SH 5 – SH 8 of
the plan set for the designated preconstruction grade requested for each of
the 154 units throughout the development. The preconstruction grade was
determined to be approximately 2-4 feet above the proposed roadway.
- LOT RATIOS: The lot width to depth ratio of 1:2 shall be met on an average
basis.
- ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: Shifting NRP/NR zoning boundary 50’ in
accordance with Section 15.03(C), as shown on SH EX2.
- PHASING: The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within
1-year, following the issuance of all State and Local approvals, and all appeals
have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty period for the
Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the
Phase II roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II
roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the Phase III
roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase III
roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the Phase IV
roadway. A zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during
the 4 phases of the project, due to the lack of public infrastructure.
T.J. Boyle Associates | 301 College Street • Burlington VT 05401 | www.tjboyle.com
DORSET MEADOWS ‐ LANDSCAPE BUDGET
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Costs
Landscape Percent of Total
Construction / Improvement Cost
Cost of Proposed Project
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $138,387
Total Minimum Landscaping* $150,887
*Project cost used to calculate the landscape budget is $14,058,750, which includes construction of 24 duplexes ($220,00
per unit), 35 townhomes ($150,000 per unit), and 6,925 L.F. of roadway ($550/L.F).
OPINION OF POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COST
Total Buildings Cost per Building Total Potential Cost
Typical Duplex Foundation
Planting
12
$1,500 $18,000
Typical 5 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
4
$2,500 $10,000
Typical 4 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
3 $2,100 $6,300
Typical 3 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
1 $1,600 $1,600
Townhome Surrounding
Area Plantings
- - $82,000
Duplex Surrounding Area
Plantings
$33,500
Total: $151,400
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COSTS
Street Trees (Total Site) $233,500
Other Greenspace Areas and
Stormwater Pond Buffer Areas
$103,000
Wetland Buffer Planting Areas (Total
Site)
$37,200
Small Typical Single Family Lot (per
unit)
$2,100
Large Typical Single Family Lot (per
unit)
$2,700
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
9 AxFC ACER x freemanii 'Celebration' Celebration Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
9 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
2 AxGR AMELANCHIER x grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B single stem 290.00$ 1,450.00$
7 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 4,165.00$
3 CCG CRATAEGUS crus-galli var. inermis 'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 300.00$ 2,250.00$
14 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 7,700.00$
6 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 4,425.00$
21 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 12,495.00$
8 MAS MAACKIA amurensis 'Summertime' Summertime Amur Maacki 2-1/2" cal. B&B 315.00$ 6,300.00$
6 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 3,330.00$
3 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,882.50$
7 SRI SYRINGA reticulata 'Ivory Silk' Ivory Silk Tree Lilac 2-1/2" cal. B&B 250.00$ 4,375.00$
6 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 3,450.00$
11 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 6,325.00$
10 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 5,750.00$
122 Total: 75,192.50$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
5 AxGR AMELANCHIER x grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B single stem 290.00$ 3,625.00$
5 CCG CRATAEGUS crus-galli var. inermis 'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 300.00$ 3,750.00$
3 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 1,650.00$
10 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 7,375.00$
3 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 1,785.00$
8 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 4,440.00$
11 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 6,902.50$
6 SRI SYRINGA reticulata 'Ivory Silk' Ivory Silk Tree Lilac 2-1/2" cal. B&B 250.00$ 3,750.00$
14 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 8,785.00$
7 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 4,025.00$
13 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 7,475.00$
9 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 5,175.00$
94 Total: 58,737.50$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
4 AxFC ACER x freemanii 'Celebration' Celebration Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 2,510.00$
5 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 3,137.50$
15 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 8,925.00$
8 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 4,400.00$
4 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 2,950.00$
16 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 9,520.00$
5 NS NYSSA sylvatica Black Tupelo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 275.00$ 3,437.50$
5 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 2,775.00$
6 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 3,765.00$
2 QM QUERCUS macrocarpa Bur Oak 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,255.00$
7 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 4,025.00$
4 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,300.00$
5 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,875.00$
86 Total: 51,875.00$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
2 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,255.00$
6 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 3,570.00$
6 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 3,300.00$
3 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 2,212.50$
3 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 1,785.00$
4 NS NYSSA sylvatica Black Tupelo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 275.00$ 2,750.00$
7 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 3,885.00$
3 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,882.50$
9 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
4 QM QUERCUS macrocarpa Bur Oak 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 2,510.00$
12 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 6,900.00$
4 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,300.00$
63 Total: 37,997.50$
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 3
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 4
Street Trees
Dorset Meadows Planting Plan
Prepared by T. J. Boyle Associates
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 1
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 2
Gilman & Briggs Environmental, Inc.
1 Conti Circle, Suite 5
Barre, Vermont 05641
Tel: (802) 479-7480; FAX: (802) 476-7018
team@gbevt.com
DORSET MEADOWS RARE, THREATENED & ENDANGERED
SPECIES INVESTIGATION
A search for rare, threatened or endangered species was conducted at the Dorset Meadows project area
on 15 July 2019 by Arthur Gilman and Errol Briggs of Gilman & Briggs Environmental. Detailed
observations were made in the several vegetation communities, and a comprehensive list of all
observed vascular plants was made (See Table 1). In all, 148 plant species were noted. In addition, notes
were taken on wildlife species observed or heard.
VASCULAR PLANTS
Plant communities at the site consist of about 75% open land (hayfields and shallow marsh) and 20%
wooded. The marsh lies along a stream extending from Nowland Farm Road across the property, with
tributary swales draining from the east, to a small pond in the southeast corner. This wetland, covering
about 2.5 acres, is mostly shallow marsh.
The wooded areas include a fringe of trees along Dorset Street, a dense shrub thicket on the east side of
the small pond, and a forested area on high ground in the southwest part of the project site. This last
area includes a patch of dense woods north of the driveway and a park‐like stand of pines to the south.
No rare or uncommon species were noted, and therefore no species on the Vermont Threatened or
Endangered Species lists were found at the Dorset Meadows site.
Among the species of plants observed, there were seven that are considered invasive Class B Noxious
weeds on the Vermont Quarantine list:
Acer ginnala (Amur maple)
Celastrus orbiculatus (Oriental bittersweet)
Frangula alnus (Glossy buckthorn)
Lonicera morrowii (Morrow’s honeysuckle)
Lonicera tatarica (Tartarian honeysuckle)
Rhamnus cathartica (Common buckthorn)
Lythrum salicaria (Purple loosestrife)
TABLE 1. Vascular plant species at Dorset Meadows site, South Burlington
TREES, SHRUBS & VINES
Acer ginnala Amur maple INVASIVE Margin of western woodlot
Acer negundo Box‐elder Occasional in woodlines
Acer rubrum Red maple Occasional
Amelanchier sp. Shadbush Uncommon in western woodlot
Betula papyrifera Paper birch Uncommon in western woodlot
Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory Occasional in western woodlot
Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Occasional in western woodlot
Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet INVASIVE Common in western woodlot
Crataegus cf. pringlei Pringle’s hawthorn Occasional in thickets/hedgerow
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Occasional in thickets
Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Common
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut Uncommon
Frangula alnus Glossy buckthorn INVASIVE Common in western woodlot
Fraxinus americana White ash Occasional
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Common in western woodlot
Juglans nigra Black walnut Locally common & spreading
Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Uncommon (beside pond)
Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle INVASIVE In western woodlot
Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle INVASIVE Common in thickets
Malus pumila Apple Uncommon
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Occasional
Pinus strobus White pine Common in western woodlot
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Along Dorset Street
Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Occasional
Prunus serotina Black cherry Occasional
Prunus virginiana Choke cherry Uncommon in western woodlot
Pyrus communis Pear Common in western woodlot
Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Uncommon in western woodlot
Quercus rubra Red oak Occasional in western woodlot
Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn INVASIVE Abundant in thickets
Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac Uncommon (one occurrence noted)
Rubus alleghaniensis Blackberry Occasional
Rubus idaeus Red raspberry Occasional
Rubus occidentalis Back raspberry Occasional
Salix alba White willow Occasional
Salix bebbiana Bebb’s willow Occasional
Salix discolor Pussy willow Occasional
Salix eriocephala Wand willow Occasional
Salix fragilis Crack willow Occasional
Ulmus americana American elm Uncommon
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Uncommon in western woodlot
Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Common at edge of western woodlot
Viburnum trilobum Highbush‐cranberry Uncommon in western woodlot
Vitis riparia Riverbank grape Common
FERNS & FERN ALLIES
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Abundant along stream
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Locally common in western woodlot
HERBS
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Occasional
Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent grass Common
Agrostis gigantea Red‐top Common
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent grass Common
Alisma gramineum Grass‐leaved water‐plantain Occasional
Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed Occasional along roadsides
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass Common
Artemisia vulgaris Common mugwort Occasional along roadsides
Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Occasional
Boehmeria cylindrica False nettle Occasional
Bromus inermis Hungarian brome Abundant
Calamagrostis canadensis Canada bluejoint Abundant
Carex communis Common sedge Occasional
Carex cristatella Crested sedge Common in wetland
Carex gracillima Slender sedge Few, forest
Carex granularis Meadow sedge Occasional
Carex lacustris Lake sedge Locally abundant
Carex normalis Tall straw sedge Few
Carex pallescens Pale sedge Few
Carex scoparia Broom sedge Few
Carex stipata Soft‐stemmed sedge Common
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge Occasional
Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Abundant
Cerastium fontanum Mouse‐ear chickweed Few, near driveway
Cichorium intybus Chicory Occasional
Cicuta maculata Spotted water‐hemlock Locally common
Circaea canadensis Enchanter’s‐nightshade Occasional in western woodlot
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Common
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Uncommon
Clematis virginiana Virgin’s bower Uncommon
Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Abundant
Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace Common
Eleocharis sp. Spike‐rush Locally common, meadow
Eleocharis palustris Marsh spike‐rush Locally common, pond
Elymus repens Witch grass Common
Epilobium hirsutum Hairy willow‐herb Occasional in wetland
Erigeron strigosus Daisy fleabane Common
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset Occasional
Eutrochium maculatum Joe‐Pye‐weed Occasional in wetland
Fragaria virginiana Strawberry Common
Galium mollugo Field bedstraw Abundant
Galium palustre Marsh bedstraw Common in marsh wetland
Galium triflorum Sweet‐scented bedstraw Occasional in wetlands
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert Occasional in western woodlot
Geum aleppicum Yellow avens Uncommon
Geum canadense White avens Common in forest
Glechoma hederacea Gill‐over‐the‐ground Locally common
Glyceria grandis Tall manna grass Common in wetland
Hypericum perforatum Common St. John’s‐wort Occasional
Juncus tenuis Path rush Common
Leersia oryzoides Rice cut‐grass Locally common in wetland
Lemna minor Duckweed Common in pools & pond
Lemna trisulca Star duckweed Abundant in pond
Leucanthemum vulgare Ox‐eye daisy Locally common
Lobelia inflata Indian tobacco Few, woods margin
Ludwigia palustris Common water‐purslane Locally common in wetland
Lycopus americanus American water‐horehound Occasional in wetland
Lysimachia terrestris Bog‐candles Common in wet meadows
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife INVASIVE Few, in wetland
Medicago sativa Alfalfa Occasional
Mentha canadensis American wild mint Occasional in wetland
Mimulus ringens Monkey‐flower Uncommon in wetland
Lotus corniculatus Bird’s‐foot trefoil Occasional
Oxalis stricta Yellow wood‐sorrel Occasional
Persicaria hydropiper Water‐pepper One occurrence noted in marsh
Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Common
Poa palustris Fowl meadow grass Common
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary‐grass Abundant
Phleum pratense Timothy Abundant
Pilosella caespitosa Yellow king‐devil Locally common
Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil Occasional
Potentilla simplex Old‐field cinquefoil Common
Rubus triflorus Creeping raspberry Common in western woodlot
Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup Common
Rudbeckia hirta var. pulcherrima Black‐eyed Susan Occasional
Rumex crispus Curly dock Occasional
Rumex pseudonatronatus Finnish dock One occurrence, field near driveway
Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead Common in pond
Schedonorus pratensis Meadow‐fescue Local
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft stem bulrush Occasional in wetland
Scirpus atrovirens Black bulrush Common
Scirpus cyperinus Wool‐grass Occasional
Scirpus hattorianus Hattori bulrush Common
Scirpus pendulus Pendulous bulrush Uncommon
Scorzoneroides autumnalis Fall dandelion Occasional
Solidago altissima Tall goldenrod Common
Solidago gigantea Large goldenrod Occasional
Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Locally abundant
Solidago juncea Early goldenrod Occasional
Solidago rugosa Rough goldenrod Occasional near western woodlot
Sparganium americanum Common bur‐reed Occasional in pond
Stellaria graminea Common stichwort Common
Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Lance‐leaved aster Occasional
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico aster Few, forest margin
Symphyotrichum novae‐angliae New England aster Occasional
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Common
Trifolium aureum Hop clover Uncommon
Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover Local
Trifolium pratense Red clover Occasional
Typha angustifolia Narrow‐leaved cat‐tail Common in wetland near Dorset Street
Typha x glauca Hybrid cat‐tail Common in pond
Verbena hastata Purple vervain Occasional
Vicia cracca Cow vetch Abundant
WILDLIFE
The following rare wildlife species have been recorded in this area of South Burlington:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS REMARKS
Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis S2B
Endangered
North of Nowland Farm Rd., 2011
Upland sandpiper Bartramia brevicauda S2B
Endangered
On lands to the southwest, 1989
Blue‐winged warbler Vermivora cyanoptera S3B SC In woods on northern part of
South Village site, 2013
Northern harrier Circus hudsonius S3B SC North of Nowland Farm Rd.
(2011); South Village marshes
(2019)
Meadow lark Sternella magna S4B SC Dorset Farms, 2009; Cider Mill,
2015; Dorset Meadows, 2019
Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus S2S3B SC Dorset Farms, 2010
Jefferson’s salamander Ambystoma
jeffersonianum
S3 In old farm pond at South Village
site to the southwest; 2018
Blue‐spotted
salamander
Ambystoma laterale S3 In old farm pond at South Village
site to the southwest; 2018
S2 = Rare; S3 = Uncommon; B = Status refers to breeding populations; SC = Species of special concern
Of the species listed above, only one (eastern meadowlark) was observed at the site; a single individual
was flushed from the hayfield near the upper end of the pond. Given that suitable habitat is found at
the site, the other listed bird species might occur there, but none have been seen during fieldwork on
this and adjacent parcels in 2017, 2018 or 2019. The pond might provide habitat for the two amphibian
species, but there is no suitable upland habitat (deciduous forest) nearby.
W. Steven Litkovitz Direct Dial Number:
Electrical Engineer (802) 655-8796
steve.litkovitz@greenmountainpower.com
Green Mountain Power 163 Acorn Lane Colchester Vermont 05446-6611 www.greenmountainpower.com
February 27, 2019
Mr. Bryan Currier, PE
O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Dear Mr. Currier:
Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP) has reviewed your request of February 26, 2019 for GMP to
serve a proposed electric load to a new housing subdivision to be located at 1505 Dorset Street in South
Burlington, Vermont (the Project). This location is near Pole 82, taglet 54555, which is currently served
by GMP’s 78G2 circuit. This circuit, in turn, is supplied by the GMP Dorset Street substation. Further field
and record investigation is required by our distribution designer to determine the location of the most
appropriate GMP delivery point(s) for these residences. Based on the information that you have
provided, GMP approves an ability to serve 750 kVA at the above referenced location.
As you know, our comments are required for the Project so that a meaningful assessment can be made
under 10 VSA Section 6086 (a)(9)(J).
You have informed us that the Project will consist of 95 single family homes, 35 multi-family units, and
24 duplex units. Based on this and other information provided to us, GMP estimates that your proposed
Project could result in an estimated additional peak demand on the GMP system of 750 kVA. If this
estimate is not consistent with your load projections, GMP must be made aware of the situation for
planning purposes.
GMP’s review of this Project assumes that there would be no single-phase motors larger than 5 H.P.
planned for these units. If this is not correct, GMP must be informed so that it can calculate applicable
motor start and flicker limitations.
A new ability to serve request must be placed with GMP if construction of the Project has not begun
within two (2) years of the date of this letter. Any new line extension construction necessary to provide
service will be administered under GMP’s line extension tariff. This tariff provides that line extensions
will be installed in a right-of-way granted by the customer in the form of a legally binding easement in a
form satisfactory to GMP. GMP requires that these rights-of-way be unencumbered, and meet the
following criteria:
(i) for overhead facilities, a minimum of 25' in width;
(ii) for underground facilities a minimum of 20’ in width.
Mr. Bryan Currier, PE
February 27, 2019
Page 2 of 2
As stated in GMP specifications, the easement strip may be shared by telecommunication facilities with
the appropriate spacing and subject to GMP’s superior easement interest. However, all other utilities,
including but not limited to, water, gas, sewer and drainage must maintain a minimum separation
distance of 10’ from our electric facilities. This separation requirement includes utilities that may be
located in a public right-of-way adjacent to our easement. GMP expects to be able to maintain this
separation distance with the minimum easement widths noted above. If however the minimum
easement widths and/or 10’ spacing cannot be met for underground facilities due to road right of way
requirements, then GMP may, upon request and in its sole discretion, allow minimum spacing of 5’
subject to the condition that the electric facilities be encased in a 4” envelop of concrete at customer
cost. Any relocation of existing GMP facilities in public or private right of way that is required in
conjunction with this Project, or in conjunction with any highway improvements related to this Project,
will be administered under GMP’s relocation policy. This policy requires that the facilities be relocated
within private right of way where possible, and that all costs be recovered from the Project.
Details concerning service size, scheduling, costs, etc., should be discussed with Joe Bobee, GMP’s
distribution designer for this area. Joe can be reached at 802-655-8568.
In addition to demonstrating that GMP has the capacity and the ability to provide service to your
Project, you may be required to demonstrate, under 10 VSA Section 6086 (a)(9)(F), that your Project is
designed to utilize energy in an efficient manner. The Vermont Public Service Board has appointed
Efficiency Vermont as the energy efficiency utility for this area. Efficiency Vermont is available to work
with Act 250 permit applicants to help understand the requirements of the above referenced statute
and to assist you or your client to design and construct an efficient building. A copy of this letter is being
sent to Efficiency Vermont which can be reached toll-free at 1-888-921-5990.
Respectfully,
Steve Litkovitz
cc: Engineering Files
Joe Bobee
Efficiency Vermont
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
August 30, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Matt Cota, Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: mcota@sburl.com
Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27
Dear Chairperson Cota:
I serve as counsel for Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew
Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road;
William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia
J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn
Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons
interested in the above-referenced Final Plat Application (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South
Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”).
I learned late yesterday afternoon that a public notice of a September 17, 2019 DRB
hearing concerning the above-referenced Final Plat Application was published in the August 29,
2019 edition of the Other Paper. It also came to my attention late yesterday afternoon that at
least one abutter to the proposed Dorset Meadows project had received a mailing concerning the
scheduled September 17th Final Plat hearing.1
As you and your fellow DRB members may be aware, the proposed Dorset Meadows
project is the subject of a pending appeal in the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior
Court that I filed on behalf of the above-listed SOS South Burlington members. This E-Court
appeal, styled, In re Dorset Meadows, LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 90-7-19 Vtec (the “E-Court Appeal”),
raises various issues concerning the proposed Dorset Meadows project, including whether the
DRB has jurisdiction to consider it at this time and/or in the project’s current proposed form.
See Appellants’ Statement of Questions, In re Dorset Meadows, LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 90-7-19
Vtec (Aug. 19, 2019), a copy of which is attached hereto as an Exhibit.
1 Late this afternoon, I received an e-mail message for Development Review Planner Marla
Keene informing me that the September 17th hearing had been adjourned to October 15th due to a
“quorum issue.”
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
August 30, 2019
Page 2 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
In light of the pending E-Court Appeal, SOS South Burlington maintains that the DRB is
divested of jurisdiction to act on the Final Plat Application, and that therefore the warning of the
September 17th Final Plat hearing and any mailings to abutters concerning the September 17th
hearing are legal nullities. As E-Court Judge Thomas G. Walsh held in his March 19, 2019
decision in a prior appeal concerning the Dorset Meadows project, the DRB is powerless to act
during the pendency of a court appeal concerning “those aspects of the application involved in
the appeal”:
While we ultimately conclude that this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction, our conclusions do not in any way affect the
rules surrounding divestiture of jurisdiction. See In re Freimour &
Menard Conditional Use Permit, No. 59-4-11 Vtec, slip op. at 6-7
(Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. June 6, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (citations
omitted) (discussing how an appeal to this Court divests the
municipal panel below of its authority to decide on those aspects of
the application involved in the appeal). Dorset argues that, despite
the present appeal, the DRB retained its ability to decide on the
Applications in the next phase of review. The DRB, however, did
not have control over the reviewability of the [Dorset Meadows
Preliminary Plat and Master Plan] Applications while this
appeal was pending. The question of whether the DRB could
properly proceed to the next stage of review was the basis of
Neighbors[’] appeal and constituted the matter before this
Court. The DRB could not decide this question for themselves.
Any steps taken by the DRB related to the [Dorset Meadows
Preliminary Plat and Master Plan] Applications during the
pendency of this appeal were carried out without the power to
do so. See, e.g., Kotz v. Kotz, 134 Vt. 36 (1975) (vacating a trial
court order that issued while the matter was on appeal to the
Supreme Court).
Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2-1-19 Vtec, 2019 WL 1423064, at *3, slip op. at 3
(Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 19, 2019) (Walsh, J.) (footnote omitted) (bold emphasis added),
aff’d, No. 2019-130 (Vt. June 4, 2019) (unpub. Entry Order).
In the pending E-Court Appeal, Appellants challenge the DRB’s jurisdiction to proceed
to the next stage of review, as well as the DRB’s jurisdiction to consider a project that is
dependent on transferable development rights. Appellants’ TDR-based challenge to the DRB’s
jurisdiction is based on the fact that, on February 28, 2019, in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final
Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec, 2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019)
(Durkin, J.), appeal docketed, No. 2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019), the E-Court invalidated the
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
August 30, 2019
Page 3 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
City’s Transferable Development Rights Bylaw for failure to comply with the State enabling
statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
The pending E-Court Appeal also challenges the DRB’s jurisdiction to approve construction in
Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas depicted on Maps 7 and 8 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
In light of the above, I request that the DRB cancel the September 17th/October 15th
hearing[s] on the Final Plat Application and refrain from noticing or scheduling further hearings
on the Application until the E-Court Appeal is resolved.2
Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail)
Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail)
Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail)
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail)
Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail)
Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail)
2 On August 26, 2019, unaware that the Final Plat Application had been filed, I sent an e-mail
message to the attorneys for the Dorset Meadows developer and the City offering on behalf of SOS South
Burlington to stipulate to a joint stay of the E-Court Appeal until after any future DRB final plat
proceedings were concluded. On August 28, 2019, the developer’s counsel called to inform me that such
a stay was not acceptable because of his concern that a court might ultimately rule that the DRB was
divested of jurisdiction to act on the Final Plat Application during the pendency of a court-ordered stay.
(Counsel did not advise me that a Final Plat Application had been filed. It is possible he assumed
incorrectly that I knew about the filing.) There remains a possibility that counsel for the developer, the
City and I might agree on a proposed mechanism of putting the pending E-Court Appeal in abeyance until
after the DRB issues a decision on the Final Plat Application. E-Court approval of such a mechanism
would be a necessary condition for SOS South Burlington to agree to postpone litigating the issues raised
in the attached Statement of Questions. In the meantime, the E-Court Appeal remains pending and, as
such, the law concerning divestiture of municipal panel jurisdiction applies. See the E-Court’s March 19,
2019 Dorset Meadows Associates decision, which is quoted and discussed on page two, above.
EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 6
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
Docket No. 90-7-19 Vtec
In re: Dorset Meadows LLC, PUD
APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS
NOW COME Appellants Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive;
Andrew Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four
Sisters Road; William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset
Street; Claudia J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive;
and Darrilyn Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents
(collectively, “Appellants”), by and through their counsel, MSK Attorneys, and hereby
respectfully submit, pursuant to Rule 5(f) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court
Proceedings, this Statement of Questions:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Questions #s 1 through 6, below, are substantively identical to Questions #s 1 through 6
of the January 25, 2019 Statement of Questions that Appellants filed in the since-dismissed case
of In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2-1-19 Vtec (the “Sketch Plan
Appeal”).1 This Court dismissed Appellants’ Sketch Plan Appeal on March 19, 2019 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, hence there has yet to be a merits ruling on Questions #s 1 through 6.
1 The only difference between the two sets of Questions #s 1 through 6 is the inclusion of the
letter “A” in the referenced Application numbers, e.g., “Application for Subdivision Plat Review
(Preliminary), No. SD-18-29” has been changed to “Application for Subdivision Plat Review
(Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A,” and “Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01” has been
changed to “Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A.” All references herein to Application
Nos. SD-18-29A are intended to include Application No. SD-18-29, and all references hereto Application
No. MP-18-01A are intended to include Application No. MP-18-01.
Page 2 of 6
See In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2-1-19 Vtec, 2019 WL 1423064 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 19, 2019) (Walsh, J.).
Appellants appealed this Court’s March 19, 2019 Sketch Plan Appeal dismissal ruling to
the Vermont Supreme Court. In an unpublished one-paragraph Entry Order, the Supreme Court
granted Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s motion to dismiss Appellants’ appeal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, stating in relevant part:
The Environmental Division ruled on an interlocutory issue in the
underlying PUD application process; there has not yet been a final
resolution of Dorset Meadows’ application. We lack jurisdiction
over this interlocutory ruling and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2019-130 (Vt. June 4, 2019) (unpub. Entry
Order).
Appellants continue to maintain respectfully that the City of South Burlington
Development Review Board was required to vote on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s Sketch
Plan Application No. SD-18-23, and that the DRB’s failure to vote renders Dorset Meadows
Associates LLC’s subsequent Applications for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No. SD-
18-29A, and Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void,
and of no force or effect. Appellants submit respectfully that Questions #s 1 through 6, below,
are ripe for review as part of the instant appeal regardless of whether the Supreme Court would
have immediate subject matter jurisdiction of over any appeals resulting from this Court’s
eventual merits ruling on Questions #s 1 through 6.
QUESTIONS THAT THE APPELLANTS DESIRE TO HAVE DETERMINED
1. Was a final decision of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board
(“DRB”) on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s (“Applicant”) Sketch Plan Application No. SD-
18-23 (“Sketch Plan Application”) required by, inter alia, 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), the City of South
Page 3 of 6
Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”), including § 15.05(C)(3), and/or In re
Saxon Partners LLC BJ’s Warehouse Sketch Plan, No. 5-1-16 Vtec, 2016 WL 4211462 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Chitt. Cty. Mar. 25, 2016) (Walsh, J.) (“Saxon Partners”)?
1.1. Is the DRB’s sketch meeting (“Sketch Meeting”) concerning the Sketch Plan
Application still open due to the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the
Sketch Plan Application?
1.2. Does the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the Sketch Plan Application
render the Applicant’s subsequent Application for Subdivision Plat Review
(Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of
no force or effect?
1.3. Does the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the Sketch Plan Application
render the Applicant’s subsequent Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-
18-01A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
2. Was the DRB required by, inter alia, 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), the SBLDR, including
§ 15.05(C)(3), and/or Saxon Partners to vote on the Sketch Plan Application?
2.1. Is the Sketch Meeting still open due to the DRB’s failure to vote on the Sketch
Plan Application?
2.2. Does the DRB’s failure to vote on the Sketch Plan Application render the
Applicant’s subsequent Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary),
No. SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or
effect?
Page 4 of 6
2.3. Does the DRB’s failure to vote to on the Sketch Plan Application render the
Applicant’s subsequent Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A,
premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
3. Did the DRB commit reversible error in declining to grant the relief requested in
the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal to the DRB dated October 11, 2018 and October 26, 2018,
including, inter alia, the Appellants’ requests that the DRB determine that the Applicant’s
Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A, is premature, unripe,
invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
4. Is the Applicant’s Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No.
SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
5. Did the DRB commit reversible error in declining to grant the relief requested in
the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal to the DRB dated October 11, 2018 and October 26, 2018,
including, inter alia, the Appellants’ requests that the DRB determine that the Applicant’s
Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A, is premature, unripe, invalid, null and
void, and of no force or effect?
6. Is the Applicant’s Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A,
premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
7. Is the proposed Dorset Meadows project (the “Project”), which is dependent on
the use of 68 so-called transferable development rights (“TDRs”) to reach its proposed density of
154 dwelling units, limited to a maximum density of no more than 86 dwelling units due to the
fact that, on February 28, 2019, in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17
Vtec, 2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), appeal docketed,
No. 2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019) (“Snyder Group”), this Court invalidated the City’s
Page 5 of 6
Transferable Development Rights Bylaw (“TDR Bylaw” or “Bylaw”) for failure to comply with
the State enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw was unconstitutionally
void for vagueness?
8. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving the use of
TDRs after this Court invalidated the TDR Bylaw in Snyder Group?
9. Should the Project be remanded to the DRB with instructions to limit any future
proposals to a maximum of 86 dwelling units?
10. Is the Applicant prohibited by, inter alia, the SBLDR, including without limitation
Sections 9.06(B)(3), 12.01(C)(4) and 15.18(A)(10) thereof, from constructing the Project in the
Primary Conservation Areas depicted on Map 7 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including
without limitation the Riparian Connectivity area?
11. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving Project
construction in one or more Primary Conservation Areas?
12. Should this Court remand the Project to the DRB with instructions to limit any
future proposals to construction outside of Primary Conservation Areas as depicted on Map 7 of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
13. Is the Applicant prohibited by, inter alia, the SBLDR, including without limitation
Sections 9.06(B)(3), 12.01(C)(4) and 15.18(A)(10) thereof, from constructing the Project in the
Secondary Conservation Areas depicted on Map 8 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
14. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving Project
construction in one or more Secondary Conservation Areas?
Page 6 of 6
15. Should this Court remand the Project to the DRB with instructions to limit any
future proposals to construction outside of Secondary Conservation Areas as depicted on Map 8
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
16. Is the project designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning
districts in which the project is located?
DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 19th day of August, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
MSK ATTORNEYS
By: /s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff, Esq. (ERN 1514)
275 College Street, P.O. Box 4485
Burlington, VT 05406-4485
Phone: 802-861-7000
Fax: 802-861-7007
Email: dseff@mskvt.com
Attorneys for Appellants
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
October 10, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Matt Cota, Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: mcota@sburl.com
Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27
Dear Chairperson Cota and members of the South Burlington DRB:
I serve as counsel for Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew
Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road;
William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia
J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn
Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons
interested in the above-referenced Final Plat Application (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South
Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”). This letter and Attachments A to E hereto concern
1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27.
As explained below in Section I, the Final Plat Application is moot and should be
dismissed because it is dependent on 68 transferable development rights (“TDRs”) under the
City’s former 2006 TDR Bylaw (“2006 TDR Bylaw”) to reach its proposed density of 154
dwelling units. The E-Court invalidated the 2006 TDR Bylaw in the February 28, 2019 Snyder
Group decision, which remains the controlling law while Snyder Group is on appeal to the
Vermont Supreme Court.
Moreover, as explained below in Section II, the developer and the DRB cannot apply the
City’s new 2019 TDR Bylaw (which the City Council approved on September 16, 2019) to the
Final Plat Application. Vermont law is clear that a municipality may not apply to a submitted
permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the filing of the application. Rather, the
zoning regulations in effect when an application was filed govern the application, not
subsequently enacted amendments.
Finally, as explained below in Section III, even if the 2006 TDR Bylaw still existed
(which it does not), or even if the 2019 TDR Bylaw applied to the Final Plat Application (which
it does not), the Final Plat Application is fatally flawed and must be rejected because the
developer proposes to build in a Primary Conservation Area that is off-limits to development and
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 2 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
which the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”) mandate “shall be
protected through the development plan.” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3).
I. The Final Plat Application is Moot and Should Be Dismissed Because it is
Dependent on 68 TDRs Under the City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw and that Bylaw
was Invalidated on February 28, 2019 in the E-Court’s Controlling Snyder
Group Decision.
On February 28, 2019, the Vermont Superior Court’s Environmental Division handed
down a controlling decision invalidating the City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw for failure to comply with
the State enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw is unconstitutionally void
for vagueness on its face. See In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec,
2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), appeal docketed, No.
2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019) (hereafter cited as “Snyder Group”).
On April 5, 2019, the Snyder Group, Inc. appealed Snyder Group to the Vermont
Supreme Court (the City did not appeal or cross-appeal). On September 17, 2019, the Vermont
Supreme Court held oral argument in Snyder Group. The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision
could come down at any time. In the meantime, the E-Court’s Snyder Group February 28, 2019
decision remains the controlling law.
As such, the 2006 TDR Bylaw remains invalid, and neither the developer nor the DRB
can rely on the former Bylaw to increase the base density of the proposed Dorset Meadows PUD.
See generally In re Ashline, 2003 VT 30, ¶ 9, 175 Vt. 203, 824 A.2d 579 (“In Vermont, a
judgment of an adjudicative body remains valid until reversed or annulled”) (emphasis
added), citing Davidson v. Davidson, 111 Vt. 24, 29, 9 A.2d 114, 116 (1939). In Davidson, the
Court explained that “the judgment of a trial court in an action at law is not vacated by the
allowance and filing of a bill of exceptions, but it still remains valid until reversed or annulled.”
Id. at 29, 9 A.2d at 116. See also In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec &
259-12-05 Vtec, 2008 WL 7242611, slip op. at 11 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 21, 2008) (Durkin, J.)
(holding that “Vermont [trial court] judgments are final unless appellate review of that judgment
involves a trial de novo” and noting that “[t]his approach is in accord with the federal approach
to finality”) (citing cases).1
1 A “trial de novo” is not the same thing as review de novo. See Luck Bros. v. Agency of
Transp., 2014 VT 59, ¶ 27, 196 Vt. 584, 99 A.3d 997 (citing cases); see also Stein’s, Inc. v. Blumenthal,
649 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1980) (distinguishing between “trial de novo” and “de novo review”).
Situations in which an “appeal” involves a “full trial de novo” are “virtually nonexistent.” 18A EDWARD
H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION § 4433 (3d ed.) (emphasis added),
Westlaw FPP § 4433 (database updated Aug. 2019).
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 3 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
The long-standing Vermont rule that court decisions remain valid until reversed or
annulled is consistent with the rule in the federal courts that “the preclusive effects of a lower
court judgment cannot be suspended simply by taking an appeal that remains undecided.”
18A EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION § 4433 (3d ed.)
(emphasis added), Westlaw FPP § 4433 (database updated Aug. 2019). As the authors of a
leading federal procedure treatise have explained:
The bare act of taking an appeal is no more effective to defeat
preclusion than a failure to appeal. The Supreme Court long ago
seemed to establish the rule that a final judgment retains all of its
res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal, apart
from the virtually nonexistent situation in which the “appeal”
actually involves a full trial de novo. The lower courts have taken
the rule as settled ever since.
Id. § 4433 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted) (citing extensive case law). See generally
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1764 (2015) (“a judgment’s preclusive effect is generally
immediate, notwithstanding any appeal”); Palmer-Williams v. United States, 699 F. App’x 1, 3
(2d Cir. 2017) (“the law is well-settled that the preclusive effect of a judgment is immediate,
notwithstanding a pending appeal”); and Burke v. Vermont Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:14-CV-00272,
2015 WL 1954268, at *3 n.3 (D. Vt. Apr. 29, 2015) (“Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply
once a final judgment is entered in a case, even while an appeal from that judgment is pending.”)
(internal quotes and brackets omitted).
In the instant matter, the current controlling law announced in Snyder Group is that the
City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw is invalid and unconstitutional. The practical effect of this is that the
Dorset Meadows developer’s Final Plat Application, which is dependent on 68 TDRs under
the 2006 TDR Bylaw, is moot and should be dismissed.
II. The City’s New 2019 TDR Bylaw Does Not Apply to the Final Plat
Application.
In an apparent reaction to the E-Court’s February 28, 2019 Snyder Group decision
invalidating the 2006 TDR Bylaw, the City Council adopted a new TDR bylaw on September 16,
2019 (“2019 TDR Bylaw”). The developer and the DRB cannot apply the new 2019 TDR
Bylaw to the Final Plat Application. Vermont law is clear that a municipality may not apply to a
submitted permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the application is filed. See
generally Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84, ¶ 28, 202 Vt. 535, 150 A.3d 1084 (“a permit
application cannot prospectively vest a right in future regulations”); In re Times & Seasons,
LLC, 2011 VT 76, ¶ 16, 190 Vt. 163, 27 A.3d 323 (to “take advantage” of a post-application
“favorable change in the law,” an applicant must begin the “permit process anew”); In re Paynter
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 4 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28, ¶ 9, 187 Vt. 637, 996 A.2d 219 (mem.) (explaining that a town
may not apply to a submitted permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the filing of the
application); and Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm’n, 140 Vt. 178, 181-82, 436 A.2d 760, 761-
62 (1981) (holding that zoning regulations in effect when application was filed govern
application, not subsequently enacted amendments).
In short, if the Dorset Meadows developer wishes to hitch its wagon to the 2019 TDR
Bylaw, it must begin the “permit process anew,” i.e., file a new sketch plan application. Times
& Seasons, 2011 VT 76, ¶ 16.
III. Dorset Meadows Cannot Be Constructed in a Primary Conservation Area.
SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3) states that “existing natural resources shall be protected
through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities,
streams, wetlands, floodplains, [and] conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive
Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis added).
The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies “primary conservation areas” on Map 7
(Attachment A hereto), and the Comprehensive Plan states (at page 2-103) that “[p]rimary
conservation areas (Map 7) include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are off
limits to development, regardless of their setting or context. . . .” (emphasis added). Much of
the proposed “Dorset Meadows” development is located on a riparian connectivity area that the
Comprehensive Plan designates as a Primary Conservation (Attachment B) and as off limits to
development. For this reason alone, the Final Plat Application must be rejected.
Former DRB member Frank Kochman voted against granting preliminary plat and master
plan approval to Dorset Meadows for this very reason. See the DRB’s June 28, 2019 Findings of
Fact and Decision approving the developer’s Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29A, at 25
n.3 (“Mr. Kochman would deny the application for failure of the development plan to protect the
full applicable conservation area as shown on Map 7 of the Comprehensive Plan in violation of
the applicable goal and objective of the Comprehensive Plan.”); and the DRB’s June 28, 2019
Findings of Fact and Decision approving Master Plan Application #MP-18-01A, at 12 n.4
(same).
Moreover, a planned unit development (“PUD”) must be “consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10). One
of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the City, including the Southeast Quadrant (“SEQ”), is
“conservation of identified important natural areas” (Comp. Plan, p. 1-1 (emphasis added)).
And one of the objectives for the SEQ is prioritizing and conserving existing contiguous and
interconnected open space areas (see Comp. Plan, p. 3-38, Objective 60). The Comprehensive
Plan has identified important natural areas on Map 7. Development in these important natural
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 5 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
areas is inconsistent “with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,” SBLDR §
15.18(A)(10), and as such the Final Plat Application must be rejected.
It is no accident that the City designated these riparian connectivity areas as off-limits to
development, as the State of Vermont has similarly designated these same areas as requiring the
“highest priority” of protection. Attached hereto as Attachment C is a screen shot from the
BioFinder tool produced by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (“ANR”). The image
shows (in dark blue) the highest priority “surface water and riparian areas” that exist on the
proposed Dorset Meadows development.
Surface Waters and Riparian Areas include not only rivers, streams, lake, ponds and
wetlands but also the floodplain and land surrounding these water bodies that are impacted by
the waterways. See “ANR Fish & Wildlife Department, Mapping Vermont’s Natural Heritage:
A Mapping and Conservation Guide for Municipal and Regional Planners in Vermont,” 2018, at
48, available at:
https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/Get%20Involved/Partner%20i
n%20Conservation/MVNH-web.pdf (last visited Oct. 10, 2019) (hereafter, “ANR Guide”)
(“Surface Waters and Riparian Areas maps the entire area impacted by these waterways,
including not only the water itself but also the surrounding land. This surrounding area is
referred to as the riparian area.”).
The area that ANR designated as highest priority for protection is practically identical to
the primary conservation area identified by the City. The ANR explains that the BioFinder maps
“outline the areas of land that need to remain healthy and intact if we want to provide plants,
animals, and natural resources the best chance of survival over time.” ANR Guide, supra, at 78.
The ANR has instructed as follows:
Maintaining a vegetated riparian area may be the single most
effective way to protect a community’s natural heritage. The
riparian area provides high quality habitat for a great diversity of
both aquatic and terrestrial species. . . . Terrestrial animals use
riparian areas as travel corridors, while many plant and tree seeds
float downstream to disperse. Streamside vegetation helps to
control flooding, and it is crucial in filtering overland runoff –
which protects water quality – and stabilizing stream banks, which
prevents excessive streambank erosion and sediment buildup.
What’s more, maintaining the riparian area is one of the most cost-
effective ways to provide resilience for a changing climate.
ANR Guide, supra, at 49 (emphasis added). The ANR goes on to state:
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 6 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
Not sure where to begin conserving your community’s natural
heritage? Consider starting with riparian habitat. Among
conservation actions taken at the community level, maintaining
riparian habitat has one of the greatest impacts for wildlife.
It’s also an area of great benefit for a community, since conserving
the riparian area not only protects wildlife habitat but also
maintains water quality, reduces erosion, provides flood resilience,
and can support recreational opportunities.
Id. at 32 (emphasis added).
Experts commissioned by the City specifically identified these same areas as areas that
“should remain as unfragmented as possible.” In particular, in 2004 Arrowwood Environmental,
LLC produced the “Wildlife and Natural Communities Assessment of the South East Quadrant,
South Burlington Vermont” (the “Arrowwood Assessment”). The Arrowwood Assessment
states:
The Great Swamp, and the upland forest and shrubby fields that
surround it, comprise a 400-500 acre cluster of contiguous and
varied wildlife habitat. It is the anchor, the source habitat for the
western SEQ, and must remain un-fragmented if the level of
current wildlife array is to be maintained in the SEQ.
Arrowhead Assessment § 7.1.1, at 13 (July 13, 2004), available at:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/document_center/committees%20boards/Arrowwood%20Ecol
ogical%20Assessment%202004.doc (last visited Oct. 10, 2019).
A map of the “Great Swamp appears in the June 2004 “Study of Breeding Birds in the
Southeast Quadrant” by Wings Environmental, available at:
http://southburlingtonvt.gov/2004%20SEQ%20Bird%20Habitat%20Evaluation.pdf, Figure 1 at
page 4 (last visited Oct. 10, 2019). A copy of this map included herewith as Attachment D.
The Arrowwood Assessment goes states that “adjacent open spaces, including the large
fields west of Dorset Street, should remain as unfragmented as possible.” Arrowhead
Assessment § 7.1.1(5), at 13. See Attachment D hereto and note that the area west of Dorset
Street. This is the exact area on which the developer proposes to build 153 dwelling units.
Observations of the area confirm the experts’ assessments. Abundant wildlife exists
throughout the site. Residents have reported observing mink, great blue heron, green heron,
bitterns, bobcat, fox, deer, coyotes, squirrels, owls and hawks. Beaver activity can be readily
observed on the neighboring property just downstream of the proposed development.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 7 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
In its June 28, 2019 Findings of Fact and Decisions approving the developer’s
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29A (at page 7) and Master Plan Application #MP-18-01A
(at page 8), the DRB found that:
(a) A letter provided by the applicant’s engineer field-delineates areas that the
Comprehensive Plan designated as requiring protection;
(b) This field delineation has been confirmed by State Agencies; and
(c) Map 7 may not be relied on because it includes the following disclaimer: “Maps
and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for
reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy.”
These findings are incorrect. First, there is nothing that requires that riparian areas be
field-delineated and, even if there were, the developer never field-delineated the riparian areas.
Rather, the developer field-delineated the wetlands. Wetlands and riparian areas are distinct and
vitally different natural resources. This is evident by comparing the wetlands layer with the
riparian connectivity layer on Attachment A, and by comparing Attachments A and E.2
Indeed, the SBLDR contains a separate Wetlands Map (Attachment E hereto) which
identifies the wetland areas throughout the City that are subject to the restrictions in SBLDR
Article 12. The SBLDR specifically allows an applicant to use wetlands information from the
field, rather than the information on the Wetlands Map:
The boundaries of wetlands shall be as shown on the Official
Wetlands Map unless alternative information is submitted and
reviewed pursuant to the standards and procedures for review set
forth in Article 12, Section 12.02(C) and (D) of these Regulations.
SBLDR § 3.03(D). In this case, the developer chose to field-delineate the wetlands rather than
rely on the Wetlands Map. But this has nothing to do with riparian areas.
Second, the State never confirmed that riparian areas had been field-delineated. In
connection with its Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications, the developer submitted an
email message from Rebecca Pfeiffer, CFM of the State’s Watershed Management Division
2 The ANR defines wetlands as “the vegetated, shallow-margins of lakes and ponds [and] the
seasonally flooded borders of rivers and streams. . . .” ANR Guide, supra, at 51. Technically, wetlands
“all are inundated by or saturated with water for at least two weeks during the growing season” and
“contain wet (hydric) soils, which develop in saturated conditions and lack oxygen and other gases” and
are “dominated by plant species known to be adapted to these saturated soils.” Id.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 8 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
dated July 16, 2018 (10:50 AM). Ms. Pfeiffer’s email message has nothing to do with riparian
areas or wildlife habitat. Rather, her email message is concerned solely with flooding and
erosion.
Ms. Pfeiffer’s email message states in part: “the project would appear to meet the
Agency’s Procedure under [Act 250 Criterion] 1(D)” and she refers to the “Flood Hazard Area &
River Corridor Protection Procedure[s]” as the guidance implementing Criterion 1(D). The
Procedures document Ms. Pfeiffer cites in her July 16, 2018 email message is concerned with
protecting against flooding and erosion. The Procedures document provides that its purpose is to
explain how the State Department of Environmental Conservation “defines and maps flood
hazard areas and river corridors for the purposes of Act 250 (10 V.S.A. § 6001 et seq.), Section
248 (30 V.S.A. §§ 248 and 248a), administering the state Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor
Rule (adopted October 24, 2014), and the regulation of berming (10 V.S.A. § 1021). . . .”
Vermont DEC Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedures § 1.0(a)(1), at 3
(Sept. 7, 2017), http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/DEC_FHARCP_Procedure.pdf
(last visited Oct. 10, 2019).3
Third, the fact that Comprehensive Plan Map 7 includes a disclaimer that the City “does
not guarantee accuracy” could not be a basis for disregarding the Map. Obviously, the
disclaimer does not mean that Map 7 cannot be relied upon for the very purpose for which the
Map was created, namely identifying protected primary conservation areas. Rather, if the
disclaimer means anything, it can only be read to mean that Map 7 cannot be relied on for
purposes for which it was not created – for example, for the exact location of a road, or the exact
contours of a shore line. This conclusion becomes inescapable by examining the SBLDR
Wetlands Map. That Map has a similar disclaimer, yet it is binding on applicants that do not
field-delineate the wetlands. It would make no sense for the disclaimer to render invalid for
mapping wetlands the very Map that the SBLDR includes to identify the wetlands. Similarly, it
would make no sense for the Map 7 disclaimer to render the Map invalid for the purpose for
which it was created.
3 “Flood Hazard Areas” are defined as “areas of the floodplain that may be inundated by a range
of flood frequencies up to and including the one percent annual chance flood. . . .” Vermont DEC Flood
Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedures § 4.0(a)(1), at 7 (Sept. 7, 2017). “River
Corridors” are defined as the “area around and adjacent to the present channel where fluvial erosion,
channel evolution and down-valley meander migration are most likely to occur. River corridor widths are
calculated to represent the narrowest band of valley bottom and riparian land necessary to accommodate
the least erosive channel and floodplain geometry. . . .” Id. § 4.0(a)(2), at 7. In the case of Dorset
Meadows, it was determined that a 50-foot setback would be adequate to protect against flooding and
erosion. The 50-foot buffer did not take into account – and was not determined on the basis of –
protecting the surrounding riparian areas.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 9 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
IV. Summary and Recommendation: For the Sake of the Environment and the
Law, Please Reject the Dorset Meadows Final Plat Application.
The Final Plat Application is fatally flawed and moot because it depends on TDR density
that is not available under the applicable law. On top of that, the developer proposes to build in a
Primary Conservation Area that the City has made clear is off-limits to development and that
needs to be protected if South Burlington is to fulfill its commitment to protect its natural
heritage. If ever there were a proposed development that deserves to be rejected, Dorset
Meadows is it.
In sum, SOS South Burlington is committed to opposing the legally untenable ecological
outlaw that is Dorset Meadows. SOS South Burlington hopes the DRB will do its duty and reject
this ill-conceived project. Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
Attachments (5)
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Attachment A: Comprehensive Plan, Map 7 (“Primary Conservation Areas”)
Attachment B: Overlay of Primary Conservation Areas on proposed “Dorset
Meadows” Development
Attachment C: Bio‐Finder Inventory Map of the Proposed Dorset Meadows Development Site
Darker blue: Highest priority surface water and riparian areas
Light, speckled blue: Wetlands
Reddish‐brown: Clayplain Forest natural community
Orange: Habitat Block
Green line: Level 4 wildlife linkage
Yellow line: Level 3 wildlife linkage
Attachment D: Map of the Great Swamp
Attachment E: LDR Wetlands Map