HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - CANCELLED Development Review Board - 11/19/2019AGENDA
South Burlington Development Review Board
575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
7:00 p.m.
***CANCELED***
1.Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room.
2.Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items.
3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda.
4.Announcements
5.Final plat application #SD‐19‐31 of R. L. Vallee, Inc. to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59
acres into one lot for the purpose of constructing an expanded service station and retail sales and
restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
Due to lack of a quorum, Staff has postponed this item to December 3.
6.Site plan application #SP‐19‐39 of R. L. Vallee, Inc. to demolish the existing structures at 907
Shelburne Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and construct an
expanded service station with two additional fueling positions for a total of ten and an associated
4,265 square foot retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
Due to lack of a quorum, Staff has postponed this item to December 3.
7.Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐30 of CEA Properties, LLC to construct a two‐story 7,200 square foot
office building and a one‐story 4,070 square foot veterinary hospital on an existing 3.1 acre lot
currently developed with a 7,200 square foot office building and 1,000 square foot storage building,
10 Mansfield View Lane.
8.Final Plat application #SD‐19‐29 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend Phase IIIB of a
previously approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of
removing the master plan condition requiring construction of a left hand turn lane at the
southernmost entrance from Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road, 1840 Spear Street.
9.Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐03 of South Village Communities, LLC for approval of an overall
affordability plan for a previous‐approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development, 1840
Spear Street.
10.Minutes of January 29, February 19, November 5, 2019
11.Other business
Respectfully Submitted,
Marla Keene
Development Review Planner
Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall.
Participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal.
South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting Participation Guidelines
The Development Review Board (DRB) presents these guidelines for the public attending Development Review Board meetings to
ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
The DRB is a Quasi-Judicial Board that oversees the adjudication of development projects within the City. It is made up of citizens
appointed by the City Council. The role of the DRB is to hear and review applications for development under the applicable
regulations. The DRB can only approve applications that comply with the applicable bylaw or state law, and the board can only levy
conditions that are permitted under the bylaw. By the same token, if a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, the DRB is bound
by law to grant the approval.
1. The Board asks that all participants at meetings be respectful of Board members, staff, applicants and other members of the
public present at the meeting.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Board and the applicant. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all Board members first. After the Board members have discussed an
item, the Chair will open up the floor for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair
will try to call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Board.
4. If the Board suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is
heard and sufficient time is available for Board to hear all items on the agenda.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt
others when they are speaking. The Chair will direct responses from applicable people as needed.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others and keep your comments germane to the issue before the board.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers
address the Board for a second time.
9. Comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the Planning and
Zoning Department. All comments should identify what application the correspondence is in reference to. All written
comments will be circulated to the DRB and kept as part of the official records of meetings. Comments must include your
first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record.
10. Please note that once a public hearing has been closed by the DRB, no further comments can be accepted, in accordance
with state law.
#SD‐19‐30
Staff Comments
1
1 of 4
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐30_10 Mansfield View Ln_CEA_SK_2019‐11‐19.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 13, 2019
Plans received: October 17, 2019
10 Mansfield View Lane
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐30
Meeting date: November 19, 2019
Owner/Applicant
CEA Properties, LLC
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1095‐00010
Industrial Open Space Zoning District
3.01 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐30 of CEA Properties, LLC to construct a two‐story 7,200 square foot
office building and a one‐story 4,070 square foot veterinary hospital on an existing 3.1 acre lot currently
#SD‐19‐30
Staff Comments
2
2 of 4
developed with a 7,200 square foot office building and 1,000 square foot storage building, 10 Mansfield
View Lane.
PERMIT HISTORY
The property received PUD approval for a similar project on April 19, 2007 (#SD‐07‐20 and #SD‐07‐21).
That approval has expired. The proposed application will be subject to the Land Development
Regulations in effect at the time a complete preliminary plat application is submitted.
The previous PUD approval, being expired, was not taken into consideration in these staff comments.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 10/17/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The project as presented will be subject to PUD review and site plan review. The property is located in
the Industrial Open Space Zoning District. The PUD previously included site plan approval for the existing
7,200 square foot office building, which remains in effect, though the 2007 PUD approval for two
proposed buildings is expired. The project is subject to zoning district, PUD, site plan and stormwater
management standards.
Staff considers there are four main subject areas which warrant discussion at this level. These are
vehicular access and circulation, open space, pedestrian access, and visual compatibility. These staff
comments are laid out to address each of these subject areas, with relevant LDR sections referenced for
each.
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
This property is situated east of VT 116, directly across from the commercial portion of Rye Meadows,
and south and west of Meadowland Drive. It is in the industrial open space zoning district. The property
is the beneficiary of an access easement which allows it to share a single access onto VT 116 with the
property to the north. The adjoining property to the east has an easement which extends to the
property line, providing for a shared driveway for the existing Keller Williams building and for a future
building located south of the easement. LDR 15.12D(4) requires connections be made to adjacent
properties at the time of approval for the property.
1. Staff considers that the Board must require the applicant to construct a driveway connecting to
the property to the east and to provide a reciprocal access easement to that property. Staff
recommends the Board request the applicant clarify the status of the easement on the adjoining
property prior to the next application, and to construct a functional connection if the easement
allows. If such a functional connection is not allowed, Staff considers the next approval for the
property to the east will require this connection to be completed on the adjoining property.
Staff notes there is no required minimum property line setback for roadways, therefore the applicant
should be able to move the driveway farther north to better align with the existing drive on the adjacent
property. Pavement width for private roadways is required to be 20‐feet, consistent with what the
#SD‐19‐30
Staff Comments
3
3 of 4
applicant is proposing.
OPEN SPACE
The purpose of the IO district includes providing for large lot office, industrial and research areas in a
configuration that preserve the open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and
water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City. The property is not located within a
view protection overlay district, but it is directly adjacent to one which was established to protect views of
Mt Mansfield.
In the currently proposed layout, the project provides a modest sized lawn area between the existing
parking lot and the proposed parking lot, with undeveloped areas around the perimeter of the lot.
The purpose of requiring PUD’s within the IO district includes the encouragement of innovation of design
and layout, and of more efficient use of land for development. Staff considers the proposed use of the lot
consistent with the purpose of the industrial open space district, but the configuration of the programming
deficient when it comes to efficient use of land.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant reconfiguring the site around a central
organizing open space, taking advantage of the potential views. Staff considers the Board should
allow waivers of both side (35‐foot) and rear (50‐foot) setbacks in order to achieve this goal. Based
on the existing and potential development of adjacent properties, and on the scale of the two
proposed buildings (one story for Building “C” and two stories for building “B”), Staff considers the
impact of substantial setback waivers will not have adverse effects on other properties.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Site plan standards emphasize pedestrian movement, both internal to the site and as it relates to
movement between sites. The property is located on the east side of VT 116, along which several segments
of sidewalk have been constructed to date as properties are developed.
Section 9.11(B)(4) indicates that a “public sidewalk or recreation path planned in coordination with the
South Burlington Recreation Path Committee shall be incorporated into the setback area ‘of Hinesburg
Road]. A path is also indicated on the City’s Official Map.
In several prior decisions in the vicinity of this project, the Board has made determinations that a recreation
path is to be constructed along the east side of Hinesburg Road:
On this subject parcel, 10 Mansfield View Lane, the original PUD required a 20‐foot recreation path
easement be provided to the City (SD‐07‐21). In subsequent years, where feasible, the Board has
required such path segments to be constructed
At 1060 Hinesburg Road, two properties to the north, the Board required a recreation path to be
constructed upon consultation with the Recreation Path Committee (SD‐11‐10).
At 1100 Hinesburg Road, the Board required a 20‐foot recreation path easement be provided to the
City (SD‐06‐106).
Across the street, with the Rye neighborhood, the Board determined that neither was a path
required to be constructed nor an easement provided because the determination had been made
to place the path on the east side of Hinesburg Road (SD‐14‐15).
#SD‐19‐30
Staff Comments
4
4 of 4
3. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant include a sidewalk along the front of the
property at this time.
4. Staff further recommends the Board request the applicant provide safe pedestrian connectivity from
the front of the site, through the developed area, to the rear portion of the site and across to the
connecting property to the east.
VISUAL COMPATIBILITY
The specific standard relating to visual compatibility reads as follows.
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.
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the architectural design of the buildings.
The existing building is aesthetically interesting with a pitched roof, and Staff considers a layout
around a central organizing feature, with complimentary building architecture, would result in a
campus feel that meets the purpose of the IO district. Staff notes the maximum allowable height
differs depending on whether pitched or flat roofs are proposed, and recommends the Board
request the applicant provide this information at the next stage of review.
OTHER
6. The applicant has proposed the addition of a second parking area to serve the two proposed
building. The applicant has indicated that the preliminary/final plat will likely include phasing the
two buildings. Staff recommends that phasing of the building also including a phased parking plan,
wherein parking spaces are approved but are constructed commensurate with each phase. That
way, paved surfaces that require ongoing stormwater management will only be built if/when a
second building is constructed.
Staff notes the applicant must meet the standards of 13.06, including the minimum required landscaping
value, and interior parking lot landscaping and shade trees, at the next stage of review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
VT ROUTE 116
"
H
I
N
E
S
B
U
R
G
R
O
A
D
"M. GRAVELINVol. 671 Pg. 641BURLINGTON PROPERTIES, L.P.Vol. 514 Pg. 272FOX RUN LN.MANSFIELD VIEW LANEOFFICEBUILDINGADRSTORAGEBUILDINGA150'SETBACKRYE ASSOCIATESCITY OF SO. BURLINGTONSO. BURLINGTONREALTY COMPANY, LLCVol. 944 Pg. 110HRG OFFICE BUILDING, LLCVol. 1303 Pg. 1Lot 1-C35'SETBACK
50'SETBACKEXISTING66' R.O.W.EAST MOUNTAIN VIEW, LLCVol. 754 Pg. 5335'
SETBACK
SSSSSSLOT 1ACEA PROPERTIES, LLC3.055 Ac.EXISTING SEWEREXISTINGHOUSEEXISTINGGARAGEFMFMFMS
SPROPOSEDOFFICEBUILDINGB34PROPOSEDOFFICEBUILDING CPHASE I36BLOCK WALL35'
SETBACK
35'
SETBACK SBRC Properties, LLCLot 1-BVol. 1359 Pg. 238PROPOSEDPARKINGPROPOSED DRIVEP1802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACEE-10.No -e clusive access ease e t servi g East Mou tai View, LLC overappro i atel 5- oot-wide strip at ort west cor er Lot 1-A.E-11. No -e clusive access ease e t servi g Lot 1-A over appro i atel 0- oot-wide strip at sout west cor er East Mou tai View, LLC.E-12. 10- oot-wide ease e t or water li e a d valve servi g ort e d o e isti g uildi g "A" over East Mou tai View, LLC. To e ce tered upo water li e as uilt.E-1 . 12 15 ease e t or ire dra t a d valve servi g East Mou tai View,LLC o Lot 1-A. To e ce tered upo water li e as uilt.E-14. 20- oot-wide ease e t or e erge c access to/ ro Lot 1 over e isti gdrivewa a d par i g lot at ort easter portio o Lot 1-A as uilt.E-15. Ease e ts or e isti g sa itar sewer orce ai across westerl portio o Lot 1 to co ect wit e isti g sewer as s ow . 20 wide ort o Lot 1-A a d 7.5 wide east o Lot 1-A.E-16. 20- oot-wide ease e t or e isti g sa itar sewer orce ai acrosssout westerl cor er o urli gto Properties, LLC to co ect wit e isti g sewer ass ow .E-17. Rig ts to drai stor water ro Lot 1-A across ort erl portio o Lot 1 toe isti g ditc o sout erl sideli e o Meadowla d Drive.E-18. Ease e t or Lice se or sa itar sewer ro 1160 i es urg Road tosewer service o Lot 1A, to e ce tered o utilit as co structed. S ow Appro i atel . E-19. 20- oot-wide ease e t or proposed pu lic recreatio pat alo g westerl portio o Lot 1-A easterl edge o i es urg Road as s ow . T is ease e t to e co ve ed Mu so Eart Movi g Corp. or t eir successors to Cit o Sout urli gto .E-20. Cit o Sout urli gto co te plates t e wide i g o t e i es urgRoadrig t-o -wa ro 66 eet to 80 eet i t is area. Acreages s ow are ased upo e isti g 66- oot-wide rig t-o -wa . Set ac s, owever, are s ow ased upo pote tial uture 80- oot-wide rig t-o -wa .E-21. Ease e t or e isti g e te sio o 8" water li e to Lot 1.- Easement Notes -To t e est o owledge a d elie t is plat,properl depicts t e results o a surve co ducted u der direct supervisio as outli ed i t e "surve otes"a ove. E isti g ou daries s ow are ased upo oura al sis o p sical a d record evide ce recovered, a dare i su sta tial co or a ce wit t e record u lessot erwise oted. T is plat is i su sta tial co plia cewit 27 VSA 140 . State e t valid o l w e acco pa ied origi al sig ature a d seal. Ti ot R. Cowa VT LS 597Proposed PUDCEA PROPERTIES, LLC1 of 1- Legend of Symbols -36- Survey Notes -1. Purpose of this plat is to depict the boundaries and easements associated with Lot 1Aformerly of "Meadowlands Business Park".2. Field survey was conducted during fall-winter 2006-2007 and consisted of a closed looptraverse utilizing electronic total station instruments. Bearings shown are from Grid North,Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our RTK GPS observations on/near the site.3. Corner markers set typically consist of 5/8" x 40" steel rebar or 4" square concretemonuments with aluminum caps or disks stamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597",set flush with existing grade.4. Concrete monuments found are 4" square unless otherwise noted. Iron pipes found are 1"inside diameter unless otherwise noted. Iron rods found are 5/8" diameter unless otherwisenoted.5. Vermont Route 116, also known as "Hinesburg Road" is a public highway with a recordwidth of 4 rods (66 feet). The sideline shown here abutting the subject parcel is based uponour analysis of monumentation found and the referenced plat.The City of South Burlington is reportedly contemplating the widening of this portion of theright of way to a width of 80 feet.10 - 36 Mansfield View LaneCity of South Burlington, VermontFor Review10/17/2019P:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06248plat\06248 Rev 2019-P D Plat.dwg, 10/17/2019 9:42:00 AM, tcowa
DRVT ROUTE 116 - HINESBURG
R
O
A
D
HOUSEHOUSEHOUSEHO
EXISTI
NG
EXISTI
NGRAGEGARAGARAGE
MEADOWLAND DRIVEMEADOWLAND DRIVEDUBOISTHOMPSON STREETBOWDOIN ST.GREEN ACRES, INC.DAVISPENNINGTONBOUCHERSHEAHANKNOLL CIRCLEBRAINARDFOX RUN LANEBURLINGTON PROPERTIESLIMITED PARTNERSHIPGARDNERLINESGREEN ACRES, INC.PROJECTLOCATION139913 8MANSFIELD VIEW LANES
S
ZONING DISTRICT -VILLAGE COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICT -NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIALZONING DISTRICT -INDUSTRIAL & OPEN SPACERYEASSOCIATESCITY OF SO. BURLINGTONSO. BURLINGTON REALTYCOMPANY, LLCSBRC PROPERTIES, LLC.N/F GREENFIELDCAPITAL, LLCN/F GREENFIELDCAPITAL, LLCSBRCPROPERTIES,LLC."AIRPORT APPROACH ZONE""VIEW PROTECTION ZONE""VIEW PROTECTION ZONE""VIEW PROTECTION ZONE""AIRPORT APPROACH ZONE"EX. 20' PEDESTRIANEASEMENTEX. 20' PEDESTRIANEASEMENTEX. 20' PEDESTRIANEASEMENTEX. 5' CHANNEL &WETLAND AREAEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYFUTURE ROADEXTENSIONEX. WETLAND AREA &STREAM CHANNELSBRCPROPERTIES,LLC."VIEW PROTECTION ZONE"ACEDSMDSMGAC1" = 150'06248C1.0FEB., 2007LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'CEA PROPERTIES,LLC10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403CEA OFFICEPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTOVERALL SITEPLAN08/08/07 DSM ADDED ROAD NAMELOT 1AMEADOWLAND BUSINESS PARK SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTMEADOWLAND DR.KNOLLMILL POND LN.FOX RUN LANEOAK CREEK DR.BUTLER DRIVEDUBOIS DRIVECIRCLE HINESBURG ROADCOMMUNITY DR.PROJECTLOCATION1168910/16/19 DSM SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06248\1-CADD Files-CEA Properties\dwg\06248-Site E-Rev 2019.dwg, 10/17/2019 11:19: AM, gcarter
ACE388DSMDSMGAC1" = 20'06248C1.1FEB., 2007LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'CEA PROPERTIES,LLC10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403CEA OFFICEPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTSITEIMPROVEMENTPLANLOT 1AMEADOWLAND BUSINESS PARK SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTMEADOWLAND DR.KNOLLMILL POND LN.FOX RUN LANEOAK CREEK DR.BUTLER DRIVEDUBOIS DRIVECIRCLE HINESBURG ROADCOMMUNITY DR.PROJECTLOCATION08/08/07 DSM ADDED ROAD NAME116895/14/08 DSM MODIFIED HVAC PAD, PARKING EDGE &REDUCED # OF BOLLARDS10/16/19 DSM SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTALZONING REQUIREMENTS:COVERAGECATEGORYBUILDINGSFRONT YARDREQUIRED30%30%EXISTINGSETBACKSREAR YARDZONING DISTRICT: INDUSTRIAL AND OPEN SPACE (IO)4%6%50' 335'FRONT YARD50' 50'MIN. LOT SIZESIDE YARD35' 36'BUILDING HEIGHTPRINCIPAL (PITCHED)40'ACCESSORY15'PRINCIPAL (FLAT)35'PROPOSED6%10%50'50'35'3.0 AC. 3.1 AC. 3.1 AC.40'N/A40±'N/AN/ATOTAL50% 16% 41%NO CHANGEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06248\1-CADD Files-CEA Properties\dwg\06248-Site E-Rev 2019.dwg, 10/17/2019 10:56:10 AM, gcarter
ACETOE OFTEMPORARYFILLDSMDSMGAC1" = 20'06248C1.2FEB., 2007LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'CEA PROPERTIES,LLC10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403CEA OFFICEPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTEXISTINGCONDITIONS PLANLOT 1AMEADOWLAND BUSINESS PARK SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTMEADOWLAND DR.KNOLLMILL POND LN.FOX RUN LANEOAK CREEK DR.BUTLER DRIVEDUBOIS DRIVECIRCLE HINESBURG ROADCOMMUNITY DR.PROJECTLOCATION11689NOTE:Contours shown are based upon a compilation oftopographic survey information and existing LiDAR data. Thecontractor shall be responsible for field verifying existingconditions and report any discrepancies to the engineerprior to beginning work in that area.10/16/19 DSM SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06248\1-CADD Files-CEA Properties\dwg\06248-Site E-Rev 2019.dwg, 10/17/2019 10:55:45 AM, gcarter
#SD‐19‐29
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐29_1840 Spear St_South Village Communities
LLC_FP_2019‐11‐19.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 13, 2019
Plans received: September 25, 2019
1840 Spear Street
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐29
Meeting date: November 19, 2019
Owner/Applicant
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 2286
South Burlington, VT 05407
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
SEQ‐NRP and SEQ‐NR zoning districts
± 224 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐29
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final Plat application #SD‐19‐29 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend Phase IIIB of a previously
approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of removing the
master plan condition requiring construction of a left hand turn lane at the southernmost entrance from
Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road, 1840 Spear Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Master Plan application (#MP‐05‐02) for this project was approved by the Board on February 10,
2006 and later amended (#MP‐14‐01) on May 23, 2014. #MP‐14‐01 represents a very slight amendment
to the approved review process. #MP‐05‐02 includes the bulk of the conditions applicable to the
development. The Phase 2 plan application (#SD‐13‐44) for this project was approved by the Board on
March 10, 2014, and the Phase 3 final plat application (#SD‐17‐18) on February 22, 2018.
The condition the applicant is requesting to be modified is in approval #MP‐05‐02 and reads as follows.
The applicant shall construct southbound left‐turn lane on Spear Street at the “South Entrance” of
the project, prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for a dwelling unit in Phase 3 (The Ridge).
The Director of Public Works shall review and approve all plans prior to construction.
The project has master plan approval which includes conditions allowing the applicant to go directly to
final plat for this requested amendment.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 9/25/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
No changes are proposed to the dimensional standards.
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT STANDARDS
No changes are proposed to the zoning district standards.
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:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project.
(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.
#SD‐19‐29
3
Staff considers compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested amendment.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The applicant has provided a traffic impact study, prepared by RSG and dated August 6, 2018, in
support of their request to remove the condition requiring a left‐turn lane on Spear Street at the
southernmost entrance from Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road. This traffic study uses traffic
data collected on August 1, 2018 to evaluate whether a left turn lane is warranted. Staff notes that
as of the date of the study, Phase 1, approved for 116 dwelling units, is mostly built out, while
Phase 2, approved for 91 dwelling units, is approximately 75% built out, and no homes have been
constructed in Phase 3, approved for 60 dwelling units. The project is also approved for an
additional 67 units whose locations are still to be determined but the applicant has indicated are
tentatively programmed for Phases 1 and 2. Overall, Staff estimates that the project is
approximately 55% constructed and that trips from the remaining units will be distributed between
the two entrances to the development.
1. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to request the applicant include full‐build of the
334‐unit development in their traffic analysis, including the potential for trip capture from
Dorset Farms which will be accessible once the Midland Avenue connection is complete.
2. Alternatively, Staff recommends the Board consider whether to defer the timeline for
construction of the left turn lane to such a time as prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the
30th unit in Phase III or 240 zoning permits overall.
The applicant notes in their cover letter, included in the packet for the Board, that they no longer
anticipate building a 100‐student school on Lot 11. In reviewing minutes from the original master
plan approval, Staff considers the approved school was intended to be an anchoring element of the
community.
3. While Staff is not opposed to the applicant not constructing a school, Staff considers that should
the Board approve this application, they should require Lot 11 to include a replacement
community anchoring element, of a type to be determined at the time of that application.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
#SD‐19‐29
4
Staff considers compliance with these four criteria not affected by the requested amendment.
(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.
(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.
The applicant is proposing to complete the roadway cross section at the South Jefferson intersection
to be consistent with the approved cross section for the remainder of South Jefferson Road. Staff
considers these two criteria met.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
(A)(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff
from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as
possible to where it hits the ground.
Staff considers compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested amendment.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
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.
Staff considers compatibility with the comprehensive plan not affected by the requested amendment.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
Staff considers compliance with these criteria not affected by the requested amendment.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Access to Abutting Properties.
B. Utility Services.
C. Disposal of Wastes.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements.
E. Modification of Standards.
F. Low Impact Development.
#SD‐19‐29
5
Staff considers compliance with these criteria not affected by the requested amendment.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Staff considers the proposed roadway configuration complies with the standards of Section 15.12, which
pertain to roadway geometry and construction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MS‐19‐03_1840 Spear St_South Village_2019‐11‐05.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 1, 2019
Plans received: September 25, 2019
1840 Spear Street
Miscellaneous Permit Application #MS‐19‐03
Meeting date: November 19, 2019
Owner/Applicant
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 2286
South Burlington, VT 05407
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
SEQ‐NRP and SEQ‐NR zoning districts
± 224 acres
Location Map
#MS‐19‐03
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐03 of South Village Communities, LLC for approval of an overall affordability
plan for a previous‐approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development, 1840 Spear Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Master Plan application (#MP‐05‐02) for this project was approved by the Board on February 10, 2006 and
later amended (#MP‐14‐01) on May 23, 2014. #MP‐14‐01 represents a very slight amendment to the approved
review process. #MP‐05‐02 includes the bulk of the conditions applicable to the development. The Phase 2
plan application (#SD‐13‐44) for this project was approved by the Board on March 10, 2014, and the Phase 3
final plat application (#SD‐17‐18) on February 22, 2018. Condition #26 of Final Plat approval #SD‐17‐18 for the
South Village project is as follows.
Prior to or coincident with submittal for a site plan or final plat approval for any unassigned lots within the
South Village PUD that is the subject of master plan approval #MP‐04‐01 and #MP‐05‐02, as amended, the
applicant/property owner must submit an overall affordability plan consistent with Section 18.02. For the
purposes of this condition, the unassigned lots are Lots 4, 11 and 11A in Phase I as shown on the plans
associated with site plan approval #SP‐15‐09 and the lot south of Preserve Road identified as “Open Space
1.92 Acres (Reserved for Future Development)” on the plans associated with subdivision approval #SD‐16‐
08, as well as any other lot for which a change in the number of units on the most recent approved site plan
is proposed.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 9/25/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The inherent, or “base” density in the southeast quadrant is 1.2 units per acre. The Project consists of 224.18
acres, which results in a base density of 269 units. The project has been approved using the affordable housing
density bonus to get 25% bonus density, resulting in the approved 334 unit development. LDR Section 18.2 allows
one additional market‐rate dwelling unit to be constructed for each comparable below market rate unit that is
provided. The master plan approval includes 34 below market rate units and 33 market rate units above the base
density of 269 units.
COMPATIBILITY WITH MASTER PLAN
At previous hearings for various South Village requests, the Board indicated to the applicant they would consider
any significant reduction in the number of units to be a substantial modification to the approved plan, requiring
reconsideration of previously‐granted approvals. The applicant has included in their application narrative,
included in the packet for the Board, a proposal to construct 333 units, of which 32 are proposed to be affordable
and 32 are proposed to be market rate. The applicant has indicated they intend to propose seventeen (17) two‐
family homes on Lot 11. In concurrent application #SD‐19‐29, the applicant notes in their cover letter that they no
longer anticipate building a 100‐student school on Lot 11. In reviewing minutes from the original master plan
approval, Staff considers the approved school was intended to be an anchoring element of the community.
#MS‐19‐03
3
1. While Staff is not opposed to the applicant not constructing a school, Staff considers that should the Board
approve this or concurrent application #SD‐19‐29, they should require Lot 11 to include a replacement
community anchoring element, of a type to be determine at the time of that application.
18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus
The applicant has provided a discussion of how they believe they meet each of the criterion under 18.12 in their
application narrative, included in the packet for the Board. Staff has briefly elaborated on each criterion below
but refers the Board to the applicant’s narrative for further information.
D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and
Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, the following
standards shall guide the Development Review Board:
(1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in question
multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts.
This criterion was found to be met under MP‐05‐02.
(2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall
apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or
without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre.
This criterion was found to be met under MP‐05‐02.
(3) Development Standards.
(a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the
development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed
among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other
units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board
as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington.
The applicant, in their cover letter dated September 24, 2019 outlined three options to implement
the Affordable Housing bonus, which Staff considers meet this standard to varying degrees. Option
1 most nearly distributes the affordable housing units among the housing types, while Option 2
proposes that all affordable housing units for which approval has not yet been granted be of a duplex
type, and Option 3 proposes to amend the previously approved affordable units so that all 33 units
are of a duplex type.
Staff considers Option 1 to most closely align with the purposes of the section. As noted in the letter,
the proposal does not result in the dwelling units being “distributed among the housing types in the
proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development,” as
each of the options varies from the overall distribution.
This section authorizes the Board to approve a different proportion where the Board finds the
proposal to being better related to the City’s housing needs, current or projected.
In preparation for the Board’s hearing, Staff urged the applicant to elaborate on how they feel their
proposal meets this criterion. The applicant prepared a letter to the Board dated November 7th. It is
enclosed with your packet.
In addition, the City’s Affordable Housing Committee has offered the Board a letter on this subject.
It is also enclosed.
#MS‐19‐03
4
In order to help provide context towards what housing might better meet the City’s housing needs,
Staff reviewed the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan and has included several objectives and strategies
focused on housing affordability:
Objective 2. Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options affordable to
households of varying income levels and sizes by striving to meet the housing targets set forth
in this Plan.
Objective 3. Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and
target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden County,
and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations.
Objective 4. Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate‐
income housing, emphasizing both smaller single family homes and apartments, to meet
demand within the regional housing market.
Strategy 10. Develop strategies that can lead to the availability or development of more
housing that is affordable to middle income, working residents and families in the City. Work
through the CCRPC with surrounding communities to increase the inventory of housing that is
more affordable to families.
Strategy 13. Target for construction, by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units ‐ 840
housing units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units
affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI.
The Plan also provides an assessment of demographic trends and of identified needs in the
community. The analysis includes the statement that “Community input suggests that many of
these households are seeking housing that is smaller than that developed in the past and/or
housing with limited maintenance requirements” p. 2‐14.
2. Based on the overall context of affordability and City goals to have housing available to a range of
incomes and types throughout the City, Staff supports Option 1. Staff recommends that the Board
review the applicant’s letters, Comprehensive Plan excerpts above, and the input from the Affordable
Housing Committee and make a determination.
(b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum gross floor area per affordable dwelling unit shall not be less
than comparable market‐rate units in the housing development.
3. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval requiring that the applicant provide a
table of floor areas for previously‐approved units of the same type (single family, duplex, triplex,
multi‐family) and all proposed units at the time of zoning permit application for each future unit
(c) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards for Section 18.01(D)(2) shall apply.
The applicant addresses this criterion in their cover letter. Staff considers this criterion met.
#MS‐19‐03
5
(4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non‐
profit organization shall be responsible for the on‐going administration of the affordable housing units as
well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this program.
The Housing Authority or non‐profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities,
continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures.
The applicant addresses this criterion in their cover letter. Staff considers this criterion met.
OTHER
The applicant provided an application for master plan amendment which was warned but withdrawn before
being heard (SD‐18‐31). Since members of the public submitted comments on that application, and the
comments were not entered into the record, those comments are included in the packet for this application,
though certain elements of that application are no longer proposed. The packet is organized as follows:
1. Application materials from applicant
2. Letter from Affordable housing committee
3. Public comments specifically on this application
4. Flysheet and then comments on withdrawn application #SD‐18‐31
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
STREETCity of So. BurlingtonTown of Shelburne"MIDLAND AVE."ALLEN ROADR. M. & D. M.V. 141 P. 6P. & J. CliffordVol. 165 Pg. 130Homeowners Assoc.Vol. 426 Pg. 101W. R. & G. S. LangVol. 131 Pg. 299D. V. DerridingerVol. 583 Pg. 137L. A. & J. G. DemersVol. 171 Pg. 286L. & C. LongVol. 411 Pg. 307L. & C. LongVol. 85 Pg. 67SPEAR n/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fn/fDorset Farms Vol. 426 Pg. 101n/fValleeDorset Farms Homeowners Assoc.ALLEN RD. EASTN. JEFFERSON RD.S. JEFFERSON RD.S. JEFFERSON RD.PRESERV
E
R
O
A
DCHURCHILLCHURCHILL
NORTH
JEFFERSON
PRESERVE RD.PHASE 135.3± AcresCHIPMAN STREETMADISON LANECHIPMAN STREETS. JEFFERSON RD.AIKEN ST.PHASE 219.26± Acres11312510212312112412912812712611912011210811110710911011411511611811710510110410612211B1113567891012141316171518252627283433323130292435363738394041424443454647481921222320515253545657596061625A5B5C5D5E5F11A210A10B27A7A31A26A494B11A4A2A551N2N3N4N5N6N7N8N9N10N11N12N13N14N15N16N17N18N19N21N20N22N23N24N25N26N27N28N29N30N31N32N33N34N35N36N37N38N39N40N41N42N43N44N45N46N47N48aN49aN50N51N52N53N54N55N66N67N68N-79N80N-91N56N57N58N59N60N61N62N63N64N65NMIDLAND AVENUESTAFFOR
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
STAFFORD STRE
E
T
48NS.F. (CARRIAGE LOTS)S.F. (CARRIAGE LOTS)S.F. (CARRIAGE LOTS)S.F. (CARRIAGE LOTS)S.F. (CARRIAGE LOTS)Not to Scale- Location Map -PROJECTLOCATIONSPEAR ST.ALLEN RD.BARSTOW RD.DORSET ST.City of So. BurlingtonTown of ShelburneSouth Village Communities, LLCSouth Burlington Vol. 801 Pg. 465CEA1" = 200'01243.16DP 1- Legend -Shelburne Vol. 348 Pg. 416Areas by SurveySEPT. 24, 2019 223.14 acres (South Burlington) + 2.61 acres (Shelburne) 225.75 acres TotalSouth VillageConceptualAffordableAllocation PlanSouth Burlington, VermontTRCTRC#
Staff note: These are the
approved and recorded design
review standards for the South
Village development.
1
Marla Keene
From:Paul Conner
Sent:Monday, November 4, 2019 8:30 AM
To:Marla Keene; Dalila Hall
Subject:FW: Resolution to be forwarded to the DRB
Paul Conner, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4106
www.sbvt.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.
From: John Simson <simsonjohn0840@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 10:48 AM
To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: Resolution to be forwarded to the DRB
Hi Paul,
At our last meeting we adopted the following motion intending that it be shared with the DRB and contribute to their
deliberations at their meeting November 5.
John
“Following discussion with Patrick O’Brien and Robin Jeffers, of the Ireland company,
about South Village, committee members passed the following motion. Sandy
(Dooley) moved and Leslie (Black-Plumeau) seconded that the committee (1) supports
the proposed addition of 28 affordable dwelling units to the South Village development
off Spear Street; (2) supports all four options for distribution of the affordable units
among the market units; and (3) notwithstanding support stated in (2) immediately
2
preceding, prefers that the affordable units be dispersed among the market units over
having all of the affordable units located in one area of South Village. Motion
passed: 5-0-0. The intent is for John (Simson), committee chair, to communicate this
motion to the DRB at or prior to its meeting on November 5, 2019.”
‐‐
I have changed my email address. Please send future mail to: simsonjohn0840@gmail.com
Public Comments received on Master Plan Amendment
Application SD‐18‐31
1
Marla Keene
From:Joanne Soncrant <joanne.soncrant@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 8:55 AM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:SV Lot #48 - Question
Good morning, Marla. I am probably repeating myself but am very concerned about the proposed plan for 3 Triplex
buildings behind our homes on N. Jefferson. Many neighbors have the same concerns and I will write a letter with more
detail that can be distributed to the DRB but would like to have this info for the community.
It is my understanding that there are 3 Triplex buildings being proposed with each middle unit being proposed as
an affordable home? It is, also, my understanding that their original permit states something like the affordable homes
must be spread equally across phase 1, 2, and 3 and must represent each style of home. At this time, there are no
affordable homes in the development! Phase 1 and 2 are just about built out and most lots not developed at this time
are spoken for. Question: Did the developer amend the the original permit to change the plan for affordable homes?
If not, can they come forward and ask for a proposal that is different than the parameters of the original permit?
The majority of owners on N. Jefferson and Preserver Road purchased homes based on a map that called for single
family homes on lot #48. I do understand that a developer can change the plan throughout the planning of each phase
but it seems unfair and unethical to change a plan once owners have purchased their home based on a map that
indicated single family village homes. As I mentioned in another letter, we are all in favor of a proposal that reflects the
original plan of single family village homes and would appreciate the DRB holding the developer to this plan. We all
have an investment in South Village and are passionate about the farm and our community. The location and future of
this lot can make a big difference in the integrity of the community and the farm.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
Joanne Soncranat
1
Marla Keene
From:Marla Keene
Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:13 PM
To:Joanne Soncrant
Subject:RE: SV Lot #48 - Question
Hi Joanne,
First, please let me know if you'd like this message included in the packet for the Board.
To answer your question below, the purpose of the current application scheduled for Nov 20 is to amend the approved
master plan, specifically to change the approved layout to the one they are proposing and to amend the number of
required affordable homes. They can absolutely change their proposal as part of an amended master plan; the question
is whether the Board will approve their request for amendment.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846‐4106
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joanne Soncrant <joanne.soncrant@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:55 AM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Subject: SV Lot #48 ‐ Question
Good morning, Marla. I am probably repeating myself but am very concerned about the proposed plan for 3 Triplex
buildings behind our homes on N. Jefferson. Many neighbors have the same concerns and I will write a letter with more
detail that can be distributed to the DRB but would like to have this info for the community.
It is my understanding that there are 3 Triplex buildings being proposed with each middle unit being proposed as
an affordable home? It is, also, my understanding that their original permit states something like the affordable homes
must be spread equally across phase 1, 2, and 3 and must represent each style of home. At this time, there are no
affordable homes in the development! Phase 1 and 2 are just about built out and most lots not developed at this time
are spoken for. Question: Did the developer amend the the original permit to change the plan for affordable homes?
If not, can they come forward and ask for a proposal that is different than the parameters of the original permit?
The majority of owners on N. Jefferson and Preserver Road purchased homes based on a map that called for single
family homes on lot #48. I do understand that a developer can change the plan throughout the planning of each phase
but it seems unfair and unethical to change a plan once owners have purchased their home based on a map that
indicated single family village homes. As I mentioned in another letter, we are all in favor of a proposal that reflects the
original plan of single family village homes and would appreciate the DRB holding the developer to this plan. We all
have an investment in South Village and are passionate about the farm and our community. The location and future of
this lot can make a big difference in the integrity of the community and the farm.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
Joanne Soncranat
November 15, 2018
Ms. Marla Keene
City of South Burlington
Development Review Planner
575 Dorset Street
So Burlington, VT 05403
Subject: Proposed Plan for Lot #48/Phase 2 in South Village
Dear Marla:
Champ and I want to voice our concerns, again, regarding the proposed plan for
three triplex buildings behind our home. Some of the questions we have are as
follows:
It is our understanding the developer is calling the road a “driveway” that would
service each triplex and their driveways would pull off the main driveway. It is my
understanding that the original permit requires each home to have a front walk that
connects the owner to the community. These triplex buildings are not on a main
road. How will they be connected to the community and be within the parameters of
the original permit?
If the “driveway” becomes a road, will it be public or private? Who will maintain it?
Will Emergency Vehicles be able to maneuver on this road? Will trash pickup trucks
be able to service the owners on this “driveway” or road? On trash day there will be
a minimum of 18 trashcans on that road…in our backyards!
Per the map that was distributed to the community, it shows only one driveway per
triplex. I assume there will be a driveway per unit? This would mean nine
driveways off the main “driveway” or road. This literally is in the backyards of
owners on No. Jefferson Road. We did not anticipate this nor did we have an
opportunity to be included in the planning process for this lot. It seems unethical
to us that we were shown a map, we purchase a lot based on that map, and later, the
developer makes a decision that effects our home investment. And to add to this
frustration, the center units are being proposed as affordable housing. This is not
what the original permit allowed. Affordable homes were supposed to be planned
equally throughout Phase 1, 2, and 3 and represent each style home. How can this
be considered if the requirements are not being considered?
Note: Phase 1 triplex units fit within the community and are on alleyways. Unlike
lot #48 this lot borders the farm and looks like a stand-alone neighborhood.
Last but not least, we are concerned about the farm. Lot #48 borders the farm and
their planting could be effected because these three large buildings could block the
sun rising in the East. How will this affect the produce that sustains the farm? Has
this been considered? Would these buildings be within the Land Management Plan?
In my opinion, the location of this lot on the farm makes these concerns ecologically
a real consideration.
We ask the DRB to consider holding the developer to the original plan of single
family village homes and respect the investments of those of us who have invested
in South Village.
Thank you.
Joanne and Champ Soncrant
107 No. Jefferson Road
S. Burlington, VT 05403
1
Marla Keene
From:Stuart and Delia Mowat <delistu@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:28 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: South Village - Latest proposals
Attachments:garbage 2.JPG
Good afternoon Marla.
Again, thank you very much for forwarding the plans to us. As you will remember, we are most concerned about the
lots now renumbered as 66N, 67N and 68N. Most of the other changes proposed by the developer look fine to us.
On the aforementioned lots, our concerns are the following:
When 9 dwellings are present on a single driveway, as seems to be the proposal, that will mean large
numbers of garbage and recycling bins in Preserve Road, ugly and obstructive. When Vermont institutes
food recycling / composting in 2020, that will mean up to 27 bins in the street. I am attaching a
photograph of what two bins per house look like on a driveway of only four houses, for illustration of the
obstruction it can cause. Perhaps the developer has a better solution than this?
Equally, 9 dwellings mean up to 18 cars sharing a single driveway, a recipe for cars littering Preserve
Road. Both of these create safety issues, we believe. Again, perhaps the developer has a better solution
for parking. Note that three of the dwellings will have only single garages.
Thirdly, the routing of the bike path seems to be an afterthought. It is unclear where it will go after the
houses are built. It would again be a safety issue if it were to share tarmac with the driveway for these
houses. And it seems to disappear once it has passed these houses. Can the developer describe where it
will be placed on North Jefferson Road? Prior to this proposal, it was to run alongside North Jefferson
Road, in front of where the lots now designated 104 through 108 would now be.
Finally, we cannot help but reiterate that the proposal that was shown to us two years ago when we
bought our house remains the most appropriate option, that is, for five single family homes in that
section. Cannot the developer simply revert to that configuration?
Thank you again for the opportunity to view the ongoing plans. Hopefully we can get these items resolved
before they come to the DRB and we can have a smooth approval process!
Stuart & Delia Mowat
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:08:11 AM
To: 'Stuart and Delia Mowat'
Subject: RE: South Village ‐ Latest proposals
Good morning Stuart,
As requested, I’ve compiled the plans I have thus far. At this point we’re still working with them to provide plans that
more fully illustrate what they’re trying to do, so it may be worth checking in again at the end of the week, though the
plans I’ve requested show the existing configuration, and since you’re familiar with the property they may not be that
helpful to you.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
2
(802) 846‐4106
From: Marla Keene
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 1:26 PM
To: Stuart and Delia Mowat <delistu@msn.com>
Subject: RE: South Village ‐ Latest proposals
Hi Stuart,
The plans will not be posted on the website until the Friday before a hearing. I have not yet gotten organized with this
application’s files, but I would be happy to share the plans with you once I am, early next week. If the files are too large
to email, I will let you know and you can come take a look in person & if you’d like I am able to place a copy on a USB
drive for you as well.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846‐4106
From: Stuart and Delia Mowat <delistu@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 1:22 PM
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Subject: South Village ‐ Latest proposals
Good Afternoon Marla,
We understand that the developer of South Village has submitted new plans for the development as a whole
and that they are to be discussed on November 20th at the DRB. Is it possible for you to share the plans with us, as I
cannot see them on the South Burlington web site, where they would normally be in the DRB Agenda.
Thanks very much.
Stuart Mowat
1
Marla Keene
From:Robin Jeffers <robin@SDIRELAND.COM>
Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:39 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: Mowat letter
Hi Marla,
Regarding the Mowat’s letter,
We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to this letter. As this is sketch plan, these are all good questions to be
worked through in this process. Please see below replies to the context of the Mowats points;
1. Each dwelling is intended to have it’s own parking directly adjacent to the units just like the triplex units in Phase
1,
2. Each dwelling unit is intended to place their toter for trash and recycling at the end of their driveway, not on
Preserve Road, if this is not feasible for the hauler, a shared bin system would be recommended, there is no plan
for toters on Preserve Road.
3. Each dwelling will have driveway and garage parking for their cars, again, the same as in Phase 1 existing
construction. Same as already constructed triplex units, the two end units have two car garages and two car
parking space adjacent to the unit, same as all other homes at South Village, the center units are proposed with
a one car garage and two parking spaces, again, same as phase 1. Unit Owner parking is not intended for
Preserve Road.
4. The bike path is where it intended and will not be moved. It runs through a what will become a common area
green, as we have shown on the drawings. The common area lot by current permits is to have fencing on the lot
line of the existing homes to segregate and clarify the bounds of the common area from the lots of home
ownership. A similar treatment would be put in place on the western boundary of the common strip which the
bike path travels through. This will be attractive and inviting and suitable place for the rec path.
5. The five unit plan was found not viable and turned down in earlier permitting. We have and are moving forward
with this plan. The actual MP1 plat with the HOA Declaration for the lot was and is for 16 units, 9 is significantly
lesser units and a very big concession from the two twelve plex units proposed to the neighborhood by the
developer last year at this time. The triplex units are very much in keeping with South Village design.
Thank you,
Respectfully,
Robin J
From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@sburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:36 PM
To: Robin Jeffers
Subject: RE: Mowat letter
Hi Robin,
Here you go. Sorry about that; I printed to PDF but apparently never launched it to you.
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846‐4106
From: Robin Jeffers <robin@SDIRELAND.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 2:34 PM
2
To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Subject: Mowat letter
Hi Marla,
You mentioned forwarding Stuart Mowats letter, please do, so we can reply. Thank you.
Robin
Robin Jeffers
S D Ireland
PO Box 2286
S. Burlington, VT 05407
802‐863‐6222
Cell: 802‐316‐6004
robin@sdireland.com
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 November
2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan; J. Smith,
alternate
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Crawford,
M. Mittag, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, R. Greco, B. Sirvis, L. Lackey, P. Smiar, P. Kahn, A. Chalnick, D. Seff, J.
Stern, M. Busher, T. Perrapato, N. Hyman, D. Partido, B. Kakalec, K. Ryder, D. Peters. C. Montgomery, L.
Hammond, B. Bartlett, C. Montgomery, F. Landry, A. Bartella.
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Cota asked to move the Minutes to follow the announcements.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Mr. Cota advised the public that there is an opening on the DRB. The City Council will be holding
interviews soon.
Mr. Cota then spoke of the great nature of the people of the City of South Burlington and particularly of
the acts of kindness when his son was recently struck by a car when riding his bike. He specifically
thanked the EMTs who responded to the call, Police Cpl. Brunell, the neighbor who made them dinner,
Councilor Tim Barritt who retrieved the bike, and the nurse in the next car who helped until the
ambulance arrived. Mr. Cota also noted the time DRB members devote to being at meetings and
preparing for meetings as volunteers giving back to the city. He cited the contentious issues they often
deal with and asked that people be kind to each other, whether they agree or not.
Mr. Wilking noted the recent passing of Larry Michaels who often attended meetings and said he will be
missed.
5. Minutes of 15 October 2019
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 2
Ms. Philibert moved to approve the minutes of 15 October as written. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion
passed 5‐0 with Mr. Wilking abstaining.
6. Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐29 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend Phase IIIB of a
previously approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment
consists of removing the master plan condition requiring construction of a left‐hand turn lane
at the southernmost entrance from Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road, 1840 Spear
Street:
It was noted that this item was to be continued as the applicant failed to meet public notice
requirements.
Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐19‐29 to 19 November 2019. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6‐
0.
7. Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐03 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of an
overall affordability plan for a previously approved multi‐phase, 334 unit planned unit
development, 1840 Spear Street:
It was noted that this item was to be continued as the applicant failed to meet public notice
requirements.
Mr. Cota moved to continue MS‐19‐02 to 19 November 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐
0.
8. Miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐04 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership to allow
encroachment into a Class II wetland buffer, 1068 Williston Road:
Mr. Smiar said this is part of the Holiday Inn site in the T4 district. There is a small wetland buffer. 702
square feet of that buffer will be lawn and landscaping, and is currently part of the lawn and patio for
the existing pool. They have received a wetland permit from the State.
No issues were raised by the Board or the public.
Mr. Cota moved to close MS‐19‐04. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
9. Continued Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐35 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International
Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment
consists of constructing a 5,4000 sq. ft. addition to an existing maintenance building to
provide covered storage for snow removal equipment, 1200 Airport Drive:
Mr. Lackey addressed staff comments as follows:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 3
a. Staff noted that in order to take credit for the activity as landscaping, it cannot also
be applied for as an agricultural exemption for the beehives. The applicant was OK
with this stipulation.
b. The beehives must be managed by professionals. The applicant agreed.
c. The applicant must submit an overall plan for future landscaping at the Airport
commensurate with the next application that requires landscaping. Mr. Lackey said
they will be coming in with a bigger project and will bring that in as part of that
application.
d. They must provide evidence of wetland coverage. The applicant was OK with this.
Mr. Wilking asked if there is a requirement that the beehives be added to if any die. The applicant
agreed to this. Mr. Wilking said this should be a stipulation in the motion. Mr. Conner said that the
Board could add a condition that the prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant must show evidence of
how the colony will be maintained. Members were OK with this.
There were no other comments by board members or the public.
Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐19‐35. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned
unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit
development is to consist of 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 68
Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street:
Messrs. Sullivan and Wilking recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Cota welcomed Ms. Smith, the alternate DRB member, who may serve when there is a quorum
issue. He also noted that discussion would be limited to an hour as Mr. Behr must leave.
Mr. Cota also explained what final plat means and how things will proceed. He noted the complicated
history of the project and read an outline of the history and also read from “legal considerations”
involving TDRs. He noted that the status of TDRs is not yet decided in the courts and that the applicant
has chosen to proceed at their own risk. Mr. Cota then outlined the appeal process and what can be
appealed.
The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:
1. The applicant will record the conservation easement and density transfer before the
83rd unit
2. The applicant will record unit design guidelines.
3. The applicant confirmed that the grades are unchanged.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 4
4. The applicant confirmed that each structure will be compliant with the view
protection zone.
5. Mr. Currier said that no more than 50% of the homes will be completed in each
phase before the open space for that phase will be completed. This is 40 units in
Phase I, so that the open space will be built before unit 21 is built.
Mr. Behr asked when roads will be built for each phase and how they coordinate with open space. Mr.
Currier said roads for each phase will be built as part of that phase.
6. The applicant confirmed that the turning movement plan has been revised to
comply with the Fire Chief and that sign will be moved as a condition of approval.
7. Stormwater comments: no discussion
8. DPW comments: no discussion
9. Regarding the path within the proposed easement, Mr. Currier said the exact
location of the path is not yet known. He showed its general location and said they
will complete the clearing of the path. He agreed to the language provided.
10. Regarding landscaping values, Mr. Currier agreed the value shown is for trees and
shrubs only. He noted it is still about twice the required amount.
11. There will be a $293,000 budget for landscaping that will run by phase as follows:
$58,000 Phase I; $74,982 for Phase 2; $49,746 for Phase 3, and $35,454 for Phase 4;
$35,454 can be done at any time.
12. Arborist’s comments: no discussion
13. Regarding screening standards, Mr. Currier said they are proposing evergreens on 3
sides as allowed by Green Mountain Power. There will be ornamental grasses in
front to satisfy GMP. He showed a plan for this.
14. The applicant will show a plan for maintenance of the trail
15. Plans did not show tress. This has been corrected.
16. A buffering plan has been provided and includes a split rail fence. This will be
maintained by the homeowner association.
17. The applicant was OK with excluding the pedestrian easement from the common
element as a condition of approval.
18. The applicant was OK with a minor modification to driveways to multi‐family homes
to allow fire trucks to turn.
19. Mr. Currier said there are lighting standards for crossings. Most trail heads are lit
but not the trails. The applicant had no issue with adding lighting at three placed
indicated by board members. Mr. Behr indicated a little “stub” which he felt should
go. The applicant agreed to either option.
20. The applicant proposed to tie the next phase zoning permit to the previous phase.
They proposed to pull the first zoning permit within 18 months after final approval
and all appeals. Mr. Conner explained what would happen if they don’t meet this
schedule.
21. The applicant reiterated that no more than 50% of homes in each phase will be built
before the open space for that phase will be built.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 5
22. The applicant showed a chart of bond amounts. They were OK with revisions based
on a qualified estimator.
23. Staff notes this comment was no long applicable
24. The open space management plan will be separate from the homeowner bylaws.
Public comment was then received as follows:
Mr. Cota noted receipt of letters from members of the public from Lawrence Agee, David Weissgold,
Beth Tolmie, John Stern, Rosanne Greco, Andrew Chalnick, Louise Hammond, and Robert Brinkerhoff.
These will become part of the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Stern noted sightings of a marten in the field. This is an endangered species and should be
addressed.
Mr. Chalnick gave members a handout of maps including flood plain and conservation areas. He said the
development is not appropriate for this area because the regulations say flood plains should be
protected and experts have identified this area as flood plain (he cited the Arrowwood study). Mr.
Chalnick felt the 50‐foot buffer does not give the assurances needed.
Mr. Seff, attorney representing a number of residents, showed a brief video of the site taken during the
recent storm. He said this is a riparian area and flood plain that should be protected
from development, and there are a large number of units planned for this area. He also cited the critical
nature of wildlife and ecological resources in the area and said the city marked this area for no
development.
Regarding TDRs, Mr. Seff reviewed the history of the Court ruling and the appeals. He noted the city has
a new bylaw taking into account what the court said. He felt this project had to be heard under the old
bylaw, which was deemed illegal, and that the applicant should have to start over to be heard under the
new bylaw. Mr. Seff also believed that the zoning boundary line should not be moved.
Mr. Behr excused himself during this segment and reported that he would catch up with the remainder
of the hearing over the video recording.
Mr. Cota replied that the DRB doesn’t write the regulations. It acts on the regulations that exist and
cannot pick and choose what regulations to enforce. He noted the applicant is taking a risk in terms of
the TDRs. Regarding Map #7, Mr. Cota said more detail is needed to that map, which is why field
mapping is relied upon. Mr. Seff said there is no option for field delineation for riparian areas. He
believed the map has the force of law.
Mr. Landry favored the development and cited all the young families now living in Cider Mill. He noted
there is not enough housing in the city and hoped his kids could live in this development.
Ms. Perrapato felt the city is too developed and wildlife is being impacted.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 NOVEMBER 2019
PAGE 6
Ms. Greco said she did research on riparian areas which filter contaminants from getting to Lake
Champlain. She noted the Comprehensive Plan encourages density in transit areas and encourages
preserving open areas.
Ms. Bartella showed photos of wildlife whose nests were mowed over. She said new houses sound
good, but asked who protects the animals.
Ms. Sirvis cited the O’Brien Farms development and asked that something like that not happen here. All
the trees there were lost. She didn’t suggest no development, but a compromise so people and animals
can live together.
Ms. Hammond questioned why the Comprehensive Plan isn’t followed. She felt the city just wants to
“build build build.”
Mr. O’Leary addressed comments regarding map 7. He noted the city has never mapped any of this. It
all comes from Biofinder which says the maps are not to be used for legal purposes and need to be field
tested. He then added that they met with Rebecca Pfeiffer of the State who verified that the buffer
shown encompasses the wetland, wetland buffer, and entire flood plain. He stressed that this is not the
“Great Swamp,” as has been suggested. That is to the west. He also noted that most of the short video
that was shown is in the buffer area.
Mr. Langan asked about traffic. Mr. O’Leary said the intersection is now level of service D.
Members agreed they had enough information to begin to discuss their decision.
Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐27. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0.
11. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common
consent at 9:21 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ____