HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_MS-19-03_1840 Spear St_South Village
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: MS‐19‐03 1840 Spear Street
DATE: December 17, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
South Village Communities, LLC has submitted miscellaneous application #MS‐19‐03 for approval of an overall
affordability plan for a previous‐approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit development, 1840 Spear Street.
At the November 5, 2019 hearing the Board continued the hearing to November 19, 2019 to allow the applicant
to correct defects in public noticing. The November 19, 2019 hearing was rescheduled due to lack of a
quorum. The materials included in the November 19, 2019 packet are unchanged with the exception of
additional public comment letters received after the packet was published. All public comment letters are now
included in the packet, from newest to oldest.
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:hale cochran <hale.cochran@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:22 PM
To:Marla Keene
Subject:South Village Affordability Plan
Attachments:SV Affordability Plan.pdf
Dear Ms Keene:
I am on the Board of Directors of the South Village Community
Association (SVCA). We had our annual meeting last night where the
Overall Affordability Plan, South Village Communities LLC submitted to
you on September 24, 2019 by Scott Ireland was discussed.
I have attached a letter dated October 24, 2019 to Paul Conner from Nick
Andrews that details the history of the development and affordable
housing issues at South Village. All of the participants at our annual
meeting last night were apposed to all options presented in Scott
Ireland's letter of September 24, 2019.
I and a number of South Village residents plan to attend the
Development Review Board meeting. We hope there can be a better
solution to affordable housing than outlined in Mr. Ireland's letter of
September 24, 2019.
Sincerely,
Hale Cochran
1
Marla Keene
From:Nicholas Andrews
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:05 PM
To:Paul Conner
Cc:Marla Keene; Andrews Betty
Subject:Statement for 11/19 DRB meeting
Mr. Connor and the DRB
It is my hope that this committee will fairly review the history of the South Village development.
To be clear, at no time during the last 7 and 1/2 years that my family has lived in So Village have I ever demeaned the
value of affordable housing in this or any community. As a matter of fact I have consistently asked the developer publicly
and privately and the City publicity when the intent of the master plan for integrated and similar affordable housing
would be addressed.
In my family, myself, my wife, and 5 of our 7 children have been considered workforce people. I say that proudly and
with no disdain for those working for good housing within our community.
Only one of the three options before the DRB this evening has been discussed with the hundreds of people in So
Village and yet the developer sent the notice for this meeting to those people abutting our community. Even as a
resident member of the So Village HOA I was never personally notified by the developer of this meeting.
I am curious as to whether the DRB had ever seen the plan that had overwhelming acceptance within the community.
That plan included reasonable density considerations based on the remaining open space in So Village, accommodation
for some but not all of the bonus affordable housing units, and a realization on the part of the developer’s investors that
it was too late to meet the spirit of the original master plan for “bonus” units.
I believe that those of us who purchased homes in So Village and have paid taxes to the City of So Burlington could
have expected that the developer and the City could have escrowed some of those premium costs. Those funds could
then be used towards the subsidizing of affordable housing, that is if affordable housing had been seriously considered
and not an afterthought. With an eye to future developments that escrowing of funds might be a way to put the money
where the good intentions are.
Nick Andrews
358 So Jefferson Rd
South Burlington 05403
Sent from my iPhone nwa
On Nov 19, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> wrote:
Dear neighbors:
Below please find the link to this evening’s Development Review Board meeting.
http://sbvt‐records.info/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=40952&dbid=0&repo=sburl
Paul
<image001.jpg>
2
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.
Mr. Paul Connor
South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Development Review Board
City of South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Dear Mr. Connor,
I am writing to express my deep concern over the most recent proposed plan by the developer of South
Village Communities. My family and I bought our home in this community over seven years ago. We
were drawn to the unique vision of the original master plan—a village style neighborhood centered
around a working farm and shared preserved common land with an emphasis on environmental
stewardship. During these seven years, we have watched the neighborhood grow with many new
families drawn to this community for the same reasons we were. We have seen the farm also grow and
flourish. And, unfortunately we have seen the future development plans constantly change.
The plans have changed so much recently that it is hard to keep track. I do know at one point about one
or two years ago, representatives from SD Ireland met with members of the community and listened to
our input and concerns regarding the future development of the neighborhood. A small working group
of neighbors and representatives of SD Ireland was created to brainstorm options for future
development plans. As I recall, after this collaborative process with members of our community, the
developer and their investors proposed a new plan that scaled back the total number of units to 279.
This included the 269 approved units in the original plan plus 10 bonus units (5 market and 5
affordable). This plan had overwhelming support from the residents of South Village.
As I understand it, the City rejected that plan and is now requiring the developer to meet the 334
threshold (269 units, plus 33 affordable plus 32 market rate). As I also understand it, in one early
decision regarding this community, 4C1160, 15.07(c)(3) the units beyond 269 were considered a density
bonus for the developer and were never mandated. The developer continually held up the 334 units as a
goal for the development. That goal included 156 units in phase 1, 99 units in phase 2, and 79 units in
phase 3.
To make a long story short, it now seems like the City is mandating the developer reach this 334 number
of units including the bonus affordable units. While I have no problem with incorporating affordable
housing units in the neighbor as originally planned, I do have a problem with this new proposed plan by
the developer in which 50 percent of the affordable units will be placed in Lot 11. The original master
plan called for the affordable units to be dispersed throughout all three phases. Now seventeen
duplexes (34 units) of identical design are planned to be concentrated in the center of our community
right next to the farm. This is the wrong place for this kind of dense development. Why wasn’t the city
paying attention throughout the development of our neighborhood to ensure that these needed
affordable housing units were spread though out each phase more evenly in keeping with the original
master plan? The addition of 50 percent of these units on one big lot in one phase seems like an
afterthought. Please understand, I am not against the addition of affordable housing in our
neighborhood. I am troubled by the high density of it in one central area that is already a busy highly
trafficked area in our neighborhood.
In my mind, 17 identical clustered duplexes on this one large lot do not satisfy the affordable plans for
this development or for developments in general or for section 15.18(B)(c) of the South Burlington Land
Development regulations. The wording of those regulations require maximization and protection of the
open character of the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan. The wording goes on to say; allowing
"carefully" planned development at the overall least densities provided within the regulations. As I
mentioned, this plan seems like an afterthought. As one of my neighbors said, “Careful developer
planning for integrated affordable housing along the way and true oversight by the City of South
Burlington in making sure the City's interests were followed during the 15 year path of this development
could have averted this current situation.”
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. My wife and I both work full time and have three
kids. While we are deeply invested in our community, it can be hard to stay on top of all the details in
the changing plans and all the legal language and regulations. I have done my best to express my
concerns regarding this situation as I understand it. I hope the City will keep in mind the interests and
concerns of homeowners like me, my wife and others in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Jerry Swope
368 South Jefferson Rd.
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