HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-19-34_47 Cheesefactory Rd_Maynard_PP#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
1
1 of 14
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐34_47 Cheesefactory Rd_Maynard_PP_2019‐12‐
17.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 30, 2019
Plans received: July 25, 2019
47 CHEESEFACTORY ROAD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐19‐34
Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Owner
Hickory Hillside LLC
32 Main Street, Suite 302A
Chatham, NY 12534
Applicant/Engineer
Tyler Maynard
163 Revell Drive
Lincoln, VT 05443
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0360‐00047
SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection
67.32 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
2
2 of 14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Plat application #SD‐19‐34 of Tyler Maynard to subdivide an approximately 67.3 acre parcel
into three lots of 65.6 acres (Lot 1), 0.8 acres (Lot 2), and 0.8 acres (Lot 3) for the purpose of
constructing a single family home on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3, conserving the unbuilt portion of Lot 1, and
constructing a separate private access road on the western portion of Lot 1, 47 Cheesefactory Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection district. The applicant is
proposing a three lot subdivision. The subdivision is largely governed by LDR 9.12, which allows lots that
have been in existence since June 22, 1992 to be subdivided and developed with one or more detached
single family units subject to conditional use review if they meet certain standards, discussed below.
This property has been in existence in its current form since before June 22, 1992 therefore subdivision
is allowed.
The Board reviewed the sketch plan application on September 4, 2019. At that time, the applicant was
proposing a four lot subdivision, consisting of three house lots and a lot for a private roadway intended
to serve a separate parcel. The applicant has since modified their proposal; they are now proposing to
locate the private roadway on an easement within Lot 1 instead of creating a separate lot.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
CONTEXT
Development within the SEQ‐NRP district is permissible pursuant to a conservation plan approved by
the Development Review Board (Section 9.12A (2)). Section 9.12B further states that the DRB may allow
a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family dwelling unit on
each of the lots except where there is sufficient space to develop three units outside the natural
resource protection (NRP) zoning district. This entire lot is located in the SEQ‐NRP therefore three lots
with a dwelling unit on each are allowed. No portion of the development may be within a primary
natural community or its related buffer. Such development is subject to DRB approval of a conservation
plan that balances development or land utilization and conservation.
On an overall basis, the applicant proposes to construct three homes with a shared private road, and a
separate private access road for the purpose of accessing a separately owned parcel located south of
the subject property. The applicant is proposing that the three homes be relatively clustered together,
and that the remaining lands remain in agricultural use.
1. For the purpose of clarity in this document, Staff has used the term “driveway” to refer to the private
road shared by the three homes, and the term “private access road” to refer to the roadway accessing
the parcel to the south. Both roadways must in fact meet the private roadway standards in the LDRs.
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant ‐ Natural Resource Protection (SEQ‐NRP) district. The
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
3
3 of 14
applicant has not provided an engineering plan showing proposed lot coverages or setbacks, but from the
schematic drawing provided and discussion with the applicant, the proposed development appears to meet
the dimensional standards.
SEQ‐NRP Required Proposed
Lot 1
Proposed
Lot 2
Proposed
Lot 3
Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf 2,878,444 27,007 27,007
Max. Building Coverage 15% 0.06% 6.48% 6.48%
Max. Overall Coverage 30% 1.18% 8.75% 8.75%
Min. Front Setback 20 ft. > 20 ft. Appx. 25 ft. Appx. 25 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. Appx. 45 ft. Appx 45 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. Appx. 140 ft. Appx. 140 ft.
Building Height (pitched
roof)2
28 ft. Unknown Unknown Unknown
2. The applicant must comply with the building height standards of the district which limit pitched roof
heights to 28‐feet. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to
provide a proposed height for the structure as part of their final plat application, measured as
proscribed in Section 3.07. Staff’s particular concern is that the buildings are located on a slope and
therefore the height measurement for a two‐story building may result in a height exceeding the
maximum allowable height depending on construction method. Height waivers are not permissible
within this district.
ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS
9.12 SEQ‐NRP SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ‐NRP sub‐district is subject to the following supplemental
regulations:
(1) N/A
(2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan
approved by the Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below.
(3) N/A
3. At sketch, the applicant has indicated they intend to conserve 60+ acres of the property. The Board
requested the applicant to provide a written conservation plan for review and approval. No such
documentation has been provided, other than a single line in a letter from the Vermont Land Trust
which states that Hickory Hillside LLC is in the process of conserving their land with VLT. The full
text of this letter is included in the packet for the Board. Staff recommends the Board discuss the
specifics of the conservation plan with the applicant and evaluate whether to require more
information at this or the final plat stage of review. Staff considers such an agreement must at
latest be included with the final plat application in order to find this criterion met.
As it pertains to the proposed private access road, the Board approved a final plat application (SD‐
19‐04) for 133 Cheesefactory Lane to develop four homes (one in South Burlington and three in
Shelburne) which would be accessed by a proposed private roadway off Cheesefactory Lane. This
application proposes a private access road to replace the previously approved access to those
lots. Staff considers in order to approved the proposed private access road, the Board would have
to find the roadway consistent with the conservation purpose of the NRP district. Staff notes the
access proposed as part of this application results in greater wetland impacts and a longer
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
4
4 of 14
roadway than the previously approved plan, therefore resulting in greater land impacts than the
approved access.
The applicant has provided a letter of intent from the Vermont Land Trust which states that the
proposed private access road would allow conservation of land in Shelburne. However, it is not
clear to Staff what land proposed to be conserved that is not already conserved through the SD‐
19‐04 approval and the associated final plat approval in Shelburne (SUB18‐01).
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify how the proposed private access road
results in greater conservation, and the Board consider whether this greater conservation merits
the additional wetland impacts and longer road length required by the proposed private access
road compared to the access road approved in final plat SD‐19‐04. Staff recommends the Board
review the plan entitled “Ewing Subdivision Access Wetland Avoidance and Impact Minimization”
prepared by Fizgerald Environmental Associates, LLC and dated October 2, 2019 when considering
this request.
5. Staff recommends that should the Board approve the private access road, the Board include a
condition requiring that SD‐19‐04 be amended prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the private
access road to allow the Board to evaluate compliance with various criterion, including those
limiting the number of homes off a private roadway.
B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely
within a SEQ‐NRP sub‐district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling
units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards:
(1) N/A
(2) Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review
Board may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1)
single family dwelling unit on each of these lots only if:
a. The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non‐NRP SEQ sub‐
district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3)
single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these
Regulations.
No portions of the lot are outside the NRP sub‐district. Staff considers this criterion
met.
b. such lots shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and,
Staff considers this criterion met.
c. the location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a
designated primary natural community or its related buffer, and,
This standard refers to the natural communities identified in the 2005 Arrowwood
Environmental Report. Staff considers this criterion met.
d. The location of structures and access drives are clustered such that no dwelling unit
is located more than one hundred (100) feet from any other structure, and,
The applicant has requested waiver of this criterion to allow homes to be located in a
line, with the homes approximately 100‐feet apart in a line, placing the outermost
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
5
5 of 14
homes more than 250 feet apart. At sketch, the Applicant stated that they believe
this configuration is best because of ledge, existing trees, and requirements of
wastewater disposal systems. The Board was generally supportive of this
configuration for the reasons the applicant provided.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss this request and make a finding at this formal
stage of review. Staff notes the applicant’s cover letter contains a discussion of why
they believe this is a beneficial configuration.
e. The dwelling units shall be detached single family dwellings, and,
Staff considers this criterion met.
f. Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval
of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently
encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development.
See discussion under 9.12A above.
9.06 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL
SUB‐DISTRICTS.
The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ.
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the
maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers are not available for
structures with the SEQ zoning district.
The Project is located within the SEQ‐NRP district. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance
with the height requirements of these districts, as summarized in the zoning district and dimensional
standards section above.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
The applicant is proposing to cluster the three homes near the north end of the site. The
applicant has provided the following narrative supporting their selection for the location of
the homes.
Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be building lots, with permitted wastewater and water supply systems to
support up‐to four‐bedrooms each. Locating building lots involved many factors: impact to
agricultural land, view shed from Cheese Factory Road and Hinesburg Road (Route 116),
wetland impact, ease of building and water/wastewater abilities. The location selected
provides the best option for all of these factors. The land chosen is much steeper than other
more agriculturally workable land. A large cluster of trees set up on a rocky terrace on the
northeastern portion of the parcel provide a view block with Cheesefactory Rd. There are
some views from Route 116, but this view shed line can be minimized with existing and
proposed trees. The location has zero impact on any wetland or wetland buffers. Residences
will be able to build without need to blast through ledge. Due to the 10‐14% slope,
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
6
6 of 14
wastewater water mound systems will be able to be shorter than if they were placed on
flatter ground, which allows them to each be on their own lot and not need extra easements
or larger lot boundaries.
As it pertains to the proposed private access road, the applicant has provided a plan entitled
“Ewing Subdivision Access Wetland Avoidance and Impact Minimization” prepared by
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC and dated October 2, 2019 showing both the subject
parcel and the parcel to which the private road provides access.
7. The wetland lines shown on this plan do not agree with the plans prepared by Lincoln Applied
Geology, Inc. for the subject parcel. The Fitzgerald plan shows a broad wetland which veers
away from the private access road at the property line, while the Lincoln plans show a narrow
wetland which appears to intersect the private access road just over the property line. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to reconcile these two plans to allow the Board
to evaluate whether the private access road creates additional discontinuity in the wetland
buffer beyond those approved in SD‐19‐04 for 133 Cheesefactory Lane.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at
the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The subdivided property may only be developed with three single family dwelling units as
discussed under 9.12 below. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management
shall be established by the applicant.
See discussion under 9.12 below.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the
Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the
General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation.
8. Demonstration of compliance with the erosion control standards of Article 16 is a required
element of final plat review. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring
demonstration of compliance with the erosion control standards of Article 16 at final plat.
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or
primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically
compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural
purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of
natural materials is encouraged.
9. No proposals for buffering or fencing is proposed at the location where the private access road
is proposed to impact wetlands. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require
landscaping or fencing to protect the wetland buffer.
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
7
7 of 14
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development
plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing
agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new
opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐
supported agriculture.
The primary use of this property will remain agricultural. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review
Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development,
the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned
public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths,
streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the
needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as
evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water
and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems. Staff
considers this criterion met.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting
shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
No additional development may take place on this parcel, as discuss under 9.12 below,
therefore Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement
with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
The applicant is proposing to serve three homes with a private access road on the northeast
corner of the lot, and proposing a separate private access road to serve the property at 133
Cheesefactory Lane. The merits of the private access road are above under Section 9.12 SEQ‐
NRP.
The applicant has indicated electric lines from Cheesefactory Road will serve the proposed
homes, and will be located along the driveway serving those homes. They have not
indicated any utility lines on the private access road.
10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they are proposing to serve
the homes on 133 Cheesefactory Lane with utilities along the private access road, and if so,
require the applicant to provide location of utility lines on the plans for final plat application.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
8
8 of 14
minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions
where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location
of hydrants.
See Fire Chief comments under Subdivision Standard 9 above.
D. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity
for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles
between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on
the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services
and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to
maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
The application proposes a private access road to replace the private access road approved for
133 Cheesefactory Lane as part of final plat approval SD‐19‐04. The merits of the private access
road are discussed under 9.12 above.
3.05B. Lots with No Road Frontage
(2) The Development Review Board may approve subdivision or development of
lots with no frontage on a public street, as long as access to such a street by a permanent
easement or right‐of‐way at least twenty (20) feet in width is provided, according to the
following procedures:
(a) …
(b) Conditions of Approval. Any application to create a new lot with no road
frontage shall be subject to the requirements and major subdivision criteria of
Article 15 of these Regulations in addition to this section.
(i) Number of lots and/or dwelling units on a private right‐of‐way. The
Development Review Board shall limit the number of developable lots on a
private right‐of‐way to three (3) and/or the number of multi‐family units to
ten (10), whichever is less, beyond which a public street shall be required
(See Article 15, Subdivision). The Development Review Board shall require a
public street if the number of developable lots is greater than three (3)
and/or the number of multi‐family units is ten (10) or more, whichever is
less. The Development Review Board may also limit the length of a private
right‐of‐way, and may impose other conditions as may be necessary to
assure adequate emergency access to all lots and dwelling units.
(ii) The Development Review Board may require a right‐of way wider than
the twenty (20) foot minimum if it is to serve more than one (1) lot.
(iii) The Development Review Board may impose conditions to insure the
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
9
9 of 14
maintenance and permanency of a private right‐of‐way and to insure that
a right‐of‐way will not place a burden on municipal services.
Staff considers these criteria met for the driveway serving the three homes.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways
(3) Private Roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a
roadway or roadways within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more
of the following situations applies:
(a) (b) not applicable
(c) The proposed roadway serves five (5) or fewer single‐family or
duplex dwellings, an any combination of the two types of dwellings.
11. Staff considers this criterion met for the three homes. Should the Board allow
the applicant to construct the private access road, Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to record a notice of conditions that the private
access road shall remain private.
(4) Connections to adjacent parcels
(a) if the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extention or
connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future,
whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the
DRB shall require the applicant to construct the roadway to the property
line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection.
12. Staff considers 9.12 prohibits additional development on the parcel,
therefore no connection may occur.
E. Standards for Construction of Roadways
(1) all streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant.
(2) N/A
(3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this
section with the exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be
a minimum width of twenty‐six (26) feet with parking and twenty (20) feet
without parking.
13. Table 15‐1 specifies a road width of 20 ft for private roads without parking. Figure
15‐1B specifies a specific roadway cross section. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to provide a proposed roadway cross section for both the
driveway serving the three homes and the private access road at final plat to allow
this criterion to be evaluated.
Section 15.12, discussed above, also requires private roads to be a minimum of
20‐feet wide.
The Land Development Regulations contemplate an 18‐foot width for wetland
crossings in certain sub‐districts of the Southeast Quadrant. The NRP district is
not one of those districts, because no new roads were contemplated at the time
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
10
10 of 14
the regulations were developed.
14. Should the Board allow the private access road, Staff recommends the Board
require it to be 20 feet wide except at the wetland crossing where it must be 18
feet wide.
9.07 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT REGULATING PLANS
A. N/A
B. General Provisions
(1) N/A
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district
shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
Proposed lots 2 and 3 have a width to depth ratio of 1:1.57. The minimum lot size in this district is
12,000 sf. The applicant is proposing lots double this size. The applicant testified at sketch the lot
depth is based on the area needed for the wastewater disposal systems but that they would be able
to tighten up the back of the lots to the back of the septic mound if the Board desired.
15. Staff considers the Board should instead require the applicant to reduce the width of the lots to meet
this criterion.
C. – D. N/A
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
All subdivisions for more than a single or two family residence in the SEQ district are required to be a PUD.
As a PUD, the applicant is requesting certain waivers, discussed under SEQ standards below.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems. Staff
considers this criterion met.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
See discussion under 9.06B(4) above.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
11
11 of 14
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any
technical review by City staff or consultants.
Staff considers the proposed development of three residential units served by a single curb
cut and separately the private access drive will have no adverse impact on congestion of
adjacent roads.
16. Should the Board approve the private access drive, Staff recommends the Board include a
condition requiring the applicant to seek DRB approval for construction of additional homes
beyond those approved in SD‐19‐04 for 133 Cheesefactory Lane, regardless of whether the
additional home is to be located in South Burlington or in Shelburne.
(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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The applicant performed a wetland survey. They are proposing 1175 sq ft of wetland impact
and 2553 sq ft of wetland buffer impact, both associated with the proposed private access
drive. Staff notes 12.02D authorizes the DRB to invoke technical review to evaluate measures
that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources with or
without altering the layout of the proposed project.
12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer
areas is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3)
below.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland
buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall
development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream
buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry
or store flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values
identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by
appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other
mitigation measures.
17. The applicant has not received a determination from the Agency of Natural Resources. Staff
considers the applicant must provide this as part of the final plat application.
18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a field delineation and wetland
report as part of final plat application. This combined with the erosion prevention and
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
12
12 of 14
sediment control plan and stormwater management design will allow the Board to evaluate
compliance with this criterion.
(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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the
location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII
of these Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed development visually compatible with the low density
development patterns identified for the Natural Resource Protection district.
(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.
This criterion is discussed under 9.06B above.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions.
Staff considers the proposed driveway for the three homes and the private access road
generally consistent with fire department standards and recommends the Board consider this
criterion at final plat. Staff notes that because the homes will be located greater than 150‐
feet from a public right of way, all homes must have a 13D compliant sprinkler system.
(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 properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this
standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
See discussion under 9.06D(3) above.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and
type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the municipal Plan for the affected
district(s).
The Project is located in the area identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as subject to
Objective #60 and Strategies #135 and #137, as follow.
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
13
13 of 14
Objective 60: Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open
space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically
designated for development.
Strategy 135: Continue to work with Shelburne on strategies to create a conserved
agricultural and natural area, with appropriate public access and paths, from Shelburne
Pond and Pond Road north to the Cider Mill development, consistent with the goals of the
Open Space Strategy.
Strategy 137: Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives, and
development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition of
supplemental conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands.
19. See discussion of conservation plan under SEQ‐NRP supplemental regulations above.
(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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers the low density of the proposed development adequately protective of natural
features. The total impervious proposed exceeds the half‐acre threshold for requiring
compliance with Section 12 standards pertaining to stormwater. The applicant has prepared
a conceptual stormwater management design for the proposed private access road, which
consists of 0.5 acres of impervious surface, 0.44 acres of which are proposed to be conveyed
via a grassed swale to a pretreatment forebay and gravel wetland.
20. The applicant has requested the Board allow them to defer final design of the stormwater
treatment system to the final plat stage of review; if the Board ultimately determines the
private access road is not allowed, the project will be below the half acre threshold for
requiring compliance with Section 12 standards pertaining to stormwater. Staff recommends
the Board accept the applicant’s request.
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 9.12B of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (development of lots
in SEQ‐NRP district), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the
following standards of Section 14.10(E):
14.10E General Review Standards
The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all
applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in
an undue adverse effect on any of the following:
(1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met.
#SD‐19‐34
Staff Comments
14
14 of 14
(2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district
within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal
plan.
The purpose of the zoning district is, in part, to encourage open space preservation, and well‐planned
residential use. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Staff considers this project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
Staff considers this criterion will be addressed when other comments in this document are addressed.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
Hickory Hillside, LLC. 3-Lot Subdivision
Cheesefactory Road – October 2019
Project Description:
Hickory Hillside LLC owns a 67.32 acre (not officially surveyed, information based on on-line resources)
that is currently an undeveloped agricultural parcel. The parcel contains multiple areas of Wetland (mapped,
not delineated) as well as a few small areas of tree cover. Historically the land has been used for both
animal grazing and haying. The parcel is mapped as exempt from Interim Zoning. The goal of the project
is to optimize land conservation by prioritizing higher value agricultural and ecological acres and maintaining
the parcel's use value beyond Interim Zoning to support conservation funding.
Hickory Hillside LLC is proposing a three-lot subdivision with approximately 60+ acres of usable agricultural
land being placed in conservation. Lot 1 is 66.08 acres (96% of the parcel) that will be conserved with the
Vermont Land Trust with a single- family residence (up to four -bedroom), on-site wastewater, and on-site
water supply. Lot 2 is 0.62 acres with a single-family residence (up to four - bedroom), on-site wastewater,
and on-site water supply. Lot 3 is 0.62 acres with a single-family residence (up to four -bedroom), on-site
wastewater, and on-site water supply. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are accessed via Cheese Factory Road through an
existing curb-cut. Lots 2 and 3 access includes a ROW easement on the northern portion of Lot 1. There is
a proposed easement on Lot 1 that is an “access lot” that will be 60’ wide, approximately 1.34 acres and
contain a single 20’ wide driveway and be sold to an abutting landowner.
Residences:
Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be building lots, with permitted wastewater and water supply systems to support up-to
four-bedrooms each. Locating building lots involved many factors: impact to agricultural land, view shed
from Cheesefactory Road and Hinesburg Road (Route 116), wetland impact, ease of building and
water/wastewater abilities. The location selected provides the best option for all of these factors. The land
chosen is much steeper than other more agriculturally workable land. A large cluster of trees set up on a
rocky terrace on the northeastern portion of the parcel provide a view block with Cheesefactory Rd. There
are some views from Route 116, but this view shed line can be minimized with existing and proposed trees.
The location has zero impact on any wetland or wetland buffers. Residences will be able to build without
need to blast through ledge. Due to the 10-14% slope, wastewater water mound systems will be able to be
shorter than if they were placed on flatter ground, which allows them to each be on their own lot and not
need extra easements or larger lot boundaries.
Existing & Proposed Foliage:
The lot currently has small tree areas located around the proposed building sites, as well as a large area
of tree coverage along Cheesefactory Road. There will be minimal impacts if any to the existing tree’s
around the build site. The only area that will see some clearing will be where the new shared driveway is
proposed, there will be some tree clearing there for the road, and ditches. The remaining tree area along
Cheesefactory Road will be blocked with caution tape to prevent any further clearing or any trampling of
wooded area’s by equipment. A set amount of space will be provided for roadway, ditches and equipment,
all other area’s will be blocked by caution tape. The small section of tree coverage around the building site
should be far enough away from any construction, but the areas that will be close will be guarded with
caution tape as well. We are proposing the addition of some trees in between the patches of tree covered
area. Trees will be spaced equally between each existing patch to provide added screening from Route
116 and Cheesefactory Road.
Waivers:
Hickory Hillside LLC is requesting a waiver to allow the residences to be built 100’ apart from one another,
but not be built 100’ apart from both other residences. In order for the wastewater disposal fields to work,
they need to be built behind each residence. That requires the house sites to be located in a line formation
instead of a circular or triangular cul-de-sac style configuration.
VCGI0800400 Feet1 inch = 400 feet± JHB Map By Checked 1” = 400’ Scale October 2, 2019 Date SHEET 1 SHEET NO. Notes : Class II wetland boundary is estimated based on topography, soils, and field delineations. Ewing Subdivision Access Wetland Avoidance and Impact Minimization Proposed ImperviousPotential Access RoadsApproximate Class II Wetland BoundaryEwing Family Farm Parcel5ft Contours (LiDAR)Option CAccess road follows historic farm road through wet area around pond. Approach to subdivision is approximately 10% grade and may not meet fire department requirements.Option BOriginal access road for proposed subdivision with wetland permit (2014-480.01). Option AAccess directly from Cheesefactory Road via an easement through the Bless property. Allows for development of Lot 1 and improves emergency vehicle access to subdivision. MuddyBrook
Ewing Access Road Options Impact to Wetlands and ConservationAccess Road OptionsTotal New Access Road Footage*Total New Access Road DIRECT Wetland Impact SqFt*Total New Access Road Wetland BUFFER Impact SqFt*House Units Additional Acres Conserved with VLTCommentsOption A2500 4980 7354 5 50This access guarantees conservation of the 45 acres of farmland and Lot 5 as farmer housing creating a 50 acre farmland conservation parcel.Option B2050 4140 3204 4 0-45 Conservation of the farmland parcel has been stalled due to inability to access farm labor housing via this road option.Option C2600 7200 3200 4 0-45*All numbers are approximate1
Approximate Impact:78 sqft Wetland1,906 sqft BufferApproximate Impact:708 sqft Wetland1,995 sqft BufferEasement Area: 1.09 Acres0 200100 Feet1 inch = 100 feet± JHB Map By Checked 1” = 100’ Scale July 19, 2019 Date SHEET 1 SHEET NO. Notes : Preliminary wetland delineation completed 7/12/2019. Wetland is presumed to be Class II Parcel boundary is not surveyed Proposed road is assumed to be 20 feet wide except in wetland areas (18 feet) with 6 feet of additional width for elevating above existing grade Ewing Subdivision Auclair Extension Wetlands Wetland Boundary50' Wetland Buffer1ft Contours (LiDAR)Parcel Boundaries (not surveyed)Easement BoundaryEdge of Road GradingBuffer ImpactWetland ImpactC h e e s e fa c to ry R o a d
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC.
Applied Watershed Science & Ecology
Page1
HickoryHillsideSubdivisionandEwingSubdivisionAccessRoad
PreliminaryStormwaterDesigns
To:BrandonBless–Landowner
From:JoeBartlett
Re:PreliminaryStormwaterDesigns
Date: October31,2019
HickoryHillsideSubdivision
SiteAreaDescription
Thesiteareafortheproposed3Ͳlotsubdivisionisborderedbyascrub/shrubareawithbedrockoutcrops
tothenorthandalargehayfieldtothesouth,extendingtoawetlandcomplexatthetoeoftheslope.
UnderlyingsoilsareprimarilymappedasFarmingtonextremelyrockyloam,withasmallportiontothe
southofthesitemappedasVergennesclayandasmallportionofthedrivewayatCheesefactoryRoad
mappedasCovingtonsiltyclay.AllsoilsarepoorlydrainedandareclassifiedasD.Seasonalhighwater
tableistypicallyfoundwithin10to24”ofthesurface.Slopesaremoderaterangingfrom5to10%,
droppingtothewetlandcomplextothesouth.
Asmallportionofthedriveway(0.06acres)drainsnorthtotheexistinggrassedditchalongCheesefactory
Road.Thedrainageareatotheproposedtreatmentsystemincludes0.44acresofimpervious.We
assumedthatallofthesiteareasouthoftheshareddrivewaywillbeconvertedtolawn.The
shrub/bedrockareanorthoftheshareddrivewaywillbeundisturbed.Thesubdivisionhasasmall
topographicdrainageareastartingatthebedrockoutcropstothenorthanddrainingsouthtoaproposed
surfacerunoffinterceptionswale.Theswaleservesadualpurposetocollectsurfacerunofffortreatment,
andtodivertrunoffawayfromthesepticmoundsystems.Acurtaindrainwillbelocatedundertheswale
tofurtherprotectthesepticsystems.ThegrassedswalewillgraduallydrainwesttotheproposedpreͲ
treatmentforebayandtreatmentfeature(seeFigure2forsiteplan).
Modeling
TheVTANRStormwaterDivision–StandardsComplianceWorkbookwasusedtocalculatetheinput
parametersfortheHydrologicModel(HydroCAD10.0)forrunoffestimation.Agravelwetlandtreatment
systemwasselectedforthisprojectduetotheshallowdepthtoseasonalhighwatertableandheavysoils
thatwouldotherwisenotbesuitableforinfiltration.Keyinputsandresultsareshownbelowforthe2.06
acresiteareadrainingtotheproposedtreatmentsystem.
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates
Preliminary Stormwater Design
Page2
StormRainfall
Depth(in)
Curve
Number
Timeof
Concentration(min)
TotalRunoff
Volume(acreͲfeet)
PeakRunoff
Rate(cfs)
WQv1.0885.30.0430.88
CPvProposed2.1855.90.153.10
CPvExisting2.1787.40.0931.78
WQvTreatment
ThepreliminarydesignincludesastoneͲlinedsedimentforebaywithatleast200cubicfeetofstorage
(>10%ofWQv)withasimplestandpipeoutletintoaculvertfeedingthegravelwetland.Anoverflow
spillwaybermwillbeprovidedforbypassflowsduringlargestormevents.Thegravelwetlandwillhave
anapproximatefootprintof20’x40’witha3Ͳfootdeepgravellayer.Additionalstoragewillbeprovided
withupto1footofextendeddetentionpondingabovethegravel.Aslottedpipeunderdrainsystemwill
connecttotheoutletstructure.Theoutletstructurewillincludeaninternalriserwiththeoutletinvert
locatedatthesameelevationasthetopofgravel,maintainingfullsaturationofthegravellayer(see
Figure3fortypicalgravelwetlanddetails).Theoutletculvertwilldischargetoaflowdiffusingstructure
(rockbasket)withagrassedswale,ortoalevelspreaderfeaturetodistributetherunoffassheetflow
acrosstheadjacenthayfield.
CPvTreatment
Theextendeddetentionstorageabovethegravelwetlandwillincludeanadditional1Ͳfootofavailable
pondingdepthforCPvTreatment(maximumof2Ͳfeetabovegravel).Thisstoragewillbecontrolledbya
singlestandpipeorifice(fittedwithadebrisscreen),located1Ͳfootabovethegravellayer.Preliminary
designsshowthata6Ͳ8”riserissufficienttohandleflowsuptothe10Ͳyearstormwhilereducingthepeak
runoffrateduringtheCPvstormtobelowthepreͲdevelopmentflowrate.Allpondedwaterabovethe
gravelwilldrainwithin24Ͳhours.
AccessRoadforEwingSubdivision
SiteAreaDescription
Aproposed1,000footlongaccessroadtotheEwing5Ͳlotsubdivisionislocatedalongthewesternedge
oftheproperty,extendingfromCheesefactoryRoadtotheEwingpropertyline.Theproposedgravelroad
is20feetwideandnarrowsto18feetatthenorthandsouthendswheretheroadpassesthroughclassII
wetlands.Theroadwillbeelevated1Ͳ2feetaboveexistinggradeandwillbepitchedtodraintoagrassed
swalealongtheeastsideoftheroad.Agrassedswalewillbelocatedalongthewestsideoftheroadwill
capturerunofffromthelawnareaontheadjacentpropertyandwillnotcominglewithstormwaterfrom
theproposedroadway.Theswalewillcollectrunofffortheapproximately800footsectionofroadway
betweentheClassIIwetlandboundaries(seeFigure2forsiteplan).Thesiteareaiscurrentlyusedas
rotationalpastureforbeefcattle.UnderlyingsoilsareprimarilymappedasVergennesclay,apoorly
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates
Preliminary Stormwater Design
Page3
drainedDͲtypesoil.Soilprofilescollectedduringwetlanddelineationindicatedashallowdepthto
seasonalhighwatertable(4to16inches).
Modeling
TheVTANRStormwaterDivision–StandardsComplianceWorkbookwasusedtocalculatetheinput
parametersfortheHydrologicModel(HydroCAD10.0)forrunoffestimation.Agravelwetlandtreatment
systemwasselectedforthisprojectduetotheshallowdepthtoseasonalhighwatertableandheavysoils
thatwouldotherwisenotbesuitableforinfiltration.Keyinputsandresultsareshownbelowforthe0.45
acresiteareadrainingtotheproposedtreatmentsystem.
StormRainfall
Depth(in)
Curve
Number
Timeof
Concentration(min)
TotalRunoff
Volume(acreͲfeet)
PeakRunoff
Rate(cfs)
WQv1.0985.50.030.59
CPvProposed2.1856.00.0591.16
CPvExisting2.17811.30.020.33
WQvTreatment
ThepreliminarydesignincludesastoneͲlinedsedimentforebaywithatleast150cubicfeetofstorage
(>10%ofWQv)withasimplestandpipeoutletintoaculvertfeedingthegravelwetland.Anoverflow
spillwaybermwillbeprovidedforbypassflowsduringlargestormevents.Thegravelwetlandwillhave
anapproximatefootprintof15’x30’witha3Ͳfootdeepgravellayer.Additionalstoragewillbeprovided
withupto1footofextendeddetentionpondingabovethegravel.Aslottedpipeunderdrainsystemwill
connecttotheoutletstructure.Theoutletstructurewillincludeaninternalriserwiththeoutletinvert
locatedatthesameelevationasthetopofgravel,maintainingfullsaturationofthegravellayer(see
Figure3fortypicalgravelwetlanddetails).Theoutletculvertwilldischargetoalevelspreaderbermto
distributeallrunoffassheetflowintothewetlandareatothesouth.
CPvTreatment
Theextendeddetentionstorageabovethegravelwetlandwillincludeanadditional1Ͳfootofavailable
pondingdepthforCPvTreatment(maximumof2Ͳfeetabovegravel).Thisstoragewillbecontrolledbya
singlestandpipeorifice(fittedwithadebrisscreen),located1Ͳfootabovethegravellayer.Preliminary
designsshowthata6Ͳ8”riserissufficienttohandleflowsuptothe10Ͳyearstormwhilereducingthepeak
runoffrateduringtheCPvstormtobelowthepreͲdevelopmentflowrate.Allpondedwaterabovethe
gravelwilldrainwithin24Ͳhours.
City
Woods
0'250'500'1000'1500'