HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07B_SD-19-27_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow_plansSD‐19‐27
1505 Dorset Street
Dorset Meadows
Packet for 10/15/2019 Hearing
Table of Contents
Principal Application Documents
Civil Plans
Architectural Drawings
Applicant Cover Letters in Chronological Order
List of Requested Waivers
Design Narrative
Supporting Application Documents
Fire Truck Turning Movement Plan
Landscaping Budget
Street Tree Cost Estimate
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species Report
Green Mountain Power ability‐to‐serve letter
Vermont Gas ability‐to‐serve letter
Preliminary Wastewater allocation
TDR Option Agreements
Materials Supplied by Others
Public Comment Letters
1
Marla Keene
From:Bryan Currier <bcurrier@olearyburke.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:29 PM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:Peter K
Subject:RE: 1505 Dorset St final plat completeness
Attachments:Waiver List 8-9-19.pdf
Good Afternoon Marla
Please see attached and below in red for the additional information. If possible, we would like to be scheduled for the
September 17th hearing.
1. As discussed with Bryan, arch plans lack preparation/revision date. It would be helpful for everyone in the long
run if they also had a title block so the decision could reference the exact approved plan list.
Please download the submitted building elevations that now have a title block and date from the following dropbox
link. They also all have the revision date of 7‐17‐19, so you can refer to them as a single building elevation plan set. Do
you need hard copies of these? Or can we submit them as the “approved plan set” as a condition of approval?
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fuphq0kc3kwbom8/AADydxjXKtrhoMezZewPJcdEa?dl=0
2. Perhaps I missed this in the package? A list of requested waivers is required.
Please see attached for the waiver list associated with the project. At this time, the list of waivers is the same as the
ones approved under the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat.
3. It is to your benefit to request a phasing schedule for the zoning permit for each phase of roadways, otherwise
the Board will determine one for you.
The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance of all State and Local
approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase I roadway, a
zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase II roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for
the Phase II roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of
the warranty period for the Phase III roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase IV
roadway. A zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases of the project, due to the
lack of public infrastructure.
4. I need to look into whether we need monuments to have coordinates. Can you let me know if this is something
you already have?
We will submit a DXF of the existing and proposed project property lines as a condition of approval. The DXF will be on
State Plane and will contain the coordinates of all monumentation.
5. Dumpster screening description of type or, alternatively, a detail, is needed
Please refer to SH 205 – Landscape Details & Typical Lots for the dumpster screening detail.
2
6. Can you please describe the level of detail known about the shown utility cabinets? We’ve had some recent
trouble with utility cabinets not being adequately planned for in terms of setbacks, street trees, screening, and
need assurance that the required cabinets can be accommodated
Please refer to SH 205 – Landscape Details & Typical Lots for the utility cabinet screening details. Please refer to SH
L201, SH L202, SH 3, SH 4 and SH PL1. For this project GMP required a 10’ utility easement outside of the proposed
right‐of‐way for the main underground power line and primary utility cabinets. As the street trees are located within the
right‐or‐way the power layout should not conflict with the street tree placement.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Bryan Currier, PE
O'Leary‐Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive | Essex Jct., VT 05452
p: (802)878‐9990
bcurrier@olearyburke.com
From: Marla Keene [mailto:mkeene@sburl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Bryan Currier; Peter K
Subject: 1505 Dorset St final plat completeness
Peter, Bryan,
I’ve reviewed the Dorset Meadows application for completeness and note the following items are required in order to
be eligible for scheduling. All told, the application is pretty close to complete. At this time I can still put it on the
schedule for September 17 if you can get me the required materials by Friday. The Board would be down to a bare
quorum if it goes to Oct 1.
Application Requirement Project‐specific notes
Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and
graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more
than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not
more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots
have less than one hundred (100) feet of
frontage.
As discussed with Bryan, arch plans lack
preparation/revision date. It would be helpful for
everyone in the long run if they also had a title
block so the decision could reference the exact
approved plan list.
List of waivers the applicant desires from the
requirements of these regulations and
accompanying narrative describing the
request(s), detailing the City's authority to grant
the request(s) and describing why the waiver(s)
should be granted
Perhaps I missed this in the package? A list of
requested waivers is required.
Estimated project construction schedule, phasing,
and date of completion, and estimated cost of all
site improvements. (note: for FBC subdivisions,
only public infrastructure information required)
It is to your benefit to request a phasing schedule
for the zoning permit for each phase of
roadways, otherwise the Board will determine
one for you.
3
Permanent reference monuments I need to look into whether we need monuments
to have coordinates. Can you let me know if this
is something you already have?
The location of any outdoor storage for
equipment and materials if any, and the location,
type and design of all solid waste‐related
facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins.
Dumpster screening description of type or,
alternatively, a detail, is needed
The location and details of all the improvements
and utilities, including the location of all utility
poles, utility cabinets, sewage disposal systems,
water supply systems, and all details and
locations of the stormwater management
system.
Can you please describe the level of detail known
about the shown utility cabinets? We’ve had
some recent trouble with utility cabinets not
being adequately planned for in terms of
setbacks, street trees, screening, and need
assurance that the required cabinets can be
accommodated
Sincerely,
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4106
www.southburlingtonvt.gov
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters
concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which
may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by
return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Waiver List – Dorset Meadows Final Plat 8-9-19
- DIMENSION AND COVERAGE: See table below.
SEQ-NR Required SEQ-VR Required Waiver Request
Min Lot Size Single
Family 12,000 SF 12,000 SF 4,600 SF
Min Lot Size Two
Family 24,000 SF 24,000 SF N/A
Min Lot Size Multi
Family 40,000 SF 40,000 SF N/A
Max Building Coverage 15% 15% 30%
Max Overall Coverage 30% 30% 45%
Min Front Setback 20’ 20’ 15’
Min Side Setback,
Single and Two-family 10’ 10’ 5’
Min Side Setback
Multi-family 20’ 20’ N/A
Min Rear Setback 30’ 30’ N/A
Max Building Height
Single or Two-Family 28’ 28’ N/A
Max Building Height
Multiple Family 28’ 35’ N/A
Stories facing Street,
Single and Tow-Family 2 2 N/A
Stories below roofline,
Single and Two-Family 2 3 N/A
- ADJUSTMENT OF PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE: Please refer to SH 5 – SH 8 of
the plan set for the designated preconstruction grade requested for each of
the 154 units throughout the development. The preconstruction grade was
determined to be approximately 2-4 feet above the proposed roadway.
- LOT RATIOS: The lot width to depth ratio of 1:2 shall be met on an average
basis.
- ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: Shifting NRP/NR zoning boundary 50’ in
accordance with Section 15.03(C), as shown on SH EX2.
- PHASING: The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within
1-year, following the issuance of all State and Local approvals, and all appeals
have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty period for the
Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the
Phase II roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II
roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the Phase III
roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase III
roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5-years for the Phase IV
roadway. A zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during
the 4 phases of the project, due to the lack of public infrastructure.
T.J. Boyle Associates | 301 College Street • Burlington VT 05401 | www.tjboyle.com
DORSET MEADOWS ‐ LANDSCAPE BUDGET
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Costs
Landscape Percent of Total
Construction / Improvement Cost
Cost of Proposed Project
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $138,387
Total Minimum Landscaping* $150,887
*Project cost used to calculate the landscape budget is $14,058,750, which includes construction of 24 duplexes ($220,00
per unit), 35 townhomes ($150,000 per unit), and 6,925 L.F. of roadway ($550/L.F).
OPINION OF POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COST
Total Buildings Cost per Building Total Potential Cost
Typical Duplex Foundation
Planting
12
$1,500 $18,000
Typical 5 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
4
$2,500 $10,000
Typical 4 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
3 $2,100 $6,300
Typical 3 Unit Townhouse
Foundation Planting
1 $1,600 $1,600
Townhome Surrounding
Area Plantings
- - $82,000
Duplex Surrounding Area
Plantings
$33,500
Total: $151,400
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING COSTS
Street Trees (Total Site) $233,500
Other Greenspace Areas and
Stormwater Pond Buffer Areas
$103,000
Wetland Buffer Planting Areas (Total
Site)
$37,200
Small Typical Single Family Lot (per
unit)
$2,100
Large Typical Single Family Lot (per
unit)
$2,700
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
9 AxFC ACER x freemanii 'Celebration' Celebration Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
9 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
2 AxGR AMELANCHIER x grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B single stem 290.00$ 1,450.00$
7 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 4,165.00$
3 CCG CRATAEGUS crus-galli var. inermis 'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 300.00$ 2,250.00$
14 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 7,700.00$
6 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 4,425.00$
21 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 12,495.00$
8 MAS MAACKIA amurensis 'Summertime' Summertime Amur Maacki 2-1/2" cal. B&B 315.00$ 6,300.00$
6 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 3,330.00$
3 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,882.50$
7 SRI SYRINGA reticulata 'Ivory Silk' Ivory Silk Tree Lilac 2-1/2" cal. B&B 250.00$ 4,375.00$
6 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 3,450.00$
11 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 6,325.00$
10 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 5,750.00$
122 Total: 75,192.50$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
5 AxGR AMELANCHIER x grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Robin Hill Serviceberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B single stem 290.00$ 3,625.00$
5 CCG CRATAEGUS crus-galli var. inermis 'Crusader' Crusader Hawthorn 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 300.00$ 3,750.00$
3 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 1,650.00$
10 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 7,375.00$
3 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 1,785.00$
8 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 4,440.00$
11 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 6,902.50$
6 SRI SYRINGA reticulata 'Ivory Silk' Ivory Silk Tree Lilac 2-1/2" cal. B&B 250.00$ 3,750.00$
14 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 8,785.00$
7 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 4,025.00$
13 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 7,475.00$
9 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 5,175.00$
94 Total: 58,737.50$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
4 AxFC ACER x freemanii 'Celebration' Celebration Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 2,510.00$
5 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 3,137.50$
15 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 8,925.00$
8 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 4,400.00$
4 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 2,950.00$
16 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 9,520.00$
5 NS NYSSA sylvatica Black Tupelo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 275.00$ 3,437.50$
5 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 2,775.00$
6 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 3,765.00$
2 QM QUERCUS macrocarpa Bur Oak 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,255.00$
7 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 4,025.00$
4 UT ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Triumph' Triumph Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,300.00$
5 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,875.00$
86 Total: 51,875.00$
Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
2 AxFS ACER x freemanii 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Maple 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,255.00$
6 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 2-1/2" cal. B&B tree form 238.00$ 3,570.00$
6 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 220.00$ 3,300.00$
3 GBAG GINKGO biloba 'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 295.00$ 2,212.50$
3 GTH GLEDITSIA tricanthos 'Halka' Halka Honeylocust 2-1/2" cal. B&B 238.00$ 1,785.00$
4 NS NYSSA sylvatica Black Tupelo 2-1/2" cal. B&B 275.00$ 2,750.00$
7 PCCS PYRUS calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Pear 2-1/2" cal. B&B 222.00$ 3,885.00$
3 PO PLATANUS occidentalis American Sycamore 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 1,882.50$
9 PSG PRUNUS sargentii Sargent Cherry 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 5,647.50$
4 QM QUERCUS macrocarpa Bur Oak 2-1/2" cal. B&B 251.00$ 2,510.00$
12 UA ULMUS japonica x wilsoniana 'Accolade' Accolade Elm 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 6,900.00$
4 ZS ZELKOVA serrata 'Green Vase' Green Vase Zelkova 2-1/2" cal. B&B 230.00$ 2,300.00$
63 Total: 37,997.50$
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 3
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 4
Street Trees
Dorset Meadows Planting Plan
Prepared by T. J. Boyle Associates
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 1
Street Trees
Planting Schedule - Street Trees Phase 2
Gilman & Briggs Environmental, Inc.
1 Conti Circle, Suite 5
Barre, Vermont 05641
Tel: (802) 479-7480; FAX: (802) 476-7018
team@gbevt.com
DORSET MEADOWS RARE, THREATENED & ENDANGERED
SPECIES INVESTIGATION
A search for rare, threatened or endangered species was conducted at the Dorset Meadows project area
on 15 July 2019 by Arthur Gilman and Errol Briggs of Gilman & Briggs Environmental. Detailed
observations were made in the several vegetation communities, and a comprehensive list of all
observed vascular plants was made (See Table 1). In all, 148 plant species were noted. In addition, notes
were taken on wildlife species observed or heard.
VASCULAR PLANTS
Plant communities at the site consist of about 75% open land (hayfields and shallow marsh) and 20%
wooded. The marsh lies along a stream extending from Nowland Farm Road across the property, with
tributary swales draining from the east, to a small pond in the southeast corner. This wetland, covering
about 2.5 acres, is mostly shallow marsh.
The wooded areas include a fringe of trees along Dorset Street, a dense shrub thicket on the east side of
the small pond, and a forested area on high ground in the southwest part of the project site. This last
area includes a patch of dense woods north of the driveway and a park‐like stand of pines to the south.
No rare or uncommon species were noted, and therefore no species on the Vermont Threatened or
Endangered Species lists were found at the Dorset Meadows site.
Among the species of plants observed, there were seven that are considered invasive Class B Noxious
weeds on the Vermont Quarantine list:
Acer ginnala (Amur maple)
Celastrus orbiculatus (Oriental bittersweet)
Frangula alnus (Glossy buckthorn)
Lonicera morrowii (Morrow’s honeysuckle)
Lonicera tatarica (Tartarian honeysuckle)
Rhamnus cathartica (Common buckthorn)
Lythrum salicaria (Purple loosestrife)
TABLE 1. Vascular plant species at Dorset Meadows site, South Burlington
TREES, SHRUBS & VINES
Acer ginnala Amur maple INVASIVE Margin of western woodlot
Acer negundo Box‐elder Occasional in woodlines
Acer rubrum Red maple Occasional
Amelanchier sp. Shadbush Uncommon in western woodlot
Betula papyrifera Paper birch Uncommon in western woodlot
Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory Occasional in western woodlot
Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Occasional in western woodlot
Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet INVASIVE Common in western woodlot
Crataegus cf. pringlei Pringle’s hawthorn Occasional in thickets/hedgerow
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Occasional in thickets
Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Common
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut Uncommon
Frangula alnus Glossy buckthorn INVASIVE Common in western woodlot
Fraxinus americana White ash Occasional
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Common in western woodlot
Juglans nigra Black walnut Locally common & spreading
Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Uncommon (beside pond)
Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle INVASIVE In western woodlot
Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle INVASIVE Common in thickets
Malus pumila Apple Uncommon
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Occasional
Pinus strobus White pine Common in western woodlot
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Along Dorset Street
Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Occasional
Prunus serotina Black cherry Occasional
Prunus virginiana Choke cherry Uncommon in western woodlot
Pyrus communis Pear Common in western woodlot
Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Uncommon in western woodlot
Quercus rubra Red oak Occasional in western woodlot
Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn INVASIVE Abundant in thickets
Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac Uncommon (one occurrence noted)
Rubus alleghaniensis Blackberry Occasional
Rubus idaeus Red raspberry Occasional
Rubus occidentalis Back raspberry Occasional
Salix alba White willow Occasional
Salix bebbiana Bebb’s willow Occasional
Salix discolor Pussy willow Occasional
Salix eriocephala Wand willow Occasional
Salix fragilis Crack willow Occasional
Ulmus americana American elm Uncommon
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Uncommon in western woodlot
Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Common at edge of western woodlot
Viburnum trilobum Highbush‐cranberry Uncommon in western woodlot
Vitis riparia Riverbank grape Common
FERNS & FERN ALLIES
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Abundant along stream
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Locally common in western woodlot
HERBS
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Occasional
Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent grass Common
Agrostis gigantea Red‐top Common
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent grass Common
Alisma gramineum Grass‐leaved water‐plantain Occasional
Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed Occasional along roadsides
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass Common
Artemisia vulgaris Common mugwort Occasional along roadsides
Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Occasional
Boehmeria cylindrica False nettle Occasional
Bromus inermis Hungarian brome Abundant
Calamagrostis canadensis Canada bluejoint Abundant
Carex communis Common sedge Occasional
Carex cristatella Crested sedge Common in wetland
Carex gracillima Slender sedge Few, forest
Carex granularis Meadow sedge Occasional
Carex lacustris Lake sedge Locally abundant
Carex normalis Tall straw sedge Few
Carex pallescens Pale sedge Few
Carex scoparia Broom sedge Few
Carex stipata Soft‐stemmed sedge Common
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge Occasional
Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Abundant
Cerastium fontanum Mouse‐ear chickweed Few, near driveway
Cichorium intybus Chicory Occasional
Cicuta maculata Spotted water‐hemlock Locally common
Circaea canadensis Enchanter’s‐nightshade Occasional in western woodlot
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Common
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Uncommon
Clematis virginiana Virgin’s bower Uncommon
Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Abundant
Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace Common
Eleocharis sp. Spike‐rush Locally common, meadow
Eleocharis palustris Marsh spike‐rush Locally common, pond
Elymus repens Witch grass Common
Epilobium hirsutum Hairy willow‐herb Occasional in wetland
Erigeron strigosus Daisy fleabane Common
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset Occasional
Eutrochium maculatum Joe‐Pye‐weed Occasional in wetland
Fragaria virginiana Strawberry Common
Galium mollugo Field bedstraw Abundant
Galium palustre Marsh bedstraw Common in marsh wetland
Galium triflorum Sweet‐scented bedstraw Occasional in wetlands
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert Occasional in western woodlot
Geum aleppicum Yellow avens Uncommon
Geum canadense White avens Common in forest
Glechoma hederacea Gill‐over‐the‐ground Locally common
Glyceria grandis Tall manna grass Common in wetland
Hypericum perforatum Common St. John’s‐wort Occasional
Juncus tenuis Path rush Common
Leersia oryzoides Rice cut‐grass Locally common in wetland
Lemna minor Duckweed Common in pools & pond
Lemna trisulca Star duckweed Abundant in pond
Leucanthemum vulgare Ox‐eye daisy Locally common
Lobelia inflata Indian tobacco Few, woods margin
Ludwigia palustris Common water‐purslane Locally common in wetland
Lycopus americanus American water‐horehound Occasional in wetland
Lysimachia terrestris Bog‐candles Common in wet meadows
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife INVASIVE Few, in wetland
Medicago sativa Alfalfa Occasional
Mentha canadensis American wild mint Occasional in wetland
Mimulus ringens Monkey‐flower Uncommon in wetland
Lotus corniculatus Bird’s‐foot trefoil Occasional
Oxalis stricta Yellow wood‐sorrel Occasional
Persicaria hydropiper Water‐pepper One occurrence noted in marsh
Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Common
Poa palustris Fowl meadow grass Common
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary‐grass Abundant
Phleum pratense Timothy Abundant
Pilosella caespitosa Yellow king‐devil Locally common
Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil Occasional
Potentilla simplex Old‐field cinquefoil Common
Rubus triflorus Creeping raspberry Common in western woodlot
Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup Common
Rudbeckia hirta var. pulcherrima Black‐eyed Susan Occasional
Rumex crispus Curly dock Occasional
Rumex pseudonatronatus Finnish dock One occurrence, field near driveway
Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead Common in pond
Schedonorus pratensis Meadow‐fescue Local
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft stem bulrush Occasional in wetland
Scirpus atrovirens Black bulrush Common
Scirpus cyperinus Wool‐grass Occasional
Scirpus hattorianus Hattori bulrush Common
Scirpus pendulus Pendulous bulrush Uncommon
Scorzoneroides autumnalis Fall dandelion Occasional
Solidago altissima Tall goldenrod Common
Solidago gigantea Large goldenrod Occasional
Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Locally abundant
Solidago juncea Early goldenrod Occasional
Solidago rugosa Rough goldenrod Occasional near western woodlot
Sparganium americanum Common bur‐reed Occasional in pond
Stellaria graminea Common stichwort Common
Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Lance‐leaved aster Occasional
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico aster Few, forest margin
Symphyotrichum novae‐angliae New England aster Occasional
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Common
Trifolium aureum Hop clover Uncommon
Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover Local
Trifolium pratense Red clover Occasional
Typha angustifolia Narrow‐leaved cat‐tail Common in wetland near Dorset Street
Typha x glauca Hybrid cat‐tail Common in pond
Verbena hastata Purple vervain Occasional
Vicia cracca Cow vetch Abundant
WILDLIFE
The following rare wildlife species have been recorded in this area of South Burlington:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS REMARKS
Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis S2B
Endangered
North of Nowland Farm Rd., 2011
Upland sandpiper Bartramia brevicauda S2B
Endangered
On lands to the southwest, 1989
Blue‐winged warbler Vermivora cyanoptera S3B SC In woods on northern part of
South Village site, 2013
Northern harrier Circus hudsonius S3B SC North of Nowland Farm Rd.
(2011); South Village marshes
(2019)
Meadow lark Sternella magna S4B SC Dorset Farms, 2009; Cider Mill,
2015; Dorset Meadows, 2019
Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus S2S3B SC Dorset Farms, 2010
Jefferson’s salamander Ambystoma
jeffersonianum
S3 In old farm pond at South Village
site to the southwest; 2018
Blue‐spotted
salamander
Ambystoma laterale S3 In old farm pond at South Village
site to the southwest; 2018
S2 = Rare; S3 = Uncommon; B = Status refers to breeding populations; SC = Species of special concern
Of the species listed above, only one (eastern meadowlark) was observed at the site; a single individual
was flushed from the hayfield near the upper end of the pond. Given that suitable habitat is found at
the site, the other listed bird species might occur there, but none have been seen during fieldwork on
this and adjacent parcels in 2017, 2018 or 2019. The pond might provide habitat for the two amphibian
species, but there is no suitable upland habitat (deciduous forest) nearby.
W. Steven Litkovitz Direct Dial Number:
Electrical Engineer (802) 655-8796
steve.litkovitz@greenmountainpower.com
Green Mountain Power 163 Acorn Lane Colchester Vermont 05446-6611 www.greenmountainpower.com
February 27, 2019
Mr. Bryan Currier, PE
O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Dear Mr. Currier:
Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP) has reviewed your request of February 26, 2019 for GMP to
serve a proposed electric load to a new housing subdivision to be located at 1505 Dorset Street in South
Burlington, Vermont (the Project). This location is near Pole 82, taglet 54555, which is currently served
by GMP’s 78G2 circuit. This circuit, in turn, is supplied by the GMP Dorset Street substation. Further field
and record investigation is required by our distribution designer to determine the location of the most
appropriate GMP delivery point(s) for these residences. Based on the information that you have
provided, GMP approves an ability to serve 750 kVA at the above referenced location.
As you know, our comments are required for the Project so that a meaningful assessment can be made
under 10 VSA Section 6086 (a)(9)(J).
You have informed us that the Project will consist of 95 single family homes, 35 multi-family units, and
24 duplex units. Based on this and other information provided to us, GMP estimates that your proposed
Project could result in an estimated additional peak demand on the GMP system of 750 kVA. If this
estimate is not consistent with your load projections, GMP must be made aware of the situation for
planning purposes.
GMP’s review of this Project assumes that there would be no single-phase motors larger than 5 H.P.
planned for these units. If this is not correct, GMP must be informed so that it can calculate applicable
motor start and flicker limitations.
A new ability to serve request must be placed with GMP if construction of the Project has not begun
within two (2) years of the date of this letter. Any new line extension construction necessary to provide
service will be administered under GMP’s line extension tariff. This tariff provides that line extensions
will be installed in a right-of-way granted by the customer in the form of a legally binding easement in a
form satisfactory to GMP. GMP requires that these rights-of-way be unencumbered, and meet the
following criteria:
(i) for overhead facilities, a minimum of 25' in width;
(ii) for underground facilities a minimum of 20’ in width.
Mr. Bryan Currier, PE
February 27, 2019
Page 2 of 2
As stated in GMP specifications, the easement strip may be shared by telecommunication facilities with
the appropriate spacing and subject to GMP’s superior easement interest. However, all other utilities,
including but not limited to, water, gas, sewer and drainage must maintain a minimum separation
distance of 10’ from our electric facilities. This separation requirement includes utilities that may be
located in a public right-of-way adjacent to our easement. GMP expects to be able to maintain this
separation distance with the minimum easement widths noted above. If however the minimum
easement widths and/or 10’ spacing cannot be met for underground facilities due to road right of way
requirements, then GMP may, upon request and in its sole discretion, allow minimum spacing of 5’
subject to the condition that the electric facilities be encased in a 4” envelop of concrete at customer
cost. Any relocation of existing GMP facilities in public or private right of way that is required in
conjunction with this Project, or in conjunction with any highway improvements related to this Project,
will be administered under GMP’s relocation policy. This policy requires that the facilities be relocated
within private right of way where possible, and that all costs be recovered from the Project.
Details concerning service size, scheduling, costs, etc., should be discussed with Joe Bobee, GMP’s
distribution designer for this area. Joe can be reached at 802-655-8568.
In addition to demonstrating that GMP has the capacity and the ability to provide service to your
Project, you may be required to demonstrate, under 10 VSA Section 6086 (a)(9)(F), that your Project is
designed to utilize energy in an efficient manner. The Vermont Public Service Board has appointed
Efficiency Vermont as the energy efficiency utility for this area. Efficiency Vermont is available to work
with Act 250 permit applicants to help understand the requirements of the above referenced statute
and to assist you or your client to design and construct an efficient building. A copy of this letter is being
sent to Efficiency Vermont which can be reached toll-free at 1-888-921-5990.
Respectfully,
Steve Litkovitz
cc: Engineering Files
Joe Bobee
Efficiency Vermont
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
August 30, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Matt Cota, Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: mcota@sburl.com
Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27
Dear Chairperson Cota:
I serve as counsel for Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew
Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road;
William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia
J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn
Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons
interested in the above-referenced Final Plat Application (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South
Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”).
I learned late yesterday afternoon that a public notice of a September 17, 2019 DRB
hearing concerning the above-referenced Final Plat Application was published in the August 29,
2019 edition of the Other Paper. It also came to my attention late yesterday afternoon that at
least one abutter to the proposed Dorset Meadows project had received a mailing concerning the
scheduled September 17th Final Plat hearing.1
As you and your fellow DRB members may be aware, the proposed Dorset Meadows
project is the subject of a pending appeal in the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior
Court that I filed on behalf of the above-listed SOS South Burlington members. This E-Court
appeal, styled, In re Dorset Meadows, LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 90-7-19 Vtec (the “E-Court Appeal”),
raises various issues concerning the proposed Dorset Meadows project, including whether the
DRB has jurisdiction to consider it at this time and/or in the project’s current proposed form.
See Appellants’ Statement of Questions, In re Dorset Meadows, LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 90-7-19
Vtec (Aug. 19, 2019), a copy of which is attached hereto as an Exhibit.
1 Late this afternoon, I received an e-mail message for Development Review Planner Marla
Keene informing me that the September 17th hearing had been adjourned to October 15th due to a
“quorum issue.”
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
August 30, 2019
Page 2 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
In light of the pending E-Court Appeal, SOS South Burlington maintains that the DRB is
divested of jurisdiction to act on the Final Plat Application, and that therefore the warning of the
September 17th Final Plat hearing and any mailings to abutters concerning the September 17th
hearing are legal nullities. As E-Court Judge Thomas G. Walsh held in his March 19, 2019
decision in a prior appeal concerning the Dorset Meadows project, the DRB is powerless to act
during the pendency of a court appeal concerning “those aspects of the application involved in
the appeal”:
While we ultimately conclude that this Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction, our conclusions do not in any way affect the
rules surrounding divestiture of jurisdiction. See In re Freimour &
Menard Conditional Use Permit, No. 59-4-11 Vtec, slip op. at 6-7
(Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. June 6, 2012) (Durkin, J.) (citations
omitted) (discussing how an appeal to this Court divests the
municipal panel below of its authority to decide on those aspects of
the application involved in the appeal). Dorset argues that, despite
the present appeal, the DRB retained its ability to decide on the
Applications in the next phase of review. The DRB, however, did
not have control over the reviewability of the [Dorset Meadows
Preliminary Plat and Master Plan] Applications while this
appeal was pending. The question of whether the DRB could
properly proceed to the next stage of review was the basis of
Neighbors[’] appeal and constituted the matter before this
Court. The DRB could not decide this question for themselves.
Any steps taken by the DRB related to the [Dorset Meadows
Preliminary Plat and Master Plan] Applications during the
pendency of this appeal were carried out without the power to
do so. See, e.g., Kotz v. Kotz, 134 Vt. 36 (1975) (vacating a trial
court order that issued while the matter was on appeal to the
Supreme Court).
Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2-1-19 Vtec, 2019 WL 1423064, at *3, slip op. at 3
(Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 19, 2019) (Walsh, J.) (footnote omitted) (bold emphasis added),
aff’d, No. 2019-130 (Vt. June 4, 2019) (unpub. Entry Order).
In the pending E-Court Appeal, Appellants challenge the DRB’s jurisdiction to proceed
to the next stage of review, as well as the DRB’s jurisdiction to consider a project that is
dependent on transferable development rights. Appellants’ TDR-based challenge to the DRB’s
jurisdiction is based on the fact that, on February 28, 2019, in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final
Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec, 2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019)
(Durkin, J.), appeal docketed, No. 2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019), the E-Court invalidated the
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
August 30, 2019
Page 3 of 3
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
City’s Transferable Development Rights Bylaw for failure to comply with the State enabling
statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
The pending E-Court Appeal also challenges the DRB’s jurisdiction to approve construction in
Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas depicted on Maps 7 and 8 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
In light of the above, I request that the DRB cancel the September 17th/October 15th
hearing[s] on the Final Plat Application and refrain from noticing or scheduling further hearings
on the Application until the E-Court Appeal is resolved.2
Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail)
Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail)
Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail)
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail)
Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail)
Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail)
2 On August 26, 2019, unaware that the Final Plat Application had been filed, I sent an e-mail
message to the attorneys for the Dorset Meadows developer and the City offering on behalf of SOS South
Burlington to stipulate to a joint stay of the E-Court Appeal until after any future DRB final plat
proceedings were concluded. On August 28, 2019, the developer’s counsel called to inform me that such
a stay was not acceptable because of his concern that a court might ultimately rule that the DRB was
divested of jurisdiction to act on the Final Plat Application during the pendency of a court-ordered stay.
(Counsel did not advise me that a Final Plat Application had been filed. It is possible he assumed
incorrectly that I knew about the filing.) There remains a possibility that counsel for the developer, the
City and I might agree on a proposed mechanism of putting the pending E-Court Appeal in abeyance until
after the DRB issues a decision on the Final Plat Application. E-Court approval of such a mechanism
would be a necessary condition for SOS South Burlington to agree to postpone litigating the issues raised
in the attached Statement of Questions. In the meantime, the E-Court Appeal remains pending and, as
such, the law concerning divestiture of municipal panel jurisdiction applies. See the E-Court’s March 19,
2019 Dorset Meadows Associates decision, which is quoted and discussed on page two, above.
EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 6
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
Docket No. 90-7-19 Vtec In re: Dorset Meadows LLC, PUD
APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS
NOW COME Appellants Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive;
Andrew Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four
Sisters Road; William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset
Street; Claudia J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive;
and Darrilyn Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents
(collectively, “Appellants”), by and through their counsel, MSK Attorneys, and hereby
respectfully submit, pursuant to Rule 5(f) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court
Proceedings, this Statement of Questions:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Questions #s 1 through 6, below, are substantively identical to Questions #s 1 through 6
of the January 25, 2019 Statement of Questions that Appellants filed in the since-dismissed case
of In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, Dkt. No. 2-1-19 Vtec (the “Sketch Plan
Appeal”).1 This Court dismissed Appellants’ Sketch Plan Appeal on March 19, 2019 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, hence there has yet to be a merits ruling on Questions #s 1 through 6.
1 The only difference between the two sets of Questions #s 1 through 6 is the inclusion of the letter “A” in the referenced Application numbers, e.g., “Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No. SD-18-29” has been changed to “Application for Subdivision Plat Review
(Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A,” and “Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01” has been changed to “Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A.” All references herein to Application Nos. SD-18-29A are intended to include Application No. SD-18-29, and all references hereto Application
No. MP-18-01A are intended to include Application No. MP-18-01.
Page 2 of 6
See In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2-1-19 Vtec, 2019 WL 1423064 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Mar. 19, 2019) (Walsh, J.).
Appellants appealed this Court’s March 19, 2019 Sketch Plan Appeal dismissal ruling to
the Vermont Supreme Court. In an unpublished one-paragraph Entry Order, the Supreme Court
granted Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s motion to dismiss Appellants’ appeal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, stating in relevant part:
The Environmental Division ruled on an interlocutory issue in the
underlying PUD application process; there has not yet been a final resolution of Dorset Meadows’ application. We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory ruling and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
In re Dorset Meadows Associates LLC PUD, No. 2019-130 (Vt. June 4, 2019) (unpub. Entry
Order).
Appellants continue to maintain respectfully that the City of South Burlington
Development Review Board was required to vote on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s Sketch
Plan Application No. SD-18-23, and that the DRB’s failure to vote renders Dorset Meadows
Associates LLC’s subsequent Applications for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No. SD-
18-29A, and Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void,
and of no force or effect. Appellants submit respectfully that Questions #s 1 through 6, below,
are ripe for review as part of the instant appeal regardless of whether the Supreme Court would
have immediate subject matter jurisdiction of over any appeals resulting from this Court’s
eventual merits ruling on Questions #s 1 through 6.
QUESTIONS THAT THE APPELLANTS DESIRE TO HAVE DETERMINED
1. Was a final decision of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board
(“DRB”) on Dorset Meadows Associates LLC’s (“Applicant”) Sketch Plan Application No. SD-
18-23 (“Sketch Plan Application”) required by, inter alia, 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), the City of South
Page 3 of 6
Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”), including § 15.05(C)(3), and/or In re
Saxon Partners LLC BJ’s Warehouse Sketch Plan, No. 5-1-16 Vtec, 2016 WL 4211462 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Chitt. Cty. Mar. 25, 2016) (Walsh, J.) (“Saxon Partners”)?
1.1. Is the DRB’s sketch meeting (“Sketch Meeting”) concerning the Sketch Plan
Application still open due to the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the
Sketch Plan Application?
1.2. Does the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the Sketch Plan Application
render the Applicant’s subsequent Application for Subdivision Plat Review
(Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of
no force or effect?
1.3. Does the DRB’s failure to make a final decision on the Sketch Plan Application
render the Applicant’s subsequent Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-
18-01A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
2. Was the DRB required by, inter alia, 24 V.S.A. § 4461(a), the SBLDR, including
§ 15.05(C)(3), and/or Saxon Partners to vote on the Sketch Plan Application?
2.1. Is the Sketch Meeting still open due to the DRB’s failure to vote on the Sketch
Plan Application?
2.2. Does the DRB’s failure to vote on the Sketch Plan Application render the
Applicant’s subsequent Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary),
No. SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or
effect?
Page 4 of 6
2.3. Does the DRB’s failure to vote to on the Sketch Plan Application render the
Applicant’s subsequent Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A,
premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
3. Did the DRB commit reversible error in declining to grant the relief requested in
the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal to the DRB dated October 11, 2018 and October 26, 2018,
including, inter alia, the Appellants’ requests that the DRB determine that the Applicant’s
Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No. SD-18-29A, is premature, unripe,
invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
4. Is the Applicant’s Application for Subdivision Plat Review (Preliminary), No.
SD-18-29A, premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
5. Did the DRB commit reversible error in declining to grant the relief requested in
the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal to the DRB dated October 11, 2018 and October 26, 2018,
including, inter alia, the Appellants’ requests that the DRB determine that the Applicant’s
Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A, is premature, unripe, invalid, null and
void, and of no force or effect?
6. Is the Applicant’s Application for Master Plan Review, No. MP-18-01A,
premature, unripe, invalid, null and void, and of no force or effect?
7. Is the proposed Dorset Meadows project (the “Project”), which is dependent on
the use of 68 so-called transferable development rights (“TDRs”) to reach its proposed density of
154 dwelling units, limited to a maximum density of no more than 86 dwelling units due to the
fact that, on February 28, 2019, in In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17
Vtec, 2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), appeal docketed,
No. 2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019) (“Snyder Group”), this Court invalidated the City’s
Page 5 of 6
Transferable Development Rights Bylaw (“TDR Bylaw” or “Bylaw”) for failure to comply with
the State enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw was unconstitutionally
void for vagueness?
8. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving the use of
TDRs after this Court invalidated the TDR Bylaw in Snyder Group?
9. Should the Project be remanded to the DRB with instructions to limit any future
proposals to a maximum of 86 dwelling units?
10. Is the Applicant prohibited by, inter alia, the SBLDR, including without limitation
Sections 9.06(B)(3), 12.01(C)(4) and 15.18(A)(10) thereof, from constructing the Project in the
Primary Conservation Areas depicted on Map 7 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including
without limitation the Riparian Connectivity area?
11. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving Project
construction in one or more Primary Conservation Areas?
12. Should this Court remand the Project to the DRB with instructions to limit any
future proposals to construction outside of Primary Conservation Areas as depicted on Map 7 of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
13. Is the Applicant prohibited by, inter alia, the SBLDR, including without limitation
Sections 9.06(B)(3), 12.01(C)(4) and 15.18(A)(10) thereof, from constructing the Project in the
Secondary Conservation Areas depicted on Map 8 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
14. Did the DRB act improperly and/or exceed its jurisdiction by approving Project
construction in one or more Secondary Conservation Areas?
Page 6 of 6
15. Should this Court remand the Project to the DRB with instructions to limit any
future proposals to construction outside of Secondary Conservation Areas as depicted on Map 8
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
16. Is the project designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning
districts in which the project is located?
DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 19th day of August, 2019.
Respectfully submitted, MSK ATTORNEYS By: /s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff, Esq. (ERN 1514) 275 College Street, P.O. Box 4485 Burlington, VT 05406-4485
Phone: 802-861-7000
Fax: 802-861-7007 Email: dseff@mskvt.com Attorneys for Appellants
275 COLLEGE STREET, PO BOX 4485 | BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4485 | PHONE 802 861-7000 | FAX 861-7007 | MSKVT.COM
October 10, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Matt Cota, Chair
South Burlington Development Review Board
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Email: mcota@sburl.com
Re: 1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27
Dear Chairperson Cota and members of the South Burlington DRB:
I serve as counsel for Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond, 15 Shea Drive; Andrew
Chalnick, 670 Nowland Farm Road; Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, 63 Four Sisters Road;
William and Kathy Hays, 51 Old Schoolhouse Road; Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street; Claudia
J. Miller, 48 Old Schoolhouse Road; Steven and Dunia Partilo, 64 Shea Drive; and Darrilyn
Peters, 37 Old Schoolhouse Road, all of whom are South Burlington residents as well as persons
interested in the above-referenced Final Plat Application (collectively, “Save Open Spaces South
Burlington” or “SOS South Burlington”). This letter and Attachments A to E hereto concern
1505 Dorset Street, Final Plat Application No. SD-19-27.
As explained below in Section I, the Final Plat Application is moot and should be
dismissed because it is dependent on 68 transferable development rights (“TDRs”) under the
City’s former 2006 TDR Bylaw (“2006 TDR Bylaw”) to reach its proposed density of 154
dwelling units. The E-Court invalidated the 2006 TDR Bylaw in the February 28, 2019 Snyder
Group decision, which remains the controlling law while Snyder Group is on appeal to the
Vermont Supreme Court.
Moreover, as explained below in Section II, the developer and the DRB cannot apply the
City’s new 2019 TDR Bylaw (which the City Council approved on September 16, 2019) to the
Final Plat Application. Vermont law is clear that a municipality may not apply to a submitted
permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the filing of the application. Rather, the
zoning regulations in effect when an application was filed govern the application, not
subsequently enacted amendments.
Finally, as explained below in Section III, even if the 2006 TDR Bylaw still existed
(which it does not), or even if the 2019 TDR Bylaw applied to the Final Plat Application (which
it does not), the Final Plat Application is fatally flawed and must be rejected because the
developer proposes to build in a Primary Conservation Area that is off-limits to development and
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 2 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
which the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”) mandate “shall be
protected through the development plan.” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3).
I. The Final Plat Application is Moot and Should Be Dismissed Because it is
Dependent on 68 TDRs Under the City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw and that Bylaw
was Invalidated on February 28, 2019 in the E-Court’s Controlling Snyder
Group Decision.
On February 28, 2019, the Vermont Superior Court’s Environmental Division handed
down a controlling decision invalidating the City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw for failure to comply with
the State enabling statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4423(a), and because the Bylaw is unconstitutionally void
for vagueness on its face. See In re Snyder Group Inc. PUD Final Plat, Dkt. No. 114-8-17 Vtec,
2019 WL 1428677 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 28, 2019) (Durkin, J.), appeal docketed, No.
2019-122 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019) (hereafter cited as “Snyder Group”).
On April 5, 2019, the Snyder Group, Inc. appealed Snyder Group to the Vermont
Supreme Court (the City did not appeal or cross-appeal). On September 17, 2019, the Vermont
Supreme Court held oral argument in Snyder Group. The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision
could come down at any time. In the meantime, the E-Court’s Snyder Group February 28, 2019
decision remains the controlling law.
As such, the 2006 TDR Bylaw remains invalid, and neither the developer nor the DRB
can rely on the former Bylaw to increase the base density of the proposed Dorset Meadows PUD.
See generally In re Ashline, 2003 VT 30, ¶ 9, 175 Vt. 203, 824 A.2d 579 (“In Vermont, a
judgment of an adjudicative body remains valid until reversed or annulled”) (emphasis
added), citing Davidson v. Davidson, 111 Vt. 24, 29, 9 A.2d 114, 116 (1939). In Davidson, the
Court explained that “the judgment of a trial court in an action at law is not vacated by the
allowance and filing of a bill of exceptions, but it still remains valid until reversed or annulled.”
Id. at 29, 9 A.2d at 116. See also In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec &
259-12-05 Vtec, 2008 WL 7242611, slip op. at 11 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 21, 2008) (Durkin, J.)
(holding that “Vermont [trial court] judgments are final unless appellate review of that judgment
involves a trial de novo” and noting that “[t]his approach is in accord with the federal approach
to finality”) (citing cases).1
1 A “trial de novo” is not the same thing as review de novo. See Luck Bros. v. Agency of
Transp., 2014 VT 59, ¶ 27, 196 Vt. 584, 99 A.3d 997 (citing cases); see also Stein’s, Inc. v. Blumenthal,
649 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1980) (distinguishing between “trial de novo” and “de novo review”).
Situations in which an “appeal” involves a “full trial de novo” are “virtually nonexistent.” 18A EDWARD
H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION § 4433 (3d ed.) (emphasis added),
Westlaw FPP § 4433 (database updated Aug. 2019).
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 3 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
The long-standing Vermont rule that court decisions remain valid until reversed or
annulled is consistent with the rule in the federal courts that “the preclusive effects of a lower
court judgment cannot be suspended simply by taking an appeal that remains undecided.”
18A EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION § 4433 (3d ed.)
(emphasis added), Westlaw FPP § 4433 (database updated Aug. 2019). As the authors of a
leading federal procedure treatise have explained:
The bare act of taking an appeal is no more effective to defeat
preclusion than a failure to appeal. The Supreme Court long ago
seemed to establish the rule that a final judgment retains all of its
res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal, apart
from the virtually nonexistent situation in which the “appeal”
actually involves a full trial de novo. The lower courts have taken
the rule as settled ever since.
Id. § 4433 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted) (citing extensive case law). See generally
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1764 (2015) (“a judgment’s preclusive effect is generally
immediate, notwithstanding any appeal”); Palmer-Williams v. United States, 699 F. App’x 1, 3
(2d Cir. 2017) (“the law is well-settled that the preclusive effect of a judgment is immediate,
notwithstanding a pending appeal”); and Burke v. Vermont Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:14-CV-00272,
2015 WL 1954268, at *3 n.3 (D. Vt. Apr. 29, 2015) (“Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply
once a final judgment is entered in a case, even while an appeal from that judgment is pending.”)
(internal quotes and brackets omitted).
In the instant matter, the current controlling law announced in Snyder Group is that the
City’s 2006 TDR Bylaw is invalid and unconstitutional. The practical effect of this is that the
Dorset Meadows developer’s Final Plat Application, which is dependent on 68 TDRs under
the 2006 TDR Bylaw, is moot and should be dismissed.
II. The City’s New 2019 TDR Bylaw Does Not Apply to the Final Plat
Application.
In an apparent reaction to the E-Court’s February 28, 2019 Snyder Group decision
invalidating the 2006 TDR Bylaw, the City Council adopted a new TDR bylaw on September 16,
2019 (“2019 TDR Bylaw”). The developer and the DRB cannot apply the new 2019 TDR
Bylaw to the Final Plat Application. Vermont law is clear that a municipality may not apply to a
submitted permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the application is filed. See
generally Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84, ¶ 28, 202 Vt. 535, 150 A.3d 1084 (“a permit
application cannot prospectively vest a right in future regulations”); In re Times & Seasons,
LLC, 2011 VT 76, ¶ 16, 190 Vt. 163, 27 A.3d 323 (to “take advantage” of a post-application
“favorable change in the law,” an applicant must begin the “permit process anew”); In re Paynter
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 4 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28, ¶ 9, 187 Vt. 637, 996 A.2d 219 (mem.) (explaining that a town
may not apply to a submitted permit application a zoning ordinance adopted after the filing of the
application); and Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm’n, 140 Vt. 178, 181-82, 436 A.2d 760, 761-
62 (1981) (holding that zoning regulations in effect when application was filed govern
application, not subsequently enacted amendments).
In short, if the Dorset Meadows developer wishes to hitch its wagon to the 2019 TDR
Bylaw, it must begin the “permit process anew,” i.e., file a new sketch plan application. Times
& Seasons, 2011 VT 76, ¶ 16.
III. Dorset Meadows Cannot Be Constructed in a Primary Conservation Area.
SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3) states that “existing natural resources shall be protected
through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities,
streams, wetlands, floodplains, [and] conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive
Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis added).
The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies “primary conservation areas” on Map 7
(Attachment A hereto), and the Comprehensive Plan states (at page 2-103) that “[p]rimary
conservation areas (Map 7) include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are off
limits to development, regardless of their setting or context. . . .” (emphasis added). Much of
the proposed “Dorset Meadows” development is located on a riparian connectivity area that the
Comprehensive Plan designates as a Primary Conservation (Attachment B) and as off limits to
development. For this reason alone, the Final Plat Application must be rejected.
Former DRB member Frank Kochman voted against granting preliminary plat and master
plan approval to Dorset Meadows for this very reason. See the DRB’s June 28, 2019 Findings of
Fact and Decision approving the developer’s Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29A, at 25
n.3 (“Mr. Kochman would deny the application for failure of the development plan to protect the
full applicable conservation area as shown on Map 7 of the Comprehensive Plan in violation of
the applicable goal and objective of the Comprehensive Plan.”); and the DRB’s June 28, 2019
Findings of Fact and Decision approving Master Plan Application #MP-18-01A, at 12 n.4
(same).
Moreover, a planned unit development (“PUD”) must be “consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10). One
of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the City, including the Southeast Quadrant (“SEQ”), is
“conservation of identified important natural areas” (Comp. Plan, p. 1-1 (emphasis added)).
And one of the objectives for the SEQ is prioritizing and conserving existing contiguous and
interconnected open space areas (see Comp. Plan, p. 3-38, Objective 60). The Comprehensive
Plan has identified important natural areas on Map 7. Development in these important natural
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 5 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
areas is inconsistent “with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,” SBLDR §
15.18(A)(10), and as such the Final Plat Application must be rejected.
It is no accident that the City designated these riparian connectivity areas as off-limits to
development, as the State of Vermont has similarly designated these same areas as requiring the
“highest priority” of protection. Attached hereto as Attachment C is a screen shot from the
BioFinder tool produced by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (“ANR”). The image
shows (in dark blue) the highest priority “surface water and riparian areas” that exist on the
proposed Dorset Meadows development.
Surface Waters and Riparian Areas include not only rivers, streams, lake, ponds and
wetlands but also the floodplain and land surrounding these water bodies that are impacted by
the waterways. See “ANR Fish & Wildlife Department, Mapping Vermont’s Natural Heritage:
A Mapping and Conservation Guide for Municipal and Regional Planners in Vermont,” 2018, at
48, available at:
https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/Get%20Involved/Partner%20i
n%20Conservation/MVNH-web.pdf (last visited Oct. 10, 2019) (hereafter, “ANR Guide”)
(“Surface Waters and Riparian Areas maps the entire area impacted by these waterways,
including not only the water itself but also the surrounding land. This surrounding area is
referred to as the riparian area.”).
The area that ANR designated as highest priority for protection is practically identical to
the primary conservation area identified by the City. The ANR explains that the BioFinder maps
“outline the areas of land that need to remain healthy and intact if we want to provide plants,
animals, and natural resources the best chance of survival over time.” ANR Guide, supra, at 78.
The ANR has instructed as follows:
Maintaining a vegetated riparian area may be the single most
effective way to protect a community’s natural heritage. The
riparian area provides high quality habitat for a great diversity of
both aquatic and terrestrial species. . . . Terrestrial animals use
riparian areas as travel corridors, while many plant and tree seeds
float downstream to disperse. Streamside vegetation helps to
control flooding, and it is crucial in filtering overland runoff –
which protects water quality – and stabilizing stream banks, which
prevents excessive streambank erosion and sediment buildup.
What’s more, maintaining the riparian area is one of the most cost-
effective ways to provide resilience for a changing climate.
ANR Guide, supra, at 49 (emphasis added). The ANR goes on to state:
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 6 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
Not sure where to begin conserving your community’s natural
heritage? Consider starting with riparian habitat. Among
conservation actions taken at the community level, maintaining
riparian habitat has one of the greatest impacts for wildlife.
It’s also an area of great benefit for a community, since conserving
the riparian area not only protects wildlife habitat but also
maintains water quality, reduces erosion, provides flood resilience,
and can support recreational opportunities.
Id. at 32 (emphasis added).
Experts commissioned by the City specifically identified these same areas as areas that
“should remain as unfragmented as possible.” In particular, in 2004 Arrowwood Environmental,
LLC produced the “Wildlife and Natural Communities Assessment of the South East Quadrant,
South Burlington Vermont” (the “Arrowwood Assessment”). The Arrowwood Assessment
states:
The Great Swamp, and the upland forest and shrubby fields that
surround it, comprise a 400-500 acre cluster of contiguous and
varied wildlife habitat. It is the anchor, the source habitat for the
western SEQ, and must remain un-fragmented if the level of
current wildlife array is to be maintained in the SEQ.
Arrowhead Assessment § 7.1.1, at 13 (July 13, 2004), available at:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/document_center/committees%20boards/Arrowwood%20Ecol
ogical%20Assessment%202004.doc (last visited Oct. 10, 2019).
A map of the “Great Swamp appears in the June 2004 “Study of Breeding Birds in the
Southeast Quadrant” by Wings Environmental, available at:
http://southburlingtonvt.gov/2004%20SEQ%20Bird%20Habitat%20Evaluation.pdf, Figure 1 at
page 4 (last visited Oct. 10, 2019). A copy of this map included herewith as Attachment D.
The Arrowwood Assessment goes states that “adjacent open spaces, including the large
fields west of Dorset Street, should remain as unfragmented as possible.” Arrowhead
Assessment § 7.1.1(5), at 13. See Attachment D hereto and note that the area west of Dorset
Street. This is the exact area on which the developer proposes to build 153 dwelling units.
Observations of the area confirm the experts’ assessments. Abundant wildlife exists
throughout the site. Residents have reported observing mink, great blue heron, green heron,
bitterns, bobcat, fox, deer, coyotes, squirrels, owls and hawks. Beaver activity can be readily
observed on the neighboring property just downstream of the proposed development.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 7 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
In its June 28, 2019 Findings of Fact and Decisions approving the developer’s
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29A (at page 7) and Master Plan Application #MP-18-01A
(at page 8), the DRB found that:
(a) A letter provided by the applicant’s engineer field-delineates areas that the
Comprehensive Plan designated as requiring protection;
(b) This field delineation has been confirmed by State Agencies; and
(c) Map 7 may not be relied on because it includes the following disclaimer: “Maps
and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for
reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy.”
These findings are incorrect. First, there is nothing that requires that riparian areas be
field-delineated and, even if there were, the developer never field-delineated the riparian areas.
Rather, the developer field-delineated the wetlands. Wetlands and riparian areas are distinct and
vitally different natural resources. This is evident by comparing the wetlands layer with the
riparian connectivity layer on Attachment A, and by comparing Attachments A and E.2
Indeed, the SBLDR contains a separate Wetlands Map (Attachment E hereto) which
identifies the wetland areas throughout the City that are subject to the restrictions in SBLDR
Article 12. The SBLDR specifically allows an applicant to use wetlands information from the
field, rather than the information on the Wetlands Map:
The boundaries of wetlands shall be as shown on the Official
Wetlands Map unless alternative information is submitted and
reviewed pursuant to the standards and procedures for review set
forth in Article 12, Section 12.02(C) and (D) of these Regulations.
SBLDR § 3.03(D). In this case, the developer chose to field-delineate the wetlands rather than
rely on the Wetlands Map. But this has nothing to do with riparian areas.
Second, the State never confirmed that riparian areas had been field-delineated. In
connection with its Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Applications, the developer submitted an
email message from Rebecca Pfeiffer, CFM of the State’s Watershed Management Division
2 The ANR defines wetlands as “the vegetated, shallow-margins of lakes and ponds [and] the
seasonally flooded borders of rivers and streams. . . .” ANR Guide, supra, at 51. Technically, wetlands
“all are inundated by or saturated with water for at least two weeks during the growing season” and
“contain wet (hydric) soils, which develop in saturated conditions and lack oxygen and other gases” and
are “dominated by plant species known to be adapted to these saturated soils.” Id.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 8 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
dated July 16, 2018 (10:50 AM). Ms. Pfeiffer’s email message has nothing to do with riparian
areas or wildlife habitat. Rather, her email message is concerned solely with flooding and
erosion.
Ms. Pfeiffer’s email message states in part: “the project would appear to meet the
Agency’s Procedure under [Act 250 Criterion] 1(D)” and she refers to the “Flood Hazard Area &
River Corridor Protection Procedure[s]” as the guidance implementing Criterion 1(D). The
Procedures document Ms. Pfeiffer cites in her July 16, 2018 email message is concerned with
protecting against flooding and erosion. The Procedures document provides that its purpose is to
explain how the State Department of Environmental Conservation “defines and maps flood
hazard areas and river corridors for the purposes of Act 250 (10 V.S.A. § 6001 et seq.), Section
248 (30 V.S.A. §§ 248 and 248a), administering the state Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor
Rule (adopted October 24, 2014), and the regulation of berming (10 V.S.A. § 1021). . . .”
Vermont DEC Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedures § 1.0(a)(1), at 3
(Sept. 7, 2017), http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/DEC_FHARCP_Procedure.pdf
(last visited Oct. 10, 2019).3
Third, the fact that Comprehensive Plan Map 7 includes a disclaimer that the City “does
not guarantee accuracy” could not be a basis for disregarding the Map. Obviously, the
disclaimer does not mean that Map 7 cannot be relied upon for the very purpose for which the
Map was created, namely identifying protected primary conservation areas. Rather, if the
disclaimer means anything, it can only be read to mean that Map 7 cannot be relied on for
purposes for which it was not created – for example, for the exact location of a road, or the exact
contours of a shore line. This conclusion becomes inescapable by examining the SBLDR
Wetlands Map. That Map has a similar disclaimer, yet it is binding on applicants that do not
field-delineate the wetlands. It would make no sense for the disclaimer to render invalid for
mapping wetlands the very Map that the SBLDR includes to identify the wetlands. Similarly, it
would make no sense for the Map 7 disclaimer to render the Map invalid for the purpose for
which it was created.
3 “Flood Hazard Areas” are defined as “areas of the floodplain that may be inundated by a range
of flood frequencies up to and including the one percent annual chance flood. . . .” Vermont DEC Flood
Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedures § 4.0(a)(1), at 7 (Sept. 7, 2017). “River
Corridors” are defined as the “area around and adjacent to the present channel where fluvial erosion,
channel evolution and down-valley meander migration are most likely to occur. River corridor widths are
calculated to represent the narrowest band of valley bottom and riparian land necessary to accommodate
the least erosive channel and floodplain geometry. . . .” Id. § 4.0(a)(2), at 7. In the case of Dorset
Meadows, it was determined that a 50-foot setback would be adequate to protect against flooding and
erosion. The 50-foot buffer did not take into account – and was not determined on the basis of –
protecting the surrounding riparian areas.
Letter to DRB Chairperson Matt Cota
October 10, 2019
Page 9 of 9
275 College Street, PO Box 4485 | Burlington, VT 05406-4485 | phone 802 861-7000 | Fax 861-7007 | mskvt.com
IV. Summary and Recommendation: For the Sake of the Environment and the
Law, Please Reject the Dorset Meadows Final Plat Application.
The Final Plat Application is fatally flawed and moot because it depends on TDR density
that is not available under the applicable law. On top of that, the developer proposes to build in a
Primary Conservation Area that the City has made clear is off-limits to development and that
needs to be protected if South Burlington is to fulfill its commitment to protect its natural
heritage. If ever there were a proposed development that deserves to be rejected, Dorset
Meadows is it.
In sum, SOS South Burlington is committed to opposing the legally untenable ecological
outlaw that is Dorset Meadows. SOS South Burlington hopes the DRB will do its duty and reject
this ill-conceived project. Thank you for your attention to this important and time-sensitive
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
Attachments (5)
cc: Mr. Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Ms. Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Ms. Marla Keene, Development Review Planner (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq., Deputy City Attorney (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Robert H. Rushford, Esq. (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Save Open Spaces South Burlington (via e-mail w/Attachments)
Attachment A: Comprehensive Plan, Map 7 (“Primary Conservation Areas”)
Attachment B: Overlay of Primary Conservation Areas on proposed “Dorset
Meadows” Development
Attachment C: Bio‐Finder Inventory Map of the Proposed Dorset Meadows Development Site
Darker blue: Highest priority surface water and riparian areas
Light, speckled blue: Wetlands
Reddish‐brown: Clayplain Forest natural community
Orange: Habitat Block
Green line: Level 4 wildlife linkage
Yellow line: Level 3 wildlife linkage
Attachment D: Map of the Great Swamp
Attachment E: LDR Wetlands Map