HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 04/19/2021AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members
of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be
no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video):
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-meeting4-19-2021
You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (872) 240-3212
Access Code: 495-745-205
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO PARTICIPATE BY THE INTERACTIVE ONLINE MEETING TOOL ARE ASKED TO
MUTE YOUR MICROPHONES WHEN NOT SPEAKING AND TURN OFF YOUR CAMERAS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK
TO THE COUNCIL ON A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, TURN YOUR CAMERA ON TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THAT
TIME.
ALL TIMES LISTED ON AGENDA ARE APPROXIMATE; THE COUNCIL MAY GET TO ITEMS SOONER OR LATER
THAN THE TIME LISTED FOR THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. INTERESTED PARTIES IN ANY ISSUE SHOULD PLAN
ACCORDINGLY
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, April 19, 2021
1.Welcome & Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:30 – 6:31PM)
2.Possible executive session to discuss pending litigation to which the city is a party and receiveconfidential attorney/client communications regarding same. (6:31 – 7:00 PM)
3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (7:00 – 7:10 PM)
4.Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (7:10 – 7:20 PM)
5.Consent Agenda: (7:20 – 7:22 PM)
A.*** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes; 4/6/21 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
6.Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (7:22 – 7:30 PM
7.Interim Zoning application public hearings: [warned for 7:30 pm] (7:30 – 8:30 PM)
A.*** Continued Public Hearing: Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-01 of Alan K. Long fordevelopment of two existing lots totaling 39.21 acres each developed with a single family
home. The development consists of removal of the two existing homes and construction of up to 49 dwelling units in a combination of single family, two family and small multi-family buildings in a development area of approximately 17 acres and a conservation area of approximately 22 acres, 1720 and 1730 Spear Street.
B.***Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-03 of South Village Communities LLC to amend a
previously-approved multi-phased, 334-unit planned unit development. The applicationconsists of the following components: (1) Amend the Master Plan by increasing the maximum
allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20%, removing the educational facility, adding mixed use,removing the requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear
Street, and reducing the total unit count from 334 to 321; (2) Subdivide four existingundeveloped lots totaling 23.2 acres into eight lots ranging from 0.3 acres to 14.1 acres,
construct 22 homes in 11 buildings on Lot 11.1 and 11.2, and construct a permanent farmaccess road and pavilion on Lot 11C; (3) subdivide an existing 1.92 acre lot into five lots
ranging from 0.14 acres to 0.67 acres, append 0.18 acres to an existing 12.68 acreagricultural lot for the purpose of developing a two‐family home on each of lots 92 to 95, andestablishing the fifth lot as permanent open space; (4) construct a mixed-use building andassociated parking on newly-created lot 11A; and (5) construct a soccer field with associatedamenities and parking on a newly created lot 11B to be transferred to the City, 1840 SpearStreet.
C.Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-02 of Brendan Connolly to create a planned unit
development of three lots by subdividing a 7.98 acre lot developed with an existing singlefamily home into Lot 1 (7.02 ac), Lot 3 (0.48 ac), Lot 4 (0.48 ac) for the purpose of developing
a single family home on each of Lots 3 and 4 and retaining the existing single family home.Lots 3 and 4 would be accessed off Sadie Lane, 1 Johnson Way.
8.Interviews with applicants for appointment to South Burlington Boards, Commissions and Committees
(8:30 – 9:15 PM)
9.Consider and possibly approve the Local Emergency Operations Plan - Terry Francis, Chef, SouthBurlington Fire Department (9:15 – 9:25 PM)
10.***Council discussion and possible action on recommendations related to the Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission I-89 Corridor Study – Charlie Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC(9:25 – 10:10 PM)
11.*** Council consideration and possible approval of a resolution requiring that a third-party conservation
easement on the so-called Wheeler Property be conveyed and completed within five months ofenactment – Andrew Bolduc, City Attorney (10:10 – 10:15 PM)
12.February and March Financials - Tom Hubbard, Deputy City Manager (10:15 – 10:25 PM)
13.***Convene as Liquor Control Commission to consider the following: (10:25 – 10:30 PM)Chipotle Mexican Grill, First Class & Third Class Restaurant/Bar License; Dave’s Cosmic Subs, FirstClass Restaurant/Bar License; Duke’s Public House, First Class & Third Class Restaurant/BarLicense
14.Other Business (10:30 – 10:35 PM)
15.Adjourn (10:35 PM)
Respectfully Submitted:
Kevin Dorn
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
*** Attachments Included
Champlain Water District
Posted General Ledger Transactions
70 - South Burlington Water Department
Document N...ID Name Effective ...General...Debit Credit Invoice Number
4229 ALDRICHALDRICH Aldrich & Elliott, PC 4/20/2021 1015 1,622.99 79616
4230 CWDRETAILCWDRETAIL Champlain Water District - R...4/20/2021 1015 55,387.80 SBWD-372
4231 CWDWHOLESALECWDWHOLESALE Champlain Water District 4/20/2021 1015 110,195.94 CONSUMPTION-S...MAR
Champlain Water District 4/20/2021 1015 304.08 SBWD-365
4232 OFFICEESSENTIALSOFFICEESSENTIALS Office Essentials of Vermont 4/20/2021 1015 548.50 37778
4233 SBCITYSBCITY City of South Burlington 4/20/2021 1015 703.31 236
4234 SBSEWERSBSEWER South Burlington Sewer Dep...4/20/2021 1015 374,779.48 SEWER - MARCH
4235 SBSTORMWATERSBSTORMWATER South Burlington Stormwate...4/20/2021 1015 235,395.38 stormwater - march
4236 TISALESTISALES Ti-Sales, Inc.4/20/2021 1015 22,500.00 INV0128606
Ti-Sales, Inc.4/20/2021 1015 574.87 INV0128648
Total 70 - South Burlington Water
Department
0.00 802,012.35
Report Total 0.00 802,012.35
Date: 4/12/21 12:25:57 PM Page: 1
SOUTH BURLINGTON
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MEETING MINUTES 6 APRIL 2021
1
The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 6 April
2021, at 5:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting Interactive Technology.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; D. Macdonald, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M.
Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Baker, L.
Ravin, J. Bellavance, A. & A. Chalnick, A. Strong, B. Sirvis, R. Gonda, A. Jensen-Vargas, C. Trombly, S.
Dooley, Wayne, R. Greco
1. Agenda: additions or deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made.
2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Announcements/Staff Report:
There were no announcements or Staff report.
4. Presentation of Draft Environmental Protection Standards; Council questions and
feedback:
Ms. Louisos said they have set 27 April for a listening session for the public. That will be followed by a
formal public hearing.
Ms. Louisos noted the Commission began work on these standards in 2012 to the standards were more
legally defensible. In 2016, maps were added to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also
commissioned a study from Arrowwood to define habitat blocks and to set standards for how to address
them.
Ms. Louisos then defined the 3 categories of environmental protection:
a. Hazards: areas where there should be no development due to some danger (e.g.
100-year flood plain) and/or are regulated at the State and Federal level. The
Commission added the 500-year flood plain to this category and streamlined rive
and buffer standards. The Class 2 wetland buffer was also expanded in certain
areas, and steep slopes have been regulated.
2
b. Level 1 Resources: These include habitat blocks which, with a few exceptions, would
not be built on, and habitat connectors. These resources are based on the
Arrowwood study.
c. Level 2 Resources: These include the 500-year flood plain, Class 3 wetlands, some
steep slopes, and a definition change for stream buffers.
Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is working with CCRPC to help review and be consistent with State
and Federal standards.
Ms. Louisos then showed a series of maps as follows:
a. Current protection standard areas and SEQ-NRP zoning where very little, if any
development is allowed
b. Current environmental protection areas, SEQ-NRP, conserved and public land (e.g.,
parks) and areas already built/approved/in review
c. Draft Environmental Protection Areas (hazards, Level 1 & 2 and current SEQ-NRP)
d. The above map with the addition of conserved and public lands (e.g., parks)
e. The above maps plus built/approved/in process areas
f. Draft of current environmental protection areas and current NRP zone (it was noted
that the protected areas go from 17% of the city to 26%, not including existing
conserved and park lands
g. The above map including conserved & park lands bringing the percentage of land
with some level of protection to 42%. Ms. Louisos stressed that the maps are
approximate and require on-ground delineation.
h. The above map plus built areas and areas still available for development
Mr. Conner then explained the zoning of the NRP and what can/cannot be built there.
Sen. Chittenden asked whether people who own newly designated nondevelopable lands have TDRs
now. Mr. Conner said that depends on where things go with PUDs. Development can occur on a
developable portion of a property. Mr. Conner stresses that nothing in this draft changes anything
about the use of TDRs and which areas are sending or receiving.
Mr. Conner also noted there is now a higher bar for crossing a stream. “Restricted infrastructure
encroaching” is granted only when there is no other access to a piece of land, and an applicant would
3
have to meet a number of criteria including hardship, 30% of the property is on the other side of the
stream, failure of other methods to access the property, etc. The crossing would then have to be
narrow.
A question from the Council focused on the total land covered by Articles 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said
that figure is 4,449 acres, a portion of which is already conserved.
Ms. Louisos then explained how the new regulations relate to the Comprehensive Plan, one of the legal
tests for LDRs. She showed the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and explained the various
areas for low, medium, and high intensity residential and commercial development. She then showed
the same map with the conserved areas indicated.
Sen. Chittenden asked whether there is a map that shows neighboring communities. Mr. Conner noted
that the RPC has mapping for villages and downtowns, etc.
Ms. Emery asked why housing isn’t allowed in business parks. Ms. Louisos explained that there is land
reserved for uses that are not compatible with residential for various reasons (i.e. noise, hours of use,
outside storage, commercial traffic). Mr. Conner added that the nature of business parks is evolving.
The Commission discussed how much land should be reserved for uses that can only locate away from
housing. Ms. Ostby noted that these are areas for jobs.
Ms. Louisos then showed other maps from the Comprehensive Plan and noted areas where rare species
have been found. These are regulated by the State and by Act 250. She also indicated some agricultural
lands and grasslands that are not covered by Article 10 and 12 due to the concern to meet other goals.
She noted changes to Article 9 where references to Maps 7 and 8 have been removed so there is no
longer confusion.
Mr. Cota said he was glad to see that last change as it is very important for the DRB. He asked if there is
field delineation so it can be determined what resources are actually on people’s land. Ms. Louisos said
that because the Arrowwood study was done by remote observation, there are options for landowners
as to how a line can be adjusted without damage to a habitat block. There are specific criteria to do this,
and major changes would require a biologist to weigh in. Mr. Conner noted that field delineation is very
good for wetlands, but habitat blocks and forested areas are new. He said the draft tries to create
certainty so there aren’t “battling experts.”
Mr. Barritt asked if there is anything to prevent logging in habitat blocks. Mr. Conner said there isn’t,
but any logging has to be part of a forestry operation. The State would look at any logging to be sure it
is ongoing (not just to create a lawn) and that the staging area is appropriate.
5. Overview of proposed Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and related subdivision and
master plans: function, role, and appearance of different types:
Mr. Conner showed the guidelines for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) type of PUD.
These include:
4
a. Principally residential development over 65% of the buildable area
b. Fairly compact development
c. Removal of NRP, Level 1 and Hazards from the developable area
d. 15% “civic space” (e.g., park, central green area)
e. 5% mixed use (e.g., a community building)
f. 15% unallocated (e.g., wetland, stormwater pond, etc.)
Mr. Conner then showed a chart of what a TND could look like, how it could be laid out with a mix of
building types, central civic space, etc. He said that density in a TND is dependent on the lot layout. A
mix of building types would be required, and there would be a minimum density to set a target pattern
on a neighborhood scale to ensure that the infrastructure is financially sustainable and to provide
certainty.
Mr. Conner then explained the nature of a Conservation PUD where 70% of the land must be conserved.
The land owner is then entitled to build on the 30% the total amount of development that would have
been allowed on the entire property based on the underlying zoning. Ms. Louisos noted that the
footprint of development in a TND and a Conservation PUD would be different. Mr. Conner said that for
properties with a lot of resources, a Conservation PUD may be the more appropriate choice.
Ms. Emery asked how a TND would work with TDRs. Mr. Conner said it would remain the same as
today. A person could reserve some portion of a property for future possible development. Ms. Emery
asked if there are any new TDRs. Mr. Conner said there may be, but that hasn’t been fully sorted out
yet. Ms. Louisos added that they are not currently adding TDRs.
Ms. Emery said she would like to see more industry and “noisy” manufacturing along Shelburne Road.
She also wants to bring residential close to Tilley Drive, including employees for nearby businesses. She
felt that residential development should go near transit, and she was all for density in areas with transit.
She wasn’t comfortable with 10 units per acre where there is no mass transit. She felt there were many
ways to bring in affordable housing. She added that areas further out should be left for future
development.
Ms. Greco said she did not agree with short-term planning.
Mr. Barritt noted he had seen more electric cars on the road today and anticipated seeing many more in
the future which could affect the concern with fossil fuels. He said he supports both the TND and
Conservation PUDs and felt they would lead to new, responsible development and protection of
resources.
Mr. Riehle said one question that needs to be addressed with the School Board is how many more
homes can be built before there is a need for a new school. Ms. Riehle said that can be a topic for a
Steering Committee meeting.
5
Mr. Cota asked whether a property owner/developer can choose between a TND and a Conservation
PUD. Mr. Conner said there are circumstances when an option makes sense (e.g., when there is 80%
wetland). Elsewhere it is open for discussion: should it be a developer’s choice?
Mr. Cota asked if there are mitigating factors such as “meet these criteria and you can have a TND.” Mr.
Mittag said he would like to see a choice to build fewer units and conserve more.
Mr. Cota cited the Ewing plan to conserve a portion of the land and have the rest for development.
Mr. Strong asked about protection for riparian connectivity. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is looking
at every location where there is a water resource and are creating buffering, actually the largest buffers
in the state. Also, instead of using state-level data, the Commission looked at where there is actual
habitat. This goes beyond what was done in the past.
Ms. Riehle said she had some concerns with aspects of what the Commission is recommending and was
puzzled by allowing a road across a resource even though there are standards.
When questioned, the Council asked to receive Articles 10 & 12 first and then get the PUDs as a second
package.
The joint portion of the meeting ended here by common consent at 7:03 p.m.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-21-01 (1720/1730
Spear Street)
DATE: April 19, 2021 City Council meeting
Last month, the Council opened a public hearing on the proposed neighborhood at 1720/1730 Spear
Street. The applicant, Alan Long, gave a brief overview, and the Council subsequently elected to
continue the public hearing to April 19th in order for the applicant to first present their proposal to the
Development Review Board (DRB) at the Sketch Plan stage.
DRB and Interim Zoning Review
The applicant presented the proposal to the DRB on April 6th. Following their normal procedures, the
Board opened this informal meeting, received a presentation from the applicant, and then began a
Board review of the project’s components using the staff notes as a guide. The Board completed a
partial review in the time allotted to this item and continued the sketch plan meeting to May 4th. The
Board did not reach point in the review where public comment would be invited; that will take place on
May 4th or at a subsequent continued meeting. Several individuals expressed an interest in providing
feedback. The Board’s draft meeting minutes from April 6th are posted online: https://sbvt-
records.info/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=208312&dbid=0&repo=sburl
Regarding the proposed Land Development Regulations under consideration by the Planning
Commission, as noted in the prior staff comments, the applicant has met with staff to discuss the future
regulations and presents a plan they feel is consistent with the proposed PUD and environmental
protection standards.
Specific to natural resources, the property includes wetlands (assumed location as marked by the
applicant considerably to the east of the proposed neighborhood) and a portion of a mapped Habitat
Block. The mapped Habitat Block in the Planning Commission extends to the location of the proposed
north-south roadway on the eastern portion of the neighborhood. The proposed regulations also allow
for an applicant to propose a modification of a Habitat Block through a “small onsite habitat block
exchange” of up to two acres of land within a mapped Habitat Block for an equal or greater amount of
land that has a similar or greater quantity and maturity of vegetation.
Regarding overall project layout, the proposal includes an interconnected street and pedestrian
network, a mix of housing types that consider the nearby built environment context, and a small central
green space.
2
With this continued hearing on April 19th, the Council has several options:
1. The Council may initiate its review of the application, engaging with the applicant on questions
the Council may have and taking public comment. In this instance, the Council may then either
conclude its public hearing and render a written decision within 45 days, or alternatively
continue the hearing to a date certain in order to obtain additional information, from the
applicant, from staff, or from one or more city committees.
2. The Council may alternatively continue the hearing to a date certain immediately, if the Council
would prefer to have the DRB’s sketch plan proceeding completed prior to undertaking its
review.
Possible Council motions to enact the above:
• Option A: “I move to close the public hearing on Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-01 of Alan
Long”
• Option B: “I move to continue the public hearing on Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-01 of Alan
Long to ________ [date] at _________ [time.”
43 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730
February 12, 2021
Paul Conner, Director
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Mr. Conner,
In conjunction with our sketch plan application to the Development Review Board, I write in
response to the City Council’s requirement for a separate letter detailing the ways in which our
proposed development at 1720/1730 Spear Street complies with the objectives of the Interim
Zoning (IZ) Bylaw enacted in November, 2018 and subsequently extended. The main stated
objective of IZ is to maintain “a balance among our natural open spaces and our developed,
residential and commercial spaces….” Our proposed development addresses both the need to
conserve natural environments and the desire to add housing in the City.
A) How is the proposed project consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the City
of South Burlington in consideration of the stated purposes of the Interim Bylaws?
We do not believe that our project poses any threat to the health or safety of the City. The
City’s welfare, though, will be enhanced in several ways – tax revenue will increase, housing
stock will expand, permanently conserved acreage will increase, and recreational opportunities
will improve.
The need for additional housing in South Burlington has been made clear by the ad hoc Housing
Space Working Group, whose study “The Case for Housing” was presented to the City Council in
August, 2020, and by the continuing efforts of the IZ Affordable Housing Committee. The
Planning Commission’s work on Planned Unit Developments during Interim Zoning should have
a major impact as well – requiring a range of building types in Traditional Neighborhood
Developments can only help to foster the income, lifestyle, and age-related diversity we all
agree the City needs. We intend to provide five (5) units of affordable housing as part of our
project, across a variety of building types.
On the conservation front, the back (eastern) portion of our property is part of a conserved (via
the 2006 Natural Resource Protection zoning statute) swath of land that extends from the City’s
Underwood property in the north through the eastern portions of the South Pointe
development, our land, and the South Village development in the south. Parts of this swath
comprise the western edge of the Great Swamp, identified in the IZ Open Space Committee’s
study as the #1 priority for conservation in the City. Conserving the Great Swamp and its
adjacent fields and forest blocks is certainly one of the best achievements of the City’s zoning
efforts in the past twenty years, and our family is happy to have been able to contribute to that
conservation.
An environmental assessment we commissioned in the summer of 2020 found a healthy
diversity of flora and fauna in the forested and wetland areas in the eastern portion of our
property, as also assumed in the Arrowwood study of 2019. Conservation of these habitats is
consistent with both the City’s mandates and our own desire to preserve the wild and natural
features of the property that we have cherished for the seventy (70) years of our ownership.
Our plan also preserves a copse of trees at the top of the ridge adjacent to the southeast corner
of the South Pointe development by including it in a conserved strip along South Pointe Drive.
The residents of South Pointe value having this patch of “non-core forest” in their back yards,
and we are happy to conserve it as well as the much larger eastern swath of fields and woods
connecting to the Great Swamp.
Our family has maintained hiking and cross-country skiing trails on our property for decades.
The proposed project will connect walking paths in the new development with trails that access
the fields and woods adjacent to and into the Great Swamp. Those same trails will of course be
available for bird-watchers and wild-animal lovers as well. Easements will be granted to the
City to provide public access through the development to the fields and forests in the eastern
portion of the property.
B) How is the proposed project consistent with studies being conducted, draft bylaws or
bylaw amendments, and/or any draft comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan
amendments under consideration?
As landowners whose development plans could be affected directly by changes to the Land
Development Regulations, we have participated actively in the deliberations of the Planning
Commission over the past year. To the best of our knowledge, our project is consistent with all
of the draft changes to the LDRs currently under consideration.
C) What is the project’s relationship to or effect upon each of the following?
(i) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or lands
Our proposal is for an infill development between South Pointe and South Village, and we will
connect to existing utility mains for natural gas, water, sewer, and electricity in the most
efficient ways possible.
(ii) The existing patterns and uses of development in the area
The adjacent developments on Spear Street are emblematic of the City’s commitment to
expand its housing stock in a fashion that enhances diversity, inclusivity, and affordability in a
tasteful manner. South Pointe and South Village, with their mixtures of housing types and their
commitment to preservation of open space, stand in contrast to the high-end single-family
homes farther north on Spear Street. It is in that context that development of 1720/1730 Spear
in the manner we’re proposing fits perfectly with the City’s goals – the eastern portion remains
conserved (in fact, the PC intends to preserve even more acreage on our property than was
protected under the 2006 NRP boundaries), and the western portion is consistent with the
adjacent developments in South Pointe and South Village.
(iii) Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource
areas and sites
The eastern portion of our property consists of core forest and Class 2 wetlands, correctly
identified as significant habitat blocks in the Arrowwood study. There is an additional non-core
forest block at the top of the ridge parallel to Spear Street, adjacent to the South Pointe
development, that we also intend to conserve.
(iv) Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect
As mentioned previously, the project has been designed to conform to both current and
proposed zoning regulations. All infrastructure and housing will be constructed to City
standards.
In summary, our project provides an excellent example of the balance sought by the Interim
Zoning Bylaw, fulfilling several of the City’s priorities: the desire to conserve large portions of
the Southeast Quadrant for animal habitats, recreational uses, and the diminishing “rural feel”
of the City; the need for additional housing, particularly inclusive housing; and the need to
allow landowners to develop their property in accordance with current zoning and other City
regulations.
I am of course happy to provide any additional information that may be required.
Sincerely,
Alan Long (on behalf of the Long family)
Alanklong56@gmail.com
781-521-5429
43 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730
February 12, 2021
Marla Keene, Development Review Coordinator
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Ms. Keene,
Please accept this letter and accompanying documents as our application for approval of the
attached sketch plan for development of our properties at 1720 and 1730 Spear Street. We
have worked with O’Leary Burke Civil Associates and with the Planning and Zoning staff to
arrive at this first stage in the permitting process.
This letter addresses the issues required by the City of South Burlington Land Development
Regulations (Appendix E: Submission Requirements), as follows: A) a narrative description of
the project, B) demonstration of compliance with applicable review standards, C) a list of
submission elements, and D) changes from previous submittals. A completed Zoning Permit
Application with the requisite fee has also been submitted.
A. Project Narrative and Description
We propose a new Traditional Neighborhood Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a 39.2-acre
parcel that combines our existing residential properties at 1720 Spear Street (34.35 acres) and
1730 Spear Street (4.86 acres). The two existing single-family houses, both currently vacant,
will be removed to accommodate the development. New housing is proposed only for the
western (zoned NR, Neighborhood Residential) portion of the combined parcel – the eastern
portion extends into the Great Swamp and has been conserved since 2006 under the City’s
Natural Resource Preservation (NRP) statute. The project will be consistent in look and feel
with the adjacent existing developments, South Pointe to the north and South Village to the
south.
As shown on the attached sketch plan, the new development will comprise forty-nine (49) units
and a mixture of housing types: six (6) single-family homes, twenty-one (21) carriage homes, six
(6) duplex units, and sixteen (16) multi-family units. This mix of typologies is consistent with the
City’s goal of creating diverse neighborhoods and will provide new residents with a range of
sizes and price points. Also, we intend to include five (5) units of affordable housing, which will
help to address the “missing middle” problem stressed by the IZ Affordable Housing Committee
in its recent meetings.
More than half of the combined properties, approximately twenty-two (22) of the 39.2 acres,
are conserved under the current NRP zoning, leaving approximately seventeen (17) acres
available for development. Our plan calculates housing densities based on that NR/NRP
breakdown, and it also conforms to the requirements of the new Land Development
Regulations as currently drafted.
New roadways will consist principally of a curved central road through the center of the
development and a long-anticipated connection between South Pointe and South Village at the
top of the ridge parallel to Spear Street. In addition, a short loop connecting these two new
roads will provide access to the multi-family units on the south edge of the property, and
another loop will connect to the single-family homes on the western edge of the project. The
central road will branch off South Pointe Drive to avoid an additional curb cut onto Spear
Street; in fact, there will be a net loss of two curb cuts onto Spear, since each of the existing
houses has its own driveway at present. All proposed roadways will be constructed with 50-
foot rights-of-way, and the central road will have on-street visitor parking and a sidewalk along
its western/southern edge.
The Long family has always promoted access to its fields and woods – we have maintained
hiking and cross-country skiing trails on the 1720 Spear property for decades. The proposed
development preserves access to these natural assets, maintaining connections to the Great
Swamp and the conserved eastern portions of South Village, South Pointe, and the City’s
Underwood property. The project also creates a strip of parkland along its northern edge,
adjacent to South Pointe, and a central neighborhood park that can be enjoyed by all residents.
A walking path will be provided through the long strip of parkland, and the gap between
carriage homes on the eastern edge of the development will connect that path with the NRP
zones to the east, including the Great Swamp. As was established previously for the adjacent
South Pointe development, we will grant easements to the City to allow pedestrian access
through our development to the forested area on the far eastern end of the property. In
addition, a connection will be provided to a South Village recreation path that parallels the
property boundary near the western end of the proposed multi-family units.
B. Compliance with Applicable Review Standards
The base density formula for the property would allow us to build forty-seven (39.2 X 1.2 = 47)
dwelling units. The maximum density formula allows as many as sixty-nine (17.4 X 4 = 69) units
on the developable acreage, but sixty-nine units would be too crowded for our vision of the
new neighborhood. We intend to include five (5) units of affordable housing (two (2) multi-
family, two (2) duplex, and one (1) carriage home), and we are requesting an allowance for an
additional two (2) units over the base density via an affordable housing bonus, to avoid the
purchase of TDRs. As part of a Mixed Rate Housing Development as defined in Section 18.02
C(2) of the current LDRs, a 14% density bonus could add as many as six (6) units, for a total of
fifty-three (53), i.e. four more units than we plan to build.
Our understanding is that the new LDRs proposed by the Planning Commission will use an
alternative methodology based on “building type,” and we have been advised by Planning and
Zoning that the number of units and the diversity of housing types we are proposing is
consistent with the new standards for TND PUDs.
Mains for water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas already extend along Spear Street and into
both South Pointe and South Village, and our infill development will require only a minimal
expansion of those utilities.
There is an area of wetland in the NRP area on the property that may encroach at the southeast
corner of the proposed development. This wetland area will be certified in the spring of 2021,
and a storm water treatment area will be installed in that corner, just beyond the road
connection to South Village. An additional storm water treatment basin will be installed
adjacent to Spear Street at the northwest corner of the property. This basin and the back yards
of the single-family homes at the southwest corner will provide a buffer between the
development and the traffic on Spear Street. Any wetland areas adjacent to developed land
will be delineated appropriately, e.g. by stylistically appropriate fencing.
C. Submission Elements
a. Complete Subdivision Sketch Plan Application Form
b. Complete Interim Zoning Plan Review Application
c. Cover letter and narrative (this document)
d. List of abutting landowners with addresses
e. Plan set:
i. Existing conditions
ii. Sketch site plan
D. Changes from Previous Submittals
There have been no previous submissions of this proposal.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Alan Long (on behalf of the Long Family)
Alanklong56@gmail.com
(781) 521-5429
C:\_PROJECTS\2020-27\VT_44552143_20180422.jp2C:\_PROJECTS\2020-27\VT_44462143_20180422.jp21"=100'PJOBWCBWCOBCA2020-27S32-12-21Existing ConditionsSouth Burlington Vermont1720 & 1730 Spear StreetCIVIL ASSOCIATES, PLCO'LEARY-BURKE ESSEX JCT., VTPHONE: 878-9990FAX: 878-9989E-MAIL: obca@olearyburke.com13 CORPORATE DRIVELocation MapScale: 1" = 1000'Nowland Farm DriveProject SiteOwnerAlan Long43 Great Road, Bedford, MA 017301Spear Str
e
e
t39.21 +/-Project AcresNatural Reso
u
r
c
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
N
R
P
)
Neighborhoo
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
N
R
)
Natural R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
N
R
P
)
Neighbor
h
o
o
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
N
R
)
Residential-1 District (R1)Neighborhood Residential District (NR)
ASSUMED WETLAND DELINEATIONPARCEL ID:0384-00109SMSDC LLCPARCEL ID:1219-00349SMSDC LLCPARCEL ID: 1640-01840SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES LLCPARCEL ID: 1640-01690NANCY BELISLE LIFE ESTATEPARCEL ID: 1330-00002SKIP FARRELLPARCEL ID: 1640-01725PAUL & JOANNE TRAVERSPARCEL ID: 1640-01741BRENT & JILL COOMBSPARCEL ID: 1640-01751JENNIFER RANDPARCEL ID: 1640-01755DAVID & CATHERINE CONEPARCEL ID: 0570-01455NOWLAND FARM PRESERVE LLCPARCEL ID: 0570-01505DORSET MEADOWSASSOCIATES LLCABCDEFGLMHIJKSOUTH POINTEHOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION, INC.NO1741-00148MICHAEL & BONNIE MCINERNEYABCDEFGHIJK1628-00128MARIA DE CASTRO TRUST1628-00140MARY WARD REVOCABLE TRUST1628-001501628-001561628-001701628-001801628-001891628-001921741-000151741-00028CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER TRUSTJOHN NEUHAUSERHERMAN & HOLLY WIEGMANCHRISTOPHER & HELEN MCCABERODERICK SHEDDKOOROSH & KATARINA KHOSRAVIMARGARET BALDWINVIRGINIA SCHMIDT TRUSTL1383-00039LARRY & LINDA WILLIAMSM1383-00055CHRISTOPHER ACKERMANN1219-00356JOHN GIEBINK TRUSTO1219-00362JOHN GIEBINK TRUSTAbutters KeyPARCEL IDPROPERTY OWNERSOUTH POINTEHOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION, INC.PARCEL ID: 1640-01840SOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES LLCPARCEL ID:4000-00000-007THE FARM AT SOUTHVILLAGE INC.NOTES:1.THE PLANS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR PROPERTY CONVEYANCE2.THE ORTHO PHOTO WAS TAKEN IN 2018 BY VCGI3.THE EXISTING CONTOURS ARE BASED OFF 2004 LIDAR DATASpear Street
Churchill StN. Jefferson RdSouth Pointe DrUpswept LnPARCEL ID: 1640-01730PARCEL ID: 1640-01720
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-21-03 (1640 Spear Street)
DATE: April 19, 2021 City Council meeting
South Village Communities, LLC, is proposing a handful of related project elements that would, together,
complete the development of South Village.
The application is subject to Interim Zoning because it involves subdivision of land, a new Planned Unit
Development (PUD), and new principal building submitted after October 25, 2018 in an area not
exempted from the Interim Zoning bylaw.
Staff and South Village Communities agreed that a combined Interim Zoning application for several
project components would be the most logical and straightforward approach. Before the DRB, however,
some of these are separate applications. The Interim Zoning application covers the following project
elements:
1. Modification to the Master Plan to remove the previously-planned school, add a mixed use
building, remove two previously required left-turn lanes, reduce the total dwelling unit count
from 334 to 321, and increase allowable lot coverage within the SEQ-NR sub-district.
2. Subdivision and construction of up to 22 homes in duplexes on lot 11
3. Subdivision and construction of up to eight (8) homes in duplexes on lot 48N
4. Establishment of lot 96 as open space, lot 11E as open space with a pavilion, and establishment
and dedication of lot 63 to the Farm at South Village a portion of lot 48N
5. Construction of a 1-2 story mixed use building on lot 11A at the corner of Allen Road East and
Spear Street and,
6. Construction of a soccer field and associated amenities on lot 11B and dedication of the site to
the City pursuant to the South Village Master Plan
Each of the items has been reviewed at some level by the DRB. Items 1-4 have been reviewed at the
Final Plat stage of the PUD and are pending final action, while items 5-6 have been reviewed at the
informal sketch plans stage. Note that for item #5, the applicant is making use of an amendment to the
Land Development Regulations put into place in 2018 following consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council, and that for item #6, the soccer field is to be constructed using Recreation
Impact Fees collected from construction at South Village pursuant to the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance.
Enclosed with this packet are:
• Applicant Interim Zoning cover letter
2
• Response to Interim Bylaw Criteria
• Landscape plans b TJ Boyle Landscape Architects:
o L-101 Overall Site Plan
o Lot 11 L-100
o Lot 11A L-100
o Lot 11B L-100
o Lot 48N L-100
o Proposed subdivision Plat Plan PL
o South Village Design Review Standards
Staff recommends the Council open the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, pose
questions, and offer an opportunity for the public to provide input. Afterwards, the Council may:
1. Close the public hearing. In closing the hearing, the Council must issue a written decision within
45 days and can decide whether to hold a deliberative session to discuss and provide staff
direction on preparing the decision. A reminder that no additional testimony from the applicant
or others can be received following closure of the hearing.
2. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to receive additional testimony from the applicant
or other Interested Persons, obtain any additional information or analysis requested of staff, the
Planning Commission, or others, or review any modifications made by the applicant (if
applicable).
South Village Communities, LLC c/o Spear & Allen LLC
P.O. Box 2286, S. Burlington, VT 05407 Tel: 802-658-0202, Fax: 802-658-6869
March 5, 2021
Mr. Paul Connor, Director of Planning and Zoning
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
South Burlington City Council
City Hall
South Burlington, VT 0503
RE Interim Zoning Application for South Village Lots, 11, 11a, 11b & 48N Cover/Narrative
Dear IZ Reviewers,
Please accept our Application for your review.
South Village Communities, a conservation community and ‘agrihood’ neighborhood,
respectfully submit for your review an application for completion of the South Village project.
South Village’s smart growth strategy plan received its original Master Plan approval in 2008.
The project is near to completion. The overall concept of South Village was to conserve as
much land and natural habitat as possible, safeguard environmentally sensitive areas, create an
inviting compact pedestrian friendly neighborhood with a mix of housing types and styles to be
able to accommodate a diverse demographic within the community. South Village’s Bylaws
actively promote conservation strategies to ensure natural habitat viability, including zero
tolerance for the use of chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers, ensuring clean stormwater
and ecologically viable streams and ponds with onsite treatment.
This application specifically addresses the final four ‘to-be-developed’ lots. The overall
project is currently substantially complete and in large part constructed.
South Village has its main entry point at the intersection of Allen Road East and Spear St,
with a secondary points of entry at Preserve Road and N. Jefferson Road onto Spear Street and
at S. Jefferson Rd and Midland Ave intersection. The lots applied for are all near the center of
the development adjacent to the Farm at the Village center as depicted on the drawing
attached, labeled ‘SV IZ Focus Areas Overview’. Existing residential construction includes single
family, duplex, triplex and multi-family homes. Our proposal is for fifteen duplexes, half of
which will be ‘affordable’ units and half will be market rate, one neighborhood commercial
mixed use building, a soccer field and adding additional acreage to Open Space for the benefit
of the neighborhood and expanding acreage for the Farm. The existing City Rec path will run
alongside the Lots providing connectivity in the neighborhood and the greater community.
South Village has very stringent Design Review Standards that were developed in large
part in concert with City Staff and the DRB as part of prior approvals. All construction will be in
keeping with these criteria, which both meet and exceed the City’s LDR standards.
South Village Communities, LLC c/o Spear & Allen LLC
P.O. Box 2286, S. Burlington, VT 05407 Tel: 802-658-0202, Fax: 802-658-6869
We are submitting for your review the following.
1) Interim Zoning Application
2) Cover Letter (this piece)
3) Interim Zoning Q & A #9, re Application Item #9
4) Drawing labeled ‘SV IZ Focus Areas Overview
5) Modification Plat by Civil Engineering Associates
6) Landscape Plans by TJ Boyle Landscape Planners
L-101 Overall Site Plan 3-5-21
Lot 11 L-100
Lot 11A L-100
Lot 11B-L-100
Lot 48N -L-100
7) South Village DRC (design review) Standards
8) Adjoiner List
We look forward to meeting with you regarding this application. Please don’t hesitate to call or
write should you have any questions regarding our application or South Village in general.
Best regards,
Robin Jeffers
SD Ireland
PO Box 2286
S. Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 863-6222 office
(802) 316-6004 mobile
robin@sdireland.com
INTERIM ZONING REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
Interim Bylaws: Additional Information Request and Response
a) How the proposed project is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the City of South Burlington in
consideration of the stated purposes of the Interim Bylaws
Short Answer:
The proposed projects will create no additional risks to the City as all major infrastructure and services to support
the project are currently in place and previously approved. The lots are currently a vacant building lots. The
construction will utilize existing municipal water, and sewer, infrastructure is already installed along Allen Rd E,
Preserve and N. Jefferson Roads. All major utilities are also installed. Traffic will be less than originally planned
and more land is being added to Open Space and Agricultural use.
Long Answer:
South Village models the very principles of the Interim Zoning Bylaws. South Village’s development plan was
created to be a model of smart growth strategy that preserved open space of ponds, meadow, upland forest and
wildlife corridors, concentrated development into a dense area, integral walkability, and many types of housing
suitable for a large spectrum of the South Burlington demographic including affordable housing.
South Village is a model community demonstrating in living proof how careful and well thought out development
strategies can combine community, land stewardship and sustainability. The neighborhood has three key
elements that work together to bring this about.
We are a ‘Conservation Community’. This began with the initial design of the neighborhood; taking into
consideration all the natural resources on site and the impacts development will have both on and off site in the
layout of the site. In addition to land planning, the neighborhood’s Bylaws govern the land and its use to
perpetuate land conservation. South Village has over 130 acres of combined upland, meadow, forests, ponds, and
marshes held in conservation in perpetuity. All storm water from homes in the development flow into ponds and
streams on site through grass swales established with careful planning. The use of fertilizers and pesticides are
forbidden in the Bylaws, hence the water quality in the streams and ponds is viable habitat for many species of
wildlife. The 130 acres of conservation land is actively managed by a Stewardship Board funded through a .05%
contribution from every home sale that occurs in the neighborhood. The funds are used to support agriculture
and open land conservation measures including the control of invasive growth and habitat restoration for local
species. The open land is a great resource for quiet pursuits of walking, x-country skiing and snowshoeing. Pets
are not allowed in conservation land for its preservation and out of desire to preserve the natural wildlife habitat
and corridors that exist on the land.
South Village’s Traditional Neighborhood Design, or ‘TND’ is a design structure that concentrates homes to be set
close together, connected by a network of streets, alleys, sidewalks and recreation paths. This type of layout
encourages a pedestrian friendly, walkable neighborhood. An internal Design Review committee ensures all
homes are designed with neighborhood friendly features, such as open front porches & gracious welcoming
entries. The proximity of homes to sidewalks combines with architectural features creates the opportunity for
neighbor-to-neighbor connection. Shared green spaces located within the neighborhood are additional places for
gathering and recreation. A mix of homes types, styles and price points are offered at South Village; including
custom Single Family, Cottages, Townhomes, Condominiums and Apartments. The style and variety of homes
creates a diverse demographic with something for everyone of various stages of life and income. The TND
structure is reminiscent of older urban neighborhoods with blends of single family and multi-family housing.
South Village is also proud to be an ‘Agrihood’, a development which is centered on an agricultural feature or
hub. South Village has at its center an Organic Farm of roughly 13 acres. The Farm is operated through a
partnership with Common Roots; a non-for-profit local organization supporting food security locally. Common
Roots employs two full-time farmers, interns, and volunteers all who farm the land and grow organic produce for
an on-site Farm Stand. Residents support the Farm by purchasing fresh produce grown at the Farm 8-9 months
of the year. Resident programs include rearing chickens and gardening in raised beds on the farm with voluntary
enrollment. Common Roots combines farming the land at Underwood and South Village to grow produce to
support the community with for-purchase items at the Farm Stand at South Village and for the South Burlington
Food Shelf, farmers market and other programs to benefit food security in South Burlington. The Farm Stand is
open to the public. All produce is organically grown.
The projects before you today, represent infill of the approved Master Plan of South Village. The proposed
development presented is for previously approved land area designated for development in the development
nucleus areas that are set apart from the conservation land.
b) How the proposed project is consistent with studies being conducted, draft bylaws or bylaw amendments,
and/or any draft comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendments under consideration.
South Village’s design plan and the infill of that plan presented here are fully consistent with the goals outlined in
the City’s bylaws and is in conformance with zoning for this area.
c) The project’s relationship to or effect upon each of the following:
(i) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or lands;
Utilities, service and infrastructure are established in this portion of the City. The project will infill this area and
utilize the existing resources. The project will increase affordable housing units and market rate units’ inventory
and create additional Open Space for the benefit of all residents of South Burlington. The number of units does
not create any increase in burden on any facilities as these unit have been planned to be accommodated since
2008.
(ii) The existing patterns and uses of development in the area;
The proposal is consistent with existing patterns within the development and neighborhood and zoning district.
It is infill of previously approved lots. I.e., what is proposed is to complete what has already been Master Plan
approved, on lots that were Master Plan approved. No new land area is presented to be developed. Additional
land is being proposed to be added to Open Space. Attaining density on the land slated for development and
bringing affordable units online will be the result of this area being completed.
(iii) Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites; and,
There are no known environmental limitations on the site of significant natural resources areas that will be
impacted by this project. The proposed plan will contribute additional Open Space land to the land already
conserved in the neighborhood.
(iv) Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect.
The plan is designed in conformance with all municipal plans, bylaws, ordinances, and regulations.
PS378
377
376364CLASS 3 WETLAND(Classification byTina Heath onAugust 1, 2018)DT
T 10376376.5375.5375.5374.5375376.5CHURCHHILL STREETLOT 11BLOT 11.1LOT 11.2EXISTING REC. PATH
DOU
G
L
A
S
L
A
N
E BIKE/REC.SOUTH VILLAGE DRIVE
FARM
W
A
Y
BIKE
/
R
E
C
.BIKE/REC.N
O
R
T
H
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
R
D
.ALLEN ROAD EASTPRESERVE ROADTTO FARM(LOT 63)COMMUNITYPAVILIONEXISTING BARNLOT 11 ANEIGHBORHOODCOMMERCIALLOT 11LOT 11 EOPEN SPACE(2.9 ACRES)SOLAR ACCESS RD.FARM ACCESS RD.LOT 11 BTO BE TRANSFERREDTO CITYrevisionsdate revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:OVERALL SITE PLANSOUTH VILLAGE - LOTS 11 & 48L-1011" = 50'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byMJB/DJAchecked by05/14/2020PLAN ISSUED03/05/2021MJBLOT 96OPENSPACE(.67ACRES)LOT 95LOT 94LOT 93LOT 92
Agricultural Lease
LOT 63
12.67± Ac.
(Open Space)
0.23 Ac. of Lot 48
(Open Space)
Exist. 20' wide
multi-purpose
easement for
stormwater &
potential future
recreation paths
n/f L. Long
Exempt Family Trust
1N
2N
3N
4N
5N
6N
7N
8N
9N
10N
11N
12N
13N
14N
15N
16N
17N
18N
19N
21N
20N
22N
23N
24N25N
26N 27N 28N
29N
30N
31N
32N
33N
34N
35N
36N
37N
38N
39N
40N
41N
42N
43N
44N
45N
46N
47N
48aN
49aN 50N
51N
52N
53N
54N
55N
66N
67N
68N-79N
PARCEL "c"
2.22 ac.
Proposed Street
Dedication Table
N. Jefferson Rd. 2.27± Ac.
Churchill Street 0.95± Ac.
Preserve Road 1.76± Ac.
Total: 4.98± Ac.
STORMWATER
DETENTION AREA
(TYPICAL)
SCHEMATIC
BLDG. LOTS
ONLY (TYP.)PARCEL "A2"PARCEL "B" 0.94 ac.n/f C.E. Long
Revocable Trust
PARCEL "D"
1.91 Acres
"Quiet Path"
Exact location to be
determined during
construction
"Quiet Path"
Exact location to be
determined during
construction
"Quiet Path"
Exact location to be
determined during
construction
Lot 68N 80N-91N
3.52 Ac.
of Lot 48
(Open Space)
0.49 Ac. of Lot 48
(Open Space)
116.94± Ac.
of Lot 48
(Open Space)
PARCEL "A2"
1.08 acres
56N
57N
58N
59N 60N 61N 62N
63N
64N
65N
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
AREA ACCESS
"Quiet Path"
Exact location to be
determined during
constructionOPEN SPACE 0.670 acrePARCEL "A1"
0.51 acres
92
93
94
95
11
11C
11B
11A
Exist. Lot 11B: 2.710± Ac.
From Lot 11A +0.206±Ac.
Adjusted 11B 2.916± Ac.
Exist. Lot 11A: 2.074± Ac.
To Lot 11B -0.206± Ac.
To Lot 11C -0.519± Ac.
Adjusted 11A 1.349± Ac.
From Orig. Lot 11 5.048± Ac.
New Lot 11 2.715±Ac.
From Orig. Lot 11: 2.332± Ac.
From Lot 11A +0.519± Ac.
New Lot 11C 2.851± Ac.
0.078± Ac.
From Lot 63
Proposed Easement
Serving Lot 11B
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
NEW LOTS
92 - 95
1. Purpose of this plat is to depict the creation of additional lots
numbered 92 - 95, and reconfiguration of Lot 11, 11A and 11B into
additional lot 11C. Reference shall be made to previous plats
(referenced hereon) for further notes on the underlying lands and
adjacent parcels.
2. The perimeter boundary survey was performed during 2004-5 usingan electronic total stations and GPS.
3. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, Vermont Coordinate
System of 1983, related to National Geodetic Survey marks PG1580
"F 65" and AB9571 "NE Aiken" established by RTK GPS
measurements.
4. Spear Street generally has a 66 foot wide right of way. Location
was determined by existing monumentation and the traveled portion
of the road. Reference Town of Burlington "Highways and Roads
1802-1865", Page 22, and Town of Shelburne Town Minutes
Volume 1, Page 229.
5. This property lies within the "Southeast Quadrant" and the "Spear
Street - Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay" zoning districts.
- Legend -
- Survey Notes -
NOTE:
CAPPED IRON RODS
PROPOSED AT LOT
CORNERS (TYP.)
- Short Line Table -- Curve Table -
To the best of my knowledge & belief this plat properlydepicts the results of a survey conducted under mysupervision and is based upon records & field evidencefound. Boundaries shown are in substantial conformance
with the records unless noted otherwise. This plat is in
substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403 "Recording of
Land Plats".
_______________________________________
Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597
CEA
1" = 80'
01243
PL
10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403
802-864-2323 web: www.cea-vt.com
Proposed
Modification of Subdivision
Lots 11 - 11C & 92 - 95
SOUTH VILLAGE
COMMUNITIES, LLC
East of Spear Street
South Burlington, Vermont
TRC
TRC
JULY 6, 2020
RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT
_____ O'CLOCK ON THE _____ DAY OF __________, 20____.
ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE ____ DAY OF
_____________, 2015, SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID
RESOLUTION.
SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 20___,
BY _____________________________, CHAIRPERSON.
D
R
A
F
T
42N
7/0
6
/
2
0
See Referenced Plat,
Sheet P1 for Location
Map & Sheet P3 for
Phase 2 Easements
61N-70N
SPECIAL SET-BACK NOTE
The following single-family lots,marked with an asterisk (*) haverecieved special DRB approvalfor 5' setbacks for side and rearsetbacks, and 10' street-facingsetbacks. The subject lots arenumbered: 38N, 39N, 40N, 41N,42N, 43N, 44N, 45N, 46N, 47N,48aN, 49aN, 50N, 51N, 52N,53N, 54N, 55N, 66N, and 67N.
- Short Line Table -
- Reference Plats -
Reference shall be made to: "Phase 2 Lotting Plat,
South Village Communities, LLC", by CivilEngineering Associates, Inc., dated October 31, 2013
and last revised June 9, 2017, along with Sheets P1
and P3 of that set. South Burlington Land Records.
D
R
A
F
T
7/
0
6
/
2
0
ALLEN ROAD EAST11A371372373370370374375W W
W
2' WIDE x 1' DEEPSTONE DIAPHRAGMPER DETAIL SHEET C4.070' x 65' LONG FILTER STRIPGRASS S= 0.02 (< 8% MAX.)375376377378CLASS 3 WETLAND(CLASSIFICATION BY TINA HEATH ONAUGUST ,,2018)374
374
EXISTING CLASS IIIWETLANDSTSTSTEXISTING PROPERTYLINE TO BE DISSOLVEDEND OF EX.REC. PATHEND OF EX. REC. PATHWWWWWWSTSTSTSTDG G
UEUEUEFMFMEDGE OF EXISTINGSTORMWATER11AALLEN ROAD EASTPROPOSED1 STORY BUILDINGF.F.E. =379.0PROPOSED2 STORY BUILDING63376374372 370368EXISTING REC. PATH361360356356360359358357359 360361 360SPEAR STREET
365
3
6
6
3
6
7
3
6
8 374375376377372373368374370374374
373369370371372
372372
371371 T37348EXISTING REC. PATH
370369358357356 356357358359360357358359SOUTH VILLAGE DRIVEEEEEEEE
E
E
E
EXING360358362360360357361361356356354354356.5358356354352352EEEEEEEEEEEESTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTSTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESTFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG375377375
376375378377374
369366 370363365364368367
3733743753723733743
7
5
3
7
3
3
7
2
371GST
PROPOSED 12' GRAVELFARM ACCESS ROADEXISTING CLASS III WETLAND(REFER TO SOUTH VILLAGE SOCCER FIELDSWETLAND CLASSIFICATION REPORT #2013-049COMPLETED BY TINA HEATH V.D.E.C. DISTRICTWETLAND ECOLOGIST ON AUGUST 10, 2018STD3
7
5
376378377378 377378377376375377376378377376375374MLM (5)BNH (6)SR (4)PSPF (7)CC (5)MA (3)SR (6)PSR (3)PMRPMR (3)CAH (10)CKF (20)TMD (4)JSB (4)AABAABHP (8)WT (10)WT (10)RAGL (6)TC (5)ATS (18)JSB (3)CM (7)MA (3)revisionsdate revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:LANDSCAPE PLANSOUTH VILLAGE - LOT 11AL-1001" = 20'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byMJB/DJAchecked by05/14/2020MJBPLAN ISSUED11/24/2020LEGENDDECIDUOUS TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL,ORNAMENTAL TREECONIFER TREESCONIFER SMALL TREESHRUB DECIDUOSSHRUB CONIFERPERENNIAL, GROUNDCOVER,RAIN GARDEN MIXEXISTING TREE TO REMAIN2L-201RAILING/FENCE POST CONNETIONTYP.3L-201GRAVITY WALL DETAILTYP.1L-201POST AND BEAM TRAFFIC BARRIERTYP.
EXISTING FARM ROAD11BSPEAR STREET
375375374373373374372371372373
372
373374373371372373370370370374375376375376PROPOSED GRAVELPARKING LOTPROPOSED ADAACCESSIBLE PARKINGSIGN (TYP. FOR 3)W
W
W
W
W1"1 14"PROPOSED BLOW-OFFASSEMBLY375376377378PROPOSED
G
R
A
V
E
L
ACCESS RO
A
D
CLASS 3 WETLAND(CLASSIFICATION BY TINA HEATH ONAUGUST ,,2018)374
374
63STSTWWWW11B63376374372 370368374373374
374373374 366368367 369370372371373373373
37437637537837737936636937037
3
372 371
EXISTING PROPERTYPROPOSED PROPERTYLINELOT 11BSMT (10)MA (3)MA (5)BNH (4)SR (4)CM (4)CC (3)PSPF (10)VP1JSFJSFrevisionsdate revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:LANDSCAPE PLANSOUTH VILLAGE - LOT 11BL-1001" = 20'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byMJB/DJAchecked by05/14/2020MJBLEGENDDECIDUOUS TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL,ORNAMENTAL TREECONIFER TREESCONIFER SMALL TREESHRUB DECIDUOSSHRUB CONIFERPERENNIAL, GROUNDCOVER,RAIN GARDEN MIXEXISTING TREE TO REMAINPLAN ISSUED11/24/2020
373376.4 ++ 375.5+ 376.4+ 376.2+ 376.3374375376375+ 373.4+ 373.8+ 374.0+ 376.0+ 374.2+ 373.62%4%374.1 +1"2' WIDE x 1' DEEPSTONE DIAPHRAGMPER DETAIL SHEET C4.0374.1 +70' x 65' LONG FILTER STRIPGRASS S= 0.02 (< 8% MAX.)375.5 +375376377378373.3 +CLASS 3 WETLAND(CLASSIFICATION BY TINA HEATH ONAUGUST ,,2018)EXISTING CLASS IIIWETLANDEXISTING PROPERTYLINE TO BE DISSOLVED6337348E EEE EEEEEEEWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWSTST
W
WWWWWWWWWW
W
W
WWFM SSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S S
SST ST
ST STSTSTS
S
S
SS
SU
DUDUDU
D
U
D
U
D
U
D
U
D
UD
U
D
U
D
U
D
U
D
UDUDUDU
D
ST
ST
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
SEEEEEEEEEEEE
E
E
EEE
E
E
E
EppG
G
G
G
G
G
G
GG
GGGGFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
G
G
G
GGGGGGGGGGGGG3693703
7
1
3
7
2
3
7
3 390388
387
3863853
84
3
8
3
381
379
380
382
375375373374373374374
376
37
5
38
1
379
380
37
8
3
7
7
366368
36
7
365
376 37537
3
3
7
4 376375376375374
373372378 377375 376375378377380385390 374
376375378377375
37
8
377
376EX. FARM ROADEXISTING CLASS IIWETLAND AND 50'BUFFEREX. ELEC. CABINETEXISTING WETLANDEXISTING CLASS III WETLAND(REFER TO SOUTH VILLAGE SOCCER FIELDSWETLAND CLASSIFICATION REPORT #2013-049COMPLETED BY TINA HEATH V.D.E.C. DISTRICTWETLAND ECOLOGIST ON AUGUST 10, 2018EX. BARNW
W
W
W
W
WWWSTSSSSSSSPROPOSED PROPERTYLINEEXISTING PROPERTYLINE TO DISSOLVEDPROPOSED 24' x 32'PAVILIONPROPOSED PROPERTYLINEST
ST
ST
ST
S
TSTSTSTSTFD
FD
F
D
FDFDFDFDFDFD
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
FD FDSSSSSWSWWSWWWSSSSUEUEUE UEUEUEUEUEUE
UEUE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE
EX. ELEC. CABINETSTD375 376378377NO
R
T
H
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
R
O
A
DALLEN ROAD EAST11635152541210B10A10611DO
U
G
L
A
S
L
A
N
EOPEN GREEN SPACE53FAR
M
W
A
Y
SOUTH JEFFERSO
N
R
O
A
DDEWEY PLACESLADE STREET
381381376
EXISTI
N
G
R
E
C
.
P
A
T
H
380
380
379
375
377
378377376375373371371378
37
9
37237437837
8
37
7
378377378378
378
37
7
37
6
3
7
6
377376
375
374
37
4 377
37
33773
7
7 379380376 380380382383379378381380379379380 384381382383383382 380384382383 382382383384381
380
379
379 380380381384384384383383383382382382382
3813803823
7
3
378378378 377379 37937837737637537937837
8
378
379
378
3773
7
6
WSWSWSWSWST
T
381
380
380377376
10377376376.5375.5
377375375.5374.537837737638138037937737637537437337237137137537537837437937937
6375377
378377376.5PROPOSED 5'MULCH PATH3 RAIL WHITE VINYL FENCETYP.3-RAIL VINYL
FENCE TYP.TO FARM (LOT 63)LOT 11.1LOT 11.237637537837763
37N36NCMS (12)VD (5)VD (5)CS (8)CS (5)CS(9)CR (9)CR (8)CR (6)BNH (3)ARB (3)AFC (7)MAGT (3)GT(7)MAMAMAAL (3)AL (3)MAAFC (2)AL (3)ALALQCQCQCQCCKF (7)CKF (5)TMD (3)HP (3)HP (2)MA (3)SR (4)CC (3)ARB (3)PSC (6)MULTI-FAMILY LOTLANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILrevisionsdate revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:LANDSCAPE PLANSOUTH VILLAGE - LOT 11L-1001" = 30'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byMJB/DJAchecked by05/14/2020MJB10L-200LEGENDDECIDUOUS TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL,ORNAMENTAL TREECONIFER TREESCONIFER SMALL TREESHRUB DECIDUOSSHRUB CONIFERPERENNIAL, GROUNDCOVER,RAIN GARDEN MIXEXISTING TREE TO REMAINLIGHTING PLAN B - MID-BLOCK 22L-101L-101LIGHTING PLAN A - MID-BLOCK 11L-101PLAN REVISED12/31/2020LIGHTING PLAN A - MID-BLOCK 33L-101
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W W
WWWWWW379379378378378377377377376376376374374374373373373372372372371371369369WW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS UDUDUDSSUDUDSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDSTUDSTSTSTSTSTUDUDSTSEEEEEEEEEEE
E E EEEEEEEEppppGGGG
G
G G G
GGGGGGGGGGGGG36937037137237337437537637737737837
8
379
380
381
382 383WWFARMS EDGE ROADREALIGN EX.REC. PATHSPLIT RAIL FENCE TYP.3-RAIL VINYLFENCE TYP.PRESERVE ROADCHURCHHILL STREETST ST STSS S SFD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUESSSS UEUEUEUEUEUESSSSTSTSTSTSTSTST6337N36N35N34N33N32N31N30N28N27N26N48N50N49aN25N93N949592N24N3
8
0374 375371W372374379376378370 37
8373372
380381380381379378377376375381374373372FD
3
7
8
W379 3
7
7 3763793803
7
9TFD377FD
FD 376375378381
380
380 63379378380379378377376375379380380381370381380UEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE12'STORMWATEREASEMENT TO H.O.A.STORMWATER EASEMENTSTORMWATER EASEMENT8'8'EXISTING REC. PATHVD (20)BNH (3)BNH (3)PO (6)TC (5)PSC (6)MP(5)MA (6)AL (4)CKF (5)TMD (3)HP (2)PRIVATE DRIVE SIGNrevisionsdate revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:LANDSCAPE PLANSOUTH VILLAGE - LOT 48NL-1001" = 30'T. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byMJB/DJAchecked by05/14/2020MJBLEGENDDECIDUOUS TREEDECIDUOUS SMALL,ORNAMENTAL TREECONIFER TREESCONIFER SMALL TREESHRUB DECIDUOSSHRUB CONIFERPERENNIAL, GROUNDCOVER,RAIN GARDEN MIXEXISTING TREE TO REMAINLIGHTING PLAN - MID-BLOCK 11L-101PLAN REVISED12/22/2020
November 25, 2015 p1
Design Review Standards
*All home, site and landscape designs and color schemes to receive SVC DRC review prior to
construction and any exterior addition or alteration. Each home also requires a City of South
Burlington Building Permit and Ordinance compliance. All designs should take in account
neighboring homes and landscapes and meet Energy Code Plus or better energy standards.
General;
Home design shall overall be reflective of general “New England” architecture styles, with
traditional lines, fenestration, décor, etc. Cape, Colonial, Cottage, Bungalow, Farmhouse,
Federal, Georgian, Greek revival, Queen Anne, Saltbox, Shingle, Victorian, etc
Home Color:
Buildings shall be of a palette that would constitute a “Historical’ palette, of natural tones that
are complimentary. Benjamin Moore “Historical Palette” may be used as a general reference.
Excessively bright and/or neon types of colors are not allowed. Home trim to be white.
Entrys:
Each building shall have a front entry that is street facing, it shall be easily distinguishable so
that the street facing front entry is the primary visual entry and more prominent than any other
entry. Each ‘front’ entry shall have a feature that further defines it, examples are; covering,
large stoop, front porch, or have extensive architectural trim surround on the front door that
clearly establishes the entry from other doors or window openings, the added definition to
provide added visual ‘welcome’ and identification. The result should be an entry that any
passerby would easily identify as the ‘front door’. The door or street connected element
(example: porch) shall have a front walk leading to it from the street.
Street visible elevations (911 Address view perspective including full sides if a corner lot):
Any home elevation visible from the street & sidewalk shall have architectural fenestration so
that there are no ‘blank’ walls of 12’ or greater, examples are; but not limited to; door, window,
false window, etc. Each expanse of a full story shall have this fenestration, ie, 2 stories, a
window or other listed element at the first and second level. The requirement is double for
any expanse of 20’ or greater, ie, 2 windows or such per story per span.
Street view perspective shall be is defined to be, the 911 street elevation (front) of the home
and 50% of the side elevation street forward from midline of the home on each side, (ie 50% of
the side elevations),unless a full side is visible from the street, by nature of being on a corner
lot, or other lot configuration where a directly neighboring home is absent, in which case the
entire exposed side is to meet the street visible criteria.
Street facing trim color detailing;
All street facing trim elements; skirt boards, risers, railings, deck trim, frieze, columns, lattice,
window & door trim, rim board, gables, drip edge, gutters, fascia, rake, soffit, etc. shall be
November 25, 2015 p2
white. Doors, shutters and louvers may be colored; color to be approved by DRC approved
historical color palate. *All multiplex units are to have railings on their front porches.
Windows:
All street facing windows shall be primarily double hung, divided light aesthetic that are 2 over
2 or greater in division. Use of transoms, bow and custom windows keeping with the
traditional appearance scheme are encouraged. Window plans shall have symmetry and
cohesiveness with the home plan in general.
Shutters:
If shutters are installed they are to be sized logically to fit (cover) the window to which they are
adjacent.
Garages:
Street facing garages shall be set back 8’ from the front of the home’s conditioned space and
separated from the Entry element of the home, so as to not substantially become the first part
of the home a visitor connects with. Street facing garages shall have some element of
architectural style; windows, or combination of hardware and window, or other trim such as
pergola or similar treatment, window transom, etc. to lend visual appeal to the expanse of door
or door surround area. *An exception may be taken to the 8’ setback from conditioned space if
the home has a full front porch, the 8’ setback may be measured from the face of the full front
porch subject to the following definition; a full front porch shall be at least 6’ in depth and be at
least as wide as 60% of any street facing garage elevation on the home with a street facing two
car garage. Side & rear load garages are encouraged. Side load garages may be home forward
(see city ordinance) if appearance from the street is not of the garage door. Garage sides shall
meet street facing element requirements. Rear load garages are exempt from the 8’ setback
standard by their nature. Any garage wall on the rear façade of a home that faces another
home or a street shall have fenestration on that wall of window and/or door.
House width in relation to garage width:
Street facing facades of homes shall be balanced that the street elevation of conditioned space
shall be no less than 70% width in relationship to the width of a street facing garage that serves
the unit.
Landscaping;
All homes shall have foundation plantings to soften the transition of street & lawn to home,
plantings to be non invasive species and sized (at mature growth) to be suitable for the home
and lot and Landscape Guidelines. Plantings shall be placed to screen the front and side of the
home from the street of service equipment, under porch openings, etc. Trees shall be placed to
provide shade/ and or privacy to the front and rear/side of the dwelling. Care should be taken
in selection of plants to offer multi-season interest, privacy screening ability. The required
plantings for the home shall be used for ‘street dressing’ first, balance, if any, may be
distributed around the home. Support of natural food supply for birds, bees and or people is
November 25, 2015 p3
encouraged, ie flowering and or fruiting plants. Existing trees and shrubbery should be retained
and preserved if possible. Each home’s initial landscape plan shall incorporate at minimum,
Single Family: 2 trees, 8 shrubs, & 8-12 perennials
Duplex: 4 trees, 10 shrubs, & 8-12 perennial plantings
Triplex: 6 trees, 12 shrubs, & 12 perennial plantings
Landscape budget for plants purchase (not including installation) alone shall be $1000 or more
per dwelling at initial planting. (Phase 1 homes duplex and triplex standards are separate, see
city permit) Lawns are to be a conservation low mow mix. Mulch is to match the neighborhood
standard. (Brown as of this writing: hemlock, subject to change) Stormwater drainage flow
should not be altered. Any change to be reviewed on the site plan of the application and is
subject to the projects approved stormwater permit.
Definitions: A tree can be described as a plant with a shoot system that’s supported by a single woody
trunk of at least three inches in diameter, a crown of foliage and a height of 13 feet when mature.
Shrubs differ from trees, they are more inclined to branch nearer the ground and they may have several
narrow stems as opposed to a single trunk. The height is generally less than 13 feet and stems less than
three inches in diameter. (An exception is granted for Birch Trees to be a multi stem clump) All other
trees and shrubs shall meet the definitions.
Walkways :
A front walk shall connect each home to the street and or common element in lieu of street.
Alleys & Lanes shall not be considered to be streets or common elements to meet this
standard. The walks shall be constructed of material that may be winter maintainable
(shoveled easily) and may be made of; brick, pavers, concrete or stone, etc.
Fencing:
All street facing fencing shall be white, picket is encouraged. All fence hardware shall be home
facing, not street facing. All fencing shall otherwise follow the existing guidelines, and shall not
exceed 48”h, 3’6” is deemed standard, shall be located 6” inside of property line or more, etc.
See more in Declaration guidelines on fencing.
Decks:
Shall be constructed of wood or wood composite or wood replacement material that has the
look and feel of wood. Decks shall have landscape screening in place around the deck to soften
it’s connection to the site and afford privacy to any under-elements.
Siding:
Shall be of wood, vinyl or cement board material and shall be clapboard of not greater than 4
½”, or shingles or shakes. Stone and brick siding and veneers are allowed, subject to visual plan
review.
Roofs;
Shall be pitched unless granted an exception by the DR committee. Roofing materials are to be
architectural or natural shingle, standing seam composite, or stone in DRC approved earth tone
November 25, 2015 p4
coloration. Based on IKO Cambridge series: Harvard Slate, Earthtone Cedar, Dual Black are
approved, other colors in keeping with historical coloration design may also be accepted.
Lighting:
All exterior lighting shall meet or exceed ‘Dark Sky’ Standards, and installations 2015 and later
shall be LED. (LED is encouraged in all exterior fixtures)
Flag Lot Variance:
Flag lot homes shall have the visible portion of the home made attractive from the street.
Garages may be sideload, ie: not set back 8’, not visible from the street, or if visible from the
street and not set back, be made more attractive by means of at least two (2) accessory
elements of small roof, pergola, decorative door style, etc, or be made to appear as an auxiliary
building, such as a barn, etc.
Additional Guidelines;
a. Each home shall feature a neighborhood friendly welcome-integrative front door
facing the street of generous stoop, covered landing, or porch,
b. No home with same design of street elevation within 3 lots of same design,
c. No home regardless of style of identical color within 3 lots of a home of the same
color,
d. A maximum of three homes with an identical color scheme,
e. A maximum of two duplexes of the same color scheme,
f. No Duplex of identical design of street elevation side by side.
g. Identical Design differentiation shall be further defined to be a change clearly
visible to the naked eye from the street, of a fundamental element, ie a change in
roof direction, and/or a change to the plane of street facing elevation in number of
windows and or doors, joining of windows or separation of windows, to be more
distinct than a change in window size, may also be a change in materials, siding to
shingle, brick or stone, or other change that is readily apparent, etc.
h. Historical colors are encouraged to achieve a cohesive palette. The Benjamin
Moore Historical palette shall serve as a reference for color variance selection. All
color schemes to receive DRC approval prior to implementation.
*The above shall not nullify any pre-existing guidelines of the Declaration, Bylaws or Land
Management plan, but shall serve to add clarification to those guidelines already in place. The
South Village Design Review Committee reserves the right to add more defined input and
directive into design of new homes not yet presented as of this date, and this document may be
amended from time to time by addition.
November 25, 2015 p5
Review Procedure: Plans shall be submitted to the design review committee for review on a
DRC request form and include elevations w detail, site & landscape plans. Upon submission of a
request for review, the Design Review Committee shall meet and provide a reply within two
weeks’ time on a new build, and/or generate comment that may require additional information
to be provided and/or presented. If a plan meets all the above criteria, an approval shall be
written. An initial architectural review may be requested for an informal review, that review
shall be non-binding. The DRC retains it’s currently adopted 30 day review window for all other
applications. Waivers from Standards can be sought, but not necessarily will be given.
These standards are adopted and accepted by the South Village DRC Board, effective 7-8-15.
These standards are written in accordance with all City Land Development Regulations and City
Ordinances, and meets all SVC current City Permit requirements
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4131 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Interim Zoning Application #IZ-21-02 (5 Johnson Way)
DATE: April 19, 2021 City Council meeting
Brendan and Alexandra Connolly are proposed a 3-lot subdivision that would be located off Sadie Lane
and Dorset Street. The development consists subdividing an existing 7.98 acre parcel into three lots: two
lots of approximately ½ acre each to be developed with a single family home off Sadie Lane, and the
remaining lands consisting of an existing house accessed via Johnson Way. The same parent parcel was
subdivided into three lots a few years ago, and so in total there are now 5 lots involved [and hence the
unusual lot numbers included in this application].
The application is subject to Interim Zoning because it involves subdivision of land, a new Planned Unit
Development (PUD), a new principal building, and was submitted after October 25, 2018 in an area not
exempted from the Interim Zoning bylaw.
DRB & Interim Zoning Review
The application has been reviewed by the DRB at the sketch plan level. The Board gave feedback in that
review regarding orientation of the two proposed homes on lots 4 & 5 and on screening. However, the
recommended modifications would likely be achieved within the same lot areas as shown on the plan.
The Planning Commission has warned draft amendments to the Environmental Protection Standards of
the Land Development Regulations. The property has significant areas of Class II wetlands, including to
the immediate east and west of the proposed development on lots 4 & 5. The draft amendments
propose to increase the wetland buffer requirements in certain parts of the city, including the subject
property’s zoning district (SEQ-VR), from 50’ to 100’. The draft LDRs also show a proposed Habitat
Connector located just to the south of proposed lots 4 & 5. Regarding other draft amendments, the
project would likely fall below the threshold for a Planned Unit Development.
Enclosed with this packet:
• Applicant Interim Zoning cover letter, addressing the Interim Bylaw
• Overall Sketch Plan
Staff recommends the Council open the public hearing, receive testimony from the applicant, pose
questions, and offer an opportunity for the public to provide input. Afterwards, the Council may:
2
1. Close the public hearing. In closing the hearing, the Council must issue a written decision within
45 days and can decide whether to hold a deliberative session to discuss and provide staff
direction on preparing the decision.
2. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to receive additional testimony from the applicant
or other Interested Persons, obtain any additional information or analysis requested of staff, the
Planning Commission, or others, or review any modifications requested of the applicant
35
8
36036
0
361361
3
6
2
363
3643
6
4 3653663
6
6 367368368
369371 374374376376 321'170'
141'307'552'ZONING STATISTICSVILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (VR)MAXIMUM DENSITY MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE MAXIMUM TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKMINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKMINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK30%40%20 FEET10 FEET30 FEETREQUIRED / 6%20 FEET10 FEET30 FEETPROPOSEDPROJECT STATISTICSALLOWEDMINIMUM GREEN SPACE30% 94%PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINELEGENDCONTOUR LINE - MINORCONTOUR LINE - MAJORPROPOSED LOT LINEEDGE OF WOODS8 UNITS/ACRESETBACK<1 UNITS/ACRE 2%SIDELINE OF EASEMENTCIVIL ASSOCIATES, PLCO'LEARY-BURKE 13 CORPORATE DRIVEESSEX JCT., VTPHONE: 878-9990FAX: 878-9989E-MAIL: obca@olearyburke.com1"=50'OBCAOBCAOBCAOBCA2020-100-S350-Scale Overall Sketch PlanSouth Burlington Vermont12020-1001-20-20215 Johnson WayWETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFEROwner/ApplicantBRENDAN & ALEXANDRA CONNOLLYP.O BOX 2577SAG HARBOR, NY 1196JOHN & KATHLEENPENNUCCIPARCEL ID: 0570-01721JERYL & SHELAGHSHAPIROPARCEL ID: 0570-01705JOHN & SUSAN JEWETTPARCEL ID: 0085-001971700 DORSET ST. LOT 2 LLCPARCEL ID: 0570-01700-2EXISTING LOT #2DONALD JOHNSON &BRITTANY MELVINPARCEL ID: 0570-01700-3EXISTING LOT #3KATHERINE MARSELLAPARCEL ID: 1475-00108BROCK & JENNIFER LYMANPARCEL ID: 0570-01630THE CIDER MILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONPARCEL ID: 0570-R158047'
245'
144'124'185'275'158'79'PARCEL #: 0570-01700SPAN: 600-188-12924ZONING DISTRICT: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL(VR)PARCEL ACREAGE: 7.98 ACRESSTATE
O
FVERMONTNo. 018.0114132 REGISTEREDPROFESSIONALE
N
GINEER
BRY
A
W.CURRIERNTHIS PLAN IS NOT TO BE USED FOR PROPERTY CONVEYANCE.Note: EXISTINGBUILDINGLot #1(Remaining Lands)7.02 acresNew Lot #40.48 AcresNew Lot #50.48 AcresPARCEL: 0570-01700ORIGINAL AREA = 7.98 ACRESClass II Wetland Delineated byGilman & Briggs Environmental464'Location PlanEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING FORCE MAIN160
'
117'
STATEMENT BY THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ENERGY COMMITTEE
RELATED TO
THE CCRPC I-89 CORRIDOR STUDY
April 14, 2021
The SBEC recognizes the tremendous amount of work that has been done to arrive at metrics and to
score those metrics. Ultimately, though, we believe that the scoring leads to "false precision" and -
while the scoring may provide some relevant indicators - we don't really think the metric scoring should
be the principal means of decisioning around this project.
The metrics and scoring are false precision for a few reasons.
One, the differences between the metrics projected out to 2050 are likely - in most cases - too small to
be statistically significant. It is likely the case that the differences are simply not bigger than the
uncertainties in the inputs. Placing discrete scores with meaningful differences on small differences
significantly amplifies those small differences beyond what is likely appropriate.
Also, the ultimate score is (in a sense) pre-determined by the particular goals that are chosen, and can
be significantly biased by how those goals are weighted. For instance, if more goals are
"environmentally sensitive", there may be one result, whereas if more of the goals are "development
oriented", there may be a different result.
One neutral way of weighting all of the criteria would be to "dollarize" every criteria so that there is an
apples-to-apples comparison of each criteria, eliminating the bias that would be introduced by
weighting (ie., figure out the dollar value of preserving an acre of wetland, reducing a certain of traffic,
reducing GHGs, etc...). But, this may not be practical for this exercise.
So, how should this decision be made? It's a question of what is consistent with the City's vision.
Putting aside the particular criteria, it would seem clear that building 12B will induce demand around
that exit, creating demand for more dense housing around that exit and creating pressure to extend
Swift Street.
Conversely, the Exit 13 construction will make travel easier for existing residents - fixing an exit today
which really does not work too well - and induce less demand City-wide.
The SBEC prefers neither of these alternatives. We think the money that would otherwise be spent on I-
89 would be better used on enhanced biking, pedestrian mobility and public transport. Biking,
pedestrian mobility and public transport will enhance the health and safety of residents, promote
tourism, provide equitable access to transportation for all (not just those who own vehicles), reduce
GHG emissions and reduce congestion/noise in the City.
If we had to choose between the two, we prefer exit 13 to be re-done to be a more sensible exit, rather
than building a new exit at 12B. If feedback on metrics is still desired, we would prefer to weight the
"environmental stewardship" goal more highly than the other goals and would elevate the fuel
consumption and bide/ped connectivity and safety metrics to provide more weight to those
metrics. Our broader suggestion is to step back from the decisions as currently framed, and decide in a
more transparent way what the City envisions for development in South Burlington.
South Burlington City
Council Meeting
April 19th, 2021
Meeting Overview
▪Process Overview
▪Interchange Evaluation Matrix Summary
▪Requested Action: Recommend Interchange
Alternatives for further Evaluation
–Action #1:Exit 12B or Exit 13 Hybrid or Exit 13 SPDI
–Action #2:Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf or Exit 14 DDI
▪Next Steps
▪Last Two Months
–Several meetings conducted to share
and refine the interchange evaluation
matrix (see table at right)
▪Tonight
–Requested Action on Alternatives
•Recommendation to Advisory Committee,
Not a Final Decision
Process Overview
Stakeholder Outreach Conducted Since February
South Burlington Business Owners 2/11/2021
South Burlington City Council Presentation 2/16/2021
South Burlington Rotary 2/18/2021
CCRPC Transportation Advisory Committee 3/3/2021
AALV and Interested Residents 3/5/2021
Arabic Community Group 3/6/2021
French Community Group 3/7/2021
South Burlington City Committees 3/10/2021
CCRPC Planning Advisory Committee 3/10/2021
South Burlington Public Meeting 3/18/2021
Transportation Equity Coalition Focus Group 3/24/2021
South Burlington City Council Workshop 3/29/2021
University of Vermont & Champlain College 4/1/2021
Northwest Regional Planning Commission TAC 4/8/2021
University of Vermont Medical Center 4/8/2021
▪Moving Forward with the I-89 Study
–May: Advisory Committee Meeting -formal vote on interchanges
–Summer/Fall/Early Winter: Develop & Evaluate Bundles –includes selected
interchange alternatives
–Early 2022: Final Report
▪After the I-89 Study
–Monitor vehicular traffic to determine whether/when a major interchange
improvement is needed
–If a major interchange improvement moves into Preliminary Engineering (PE), it will
go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that might require
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
•During an EIS, the I-89 Study recommendations will be used as a guide but other
interchange alternatives might be evaluated as well
Process Overview (Cont’d)
South Burlington Committee Feedback (Recent)
▪Planning Commission
–Unanimous (7-0) support for two motions:
1.To support the Exit 13 Single Point Diamond Interchange as the top priority of the
Planning Commission.
2.To state that the Planning Commission firmly supports continued study and
implementation of the pedestrian crossing at Exit 14
▪Energy Committee
–The Energy Committee prefers that the money that would otherwise be spent on I-89
(Exit12B or Exit13) would be better used on enhanced biking, pedestrian mobility and public
transportation.
–If committee members had to choose, they prefer Exit 13 to be re-done to be a more
sensible exit, rather than building a new exit at 12B.
Interchange Evaluation
Matrix Overview
Exits 12B & 13
▪Evaluation Matrix Results
▪Alternative Comparisons
Strengths Weaknesses
Exit 12B +Largest % reduction in traffic at Exit 12 (-14%)
+Largest % reduction in traffic on Williston Road east of Exit 14
(-15%)
+Potential for more, higher paying jobs resulting from interchange
−Largest ROW impact (4 acres)
−Greatest increase in impervious area (3.4 acres)
−Largest % increase in traffic on VT 116 south of I-89 (+39%)
Exit 13 Hybrid +Lowest overall construction & preservation cost ($106M)
+Provides new bike/ped connectivity across I-89
−Left exit for I-189 U-turn movement not standard
design
Exit 13 Single
Point Diamond
Interchange
+Largest % reduction in traffic at Exit 14 (-13%)
+Largest % reduction in traffic on Dorset Street at UMall (-17%)
+Provides new bike/ped connectivity across I-89
−Largest % increase in traffic on Dorset Street
south of I-89 (+33%)
Green shading indicates
highest scoring
alternative by goal
Goal
Safety
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
Mobility & Efficiency
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Access
System Preservation
TOTAL SCORE 83 89
Exit 12B Exit 13 Exit 13
New Interchange Hybrid + Bike Overpass SPDI
14 12 16
6 11 17
21 10 10
16 16 20
13 16 13
4 17 13
74
▪Evaluation Matrix Results
Requested Action
Recommend Interchange Alternative, to the I-89 Advisory Committee, for further Evaluation:
▪Exit 12B or Exit 13 Hybrid or Exit 13 SPDI
Exits 12B & 13
Goal
Safety
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
Mobility & Efficiency
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Access
System Preservation
TOTAL SCORE 83 89
Exit 12B Exit 13 Exit 13
New Interchange Hybrid + Bike Overpass SPDI
14 12 16
6 11 17
21 10 10
16 16 20
13 16 13
4 17 13
74
Exit 14
▪Evaluation Matrix Results
▪Alternative Comparisons
Strengths Weaknesses
Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf +Higher % decrease in anticipated crashes (-5%)
+Collector/Distributor lanes minimize weave/merge conflicts on I-89
+Lowest overall construction & preservation cost
($119M)
−Much higher increase in impervious area (+4.8 acres)
−Potential bike/ped conflicts at uncontrolled ramp entrances
Exit 14 Diverging
Diamond Interchange
+Provides fully signalized path for pedestrians & cyclists
to cross I-89 and Williston Road
+Results in net reduction in impervious area (-0.5 acres)
−Lower overall capacity than Existing Conditions and
Enhanced Cloverleaf
−Results in 3-4% increase in traffic on parallel routes (Winooski Main Street, Limekiln Road)
Goal
Safety
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
Mobility & Efficiency
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Access
System Preservation
TOTAL SCORE
0 2
7 4
30 33
6 11
7 4
2 6
Exit 14 Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf DDI
8 6
▪Evaluation Matrix Results
Requested Action
Recommend Interchange Alternative, to the I-89 Advisory Committee, for further Evaluation:
▪Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf or Exit 14 DDI
Exit 14
Goal
Safety
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
Mobility & Efficiency
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Access
System Preservation
TOTAL SCORE
0 2
7 4
30 33
6 11
7 4
2 6
Exit 14 Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf DDI
8 6
Next Steps
Next Steps
▪Second Round Interchange Evaluation
–Virtual Public Meeting: April 29
–Advisory Committee Meeting #5: May
▪Corridor Evaluation & Public/Stakeholder Outreach:
Summer/Fall 2021
–Includes evaluating the need for I-89 widening in Bundles 2
and/or 3
▪Draft & Final Report: Winter 2021/2022
Interchange Concept
Plans for Reference
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
March 18, 2021
South Burlington City Council,
The South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee would like to recommend to the Council
that they select the following alternatives be regarding the Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study.
Exit 12B or 13 (Hybrid or SPDI):
• We recommend upgrading Exit 13 to a Single Point Diamond Interchange (SPDI)
o Additional notes:
We recommend the design be updated to extend the multi-use path on the north
side of the interchange to extend over the Spear St bridge and connect down to
the future Spear St multi-use path on the west side of Spear St.
We recommend that all multi-use path-crossing points be signalized for safety.
o Primary reasoning:
This design keeps major highway traffic in South Burlington restricted to three
hubs – 1-89 Exit 14, I-89 Exit 13, and the 189 outlet on Route 7.
Exit 12B would create a new hub in a section of the city that has significant
residential zoning. The traffic volumes at exit 12b would require significant new
infrastructure outside of the scope of the I-89 Interchange proposals and would
negatively affect the bike-ability and walkability of South Burlington in this sector.
Overall, Exit 13 provides a better balance between improved accessibility and the
goal to maintain Livable, Sustainable, & Healthy Communities.
Exit 14 (Enhanced Cloverleaf or DDI):
• We recommend upgrading Exit 14 to a the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
o Additional notes:
We recommend that all multi-use path-crossing points be signalized for safety.
o Primary reasoning:
This design significantly improves the safety and usability of this extremely busy
section of Williston Road for bikers and pedestrians by reducing the # of
dangerous crossings as compared with a Cloverleaf design.
March 18, 2021
This design would maintain a direct path for walkers and bikers using this
corridor, which is an advantage over future investment in a bike/ped-specific
bridge over I-89 (which would require a diversion from the main travel corridor).
Thank you for allowing us to provide input on your recommendations to CCRPC for these projects.
South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Interchange Study
South Burlington Planning Commission
Input on Interchange Options
Compiled based on April 14, 2021 Commission Discussion
The City of South Burlington Planning Commission passed two motions, both unanimously 7-0:
1. To support the Exit 13 Single Point Diamond as the top priority of the Planning
Commission.
2. To state that the Planning Commission firmly supports continued study and
implementation of the pedestrian crossing at Exit 14.
Additional comments from Commissioners:
• A full Exit 13 interchange would serve the community better than upgrades at Exit 14.
• Exit 14 is already a full interchange including all connections, while additional mobility
and connections would be gained at Exit 13.
• Exit 13 upgrades are preferable to a new interchange at Exit 12B from the perspective of
impacts to the existing community, traffic, and environment. Specifically, the footprint
of environmental impacts is lower at Exit 13.
• Improvements to Bike and Pedestrian safety is critical at Exit 14. The Commission
strongly supports continuing to pursue a separate crossing at this exit. It is suggested
that this crossing be made as safe as possible and consider being enclosing it.
South Burlington Economic Development Committee
Statement of Support for I-89 Exits 12B and 13 Upgrades
Passed Unanimously 4/15/21
The South Burlington Economic Development Committee has reviewed the I-89 2050 Study (Envision89,
2021), as presented to the City Council as well as through its advocacy by the CCRPC as the I-89 Corridor
Study. This committee looks to the development and improvement of I-89 exits as an opportunity to
foster new economic development in South Burlington in the areas surrounding the current Exit 13 and
the proposed Exit 12B. From this extensive review, the Economic Development Committee is in support
of Exit 12B as the highest potential for economic growth. The EDC is also supportive of the
improvements to Exit 13. Both potential projects offer opportunities for the immediate areas
surrounding them to help the City of South Burlington increase the tax base and become a stronger
regional economic hub.
Reasons for our support of the projects are listed below:
• Recently released metrics for economic access show 87-90% of land within 1 mile of either
interchange is classified as an ECOS Growth Zone.
o The growth in these areas will be promoted by convenient access to the interstate.
o The committee believes there will be subsequent growth opportunities for areas further
than 1 mile from these interchanges as these areas currently have much longer
commutes to get to existing interstate interchanges.
• Recently released metrics show estimated increases of 2,400-3,000 new jobs within 1 mile of
each option of improved or added interchanges by 2050.
o The committee recommends both projects as the combined total is over 5,000 new jobs
within 1 mile of both interchanges.
o These jobs carry estimated mean wages of $50,000 - $57,000.
The committee believes that added wages earned in South Burlington will
translate into more dollars spent in South Burlington on food, lodging, gasoline,
and other merchandise items.
• Exit 12B represents significant opportunity for industrial growth based on the existing business
park areas and currently zoned land proposed for such development.
• All increases in jobs, housing, and industry due to the addition or improvement of the I-89 exits
mean better operational efficiencies for businesses.
• Airport access is more direct for travelers, especially those traveling from the South.
Smart economic growth in South Burlington is within reach, and the interchange improvements at Exit
13 and addition of Exit 12B will help to make that growth more effective. It is in the best interest not
only for the City of South Burlington, but for the greater Chittenden County region to move forward with
these projects.
These projects have the full support of the South Burlington Economic Development Committee
members.
References:
Envision89, (2021) Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study. Retrieved from: https://envision89.com/
Envision89, (2021) I-89 Draft Interchange Evolution Matrix. Retrieved from: https://ehq-production-us-
california.s3.us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/ad01ada466643d0ddf0aadd93f1b1d9fc2f758a4/original/1616779542/5d97d
ec906e3c388602ad97322b375cf_I-89_Draft_Interchange_Evaluation_Matrix_-_2021-03-
26.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20210413%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-
Amz-Date=20210413T134958Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=7b82b0a1d04021ef126a14fcbd04abb37329c8e3d1b577247416b38637d9b9ee
A RESOLUTION TO CONVEY TO A THIRD PARTY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE WHEELER NATURE
PARK
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011 the voters of the City of South Burlington voted to approve the
proposed settlement and land swap agreement “the JAM DECISION Settlement Agreement of August 18,
2015” between the City of South Burlington and the Highlands Development Company LLC as specified
in Article III of the December 6, 2011 Ballot which is attached hereto as Exhibit #1 and made part this
resolution, and
WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council and Highlands Development Company LLC have concluded
the said settlement and land swap agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Burlington City Council shall forthwith convey to a
third party, a conservation easement on the entire Wheeler Nature Park including on 21.27 acres of
land, “the JAM Parcel” also identified as the “Wheeler Park Connection Parcel” and on any future
additions of land to the Wheeler Nature Park.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Burlington City Council shall complete the conveyance of this
conservation easement within six (6) months from the date of this resolution.
Approved this _____ day of ____________, 2021
_____________________________ _____________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
_____________________________ _____________________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden
_____________________________
Matt Cota