HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 05/17/2021AGENDA
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:
Please join meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-meeting05-17-2021 You can also dial in using your phone: +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 387-008-453
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, May 17, 2021
1.Welcome & Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:30 – 6:31
PM)
2.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:31 – 6:41 PM)
3.Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:41 – 6:51 PM)
4.Consent Agenda: (6:51 – 6:55 PM)
A. *** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes from the April 19,2021, May 3, 2021 & May 6, 2021C.*** Approve grant submission to VTrans for the Williston Road crosswalks project.D.*** Approve bid award for Allen Road Shared Use Path and authorize City Manager to
negotiate and execute a contract for construction services with winning bidder, CourtlandConstruction.
E.*** Approve Loan Application for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) –South Burlington 3 Acre Stormwater Retrofit Designs.F.Approve a Resolution authorizing the City to contract with our current Banking Servicesprovider - TD Bank, as the City’s Credit Card Company.
5.Appoint South Burlington representative to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission.(6:55 – 7:00 PM)
6. Presentation on racial discrimination in housing - Minelle Sarfo-Adu, Student, SBHS (7:00 – 7:20 PM) 7. *** Resolution and accompanying documents related to Council appointments to South Burlington Boards, Commissions and Committees – Councilor Emery (7:20 – 7:30 PM)
8. *** Continued Public Hearing: Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-01 of Alan K. Long for development 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. [warned for 7:30 pm] (7:30 – 8:10 PM)
9. Interviews with applicants for appointment to South Burlington Boards, Commissions and Committees (8:10 – 9:30 PM) BREAK
10. Presentation and Council discussion regarding a proposed rental housing ordinance – S.79, Representative John Kilacky, Sue Conley, resident (9:30 – 10:00 PM)
11. Consider and possibly approve an amendment to the City’s PPE Resolution (10:00 – 10:05 PM)
12. Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (10:05 – 10:10 PM) 13. Other Business (10:10 – 10:15 PM) 14. Adjourn (10:15 PM) Respectfully Submitted:
Kevin Dorn
Kevin Dorn, City Manager *** Attachments Included
CITY COUNCIL 19 April 2021
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 April 2021, at 6:30
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Balduc, A. Lafferty,
City Attorneys; Chief T. Francis, Fire Department; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; M. Keene,
Development Planner; M. Simoneau, R. Groenewald, E. Churchill, J. Charest, D. Hersey, C. Baker,
D. Saladino, M. Biama, J. Francis, S. Dooley, M. Behr, K. Sentoff, D. Swarthout, D. Townsend, B.
Lyman, J. Steward, B. Wargo, T. Lenski, B. Britt, A. Jensen-Vargas, S. & J. Finnegan, K. Khosahvi, J.
Gallant, E. Long, J. Calkins, K. Ryder, R. Greco, R. Gonda, B. Sirvis, S. Dopp, B. Currier, D. Bugbee,
C. Trombly, Wayne, R. Jeffers, F. MacDonald, H. Shustie, D. Long, J. Rand. A. Leo, A. & A.
Chalnick, B. Connolly, P. O’Brien, J. Marshall
1. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Ms. Riehle asked to add an item regarding summer meeting planning to Other Business.
Sen. Chittenden asked to add an item regarding the proposed sinking of the Ferry to Other
Business
2. Possible Executive Session to discuss pending litigation to which the city is a party
and receive confidential attorney/client communications regarding same:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public
knowledge of the Council’s consideration of confidential attorney-client communications made
for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the Council and pending or probably
civil litigation to which the City would be a party would clearly place the City at a substantial
disadvantage. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council enter into executive session to
consider confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing pro-
fessional legal services to the City Council and pending or probably civil litigation to which the
City would be a party and to invite into the session Messrs. Dorn, Hubbard, and Bolduc and Ms.
Lafferty. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
The Council entered executive session at 6:35 p.m. and resumed open session at 7:05 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 2
3. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Dopp addressed the Council regarding climate change and environmental stewardship and
asked the Council to act locally to contribute to a solution. She cited the cutting down of a
forest and the use of blasting in a development instead of requiring the development to fit
within the natural conditions. She urged the city to make all decision to support the long term.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Sen. Chittenden advised that a volunteer clean-up crew will be at the Shelburne Rd. cemetery
on Saturday from 9 a.m.-Noon. Council members were invited to join the effort.
Ms. Emery reminded the public that Green-Up Day is 1 May. She also said she would like to
present a resolution by which the Council would view all policy changes through the lens of
global warming. She noted existing drought conditions which could lead to crop failure. She
also would like to revisit the pesticide ban in the city.
Mr. Barritt suggested the possibility of a combined Burlington/South Burlington new High
School which could solve a problem for both communities. Ms. Riehle said that would be a
topic for the next Steering Committee meeting.
Mr. Dorn: There have been several dog-related incidents in parks, especially Red Rocks
Park. Staff is putting together a public information campaign to help people understand the
impacts of this. There will be postings on the city’s website, Front Porch Forum, the City
Newsletter, etc.
The new City Hall/Community Library building seems to be on schedule. The
Library will probably move in during the last week in June, and the City Clerk and City Hall
during early July. A “grand opening” is being considered for late July with tours, etc. A tour for
the City Council is being planned for the next 10 days. This will include the School Board and
Legislative delegation.
Chief Burke said the proposals made by the fair policing committee have been
adopted and implemented with one issue still being ironed out.
There will be a Council decision as to how to spend the $5,400,000 recovery
money coming to the city. The first half of those funds should arrive soon. The hope is to have
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 3
the rules for use of those funds before they arrive. The second half of the funds will arrive
within a year.
Mr. Hubbard: The Dog Park Committee has met. Mr. Rabidoux will continue to meet with
them. Betty Milizia is the new Chair. Their next meeting is 11 May. The city has advertised for
openings on that and other committees.
Ms. Emery asked why the lights are one at 180 Market Street at night. Mr. Dorn said it is to
provide safety from vandalism and to keep contractors tools from being stolen.
Ms. Emery asked when the new assessments will be out. Mr. Hubbard said probably in mid-
May as they are a little behind. She suggested letting people know where they are regarding
the rest of the city, pre- and post-appraisal.
Ms. Riehle noted she is on the email distribution from the South Burlington Food Shelf. They
recently received a check from Healthy Living for $18,000 from “round up” money. That
donation will cover a year’s rent. Mr. Dorn noted the receipt of food donations from Trader
Joe’s on a weekly basis.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve Minutes of 6 April 2021 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded.
Ms. Emery asked about a $17,000 item for a permit. Mr. Hubbard said he would get back to her
on that.
Mr. Barritt asked about $1500 for fencing. Mr. Hubbard said that was for the dugouts at the
park.
The motion was then approved unanimously via a rollcall vote.
6. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments:
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 4
Ms. Riehle: Noted 2 new flights at the Airport: a non-stop to Dallas-Fort Worth and a new
carrier to Boston. She also noted that Beta, a company whose national headquarters are now
located at the Airport, has had an order for 10 of their electric helicopters.
7. Interim Zoning application public hearings:
a. Continued Pubic Hearing: Interim Zoning Application #IZ-21-01 of Alen K. Long
for development 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:
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Barritt then moved to continue IZ-21-01 until 17 May as the DRB has not yet completed its
hearing on this application.
Ms. Keene reminded the Council that the DRB’s next hearing for this item is May 4th, the day
after the Council’s next meeting.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously.
b. Interim Zoning application #IZ-21-03 of South Village Communities, LLC, to
amend a previously approved multi-phased, 334-unit development. The
application consists 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 existing
undeveloped lots totaling 23.2 acres into 8 lots ranging from 0.3 acres to 13.1
acres, construct 22 homes in 11 buildings on Lot 11.1 and 11.2, and construct a
permanent farm access road and pavilion on Lot 11C; (3) subdivide an existing
1.92 acre lot into 5 lots ranging from 0.14 acres to 0.67 acres, append 0.18 acres
to an existing 12.68 acre agricultural lot for the purpose of developing a
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 5
2-family home on each of lots 92 to 95, and establishing the fifth lot as
permanent open space; (4) construct a mixed-use building and associated
parking on newly created lot 11A; and (5) construct a soccer field with
associated amenities and parking on a newly created lot 11B to be transferred
to the City, 1840 Spear Street:
Ms. Jeffers showed the plan and indicated the lots in question including the lot to remain open
perpetually. She noted these are the last lots to be developed in South Village. She also
indicated where 50% of the affordable units will be and noted that the market rate units will
also be more affordable. Ms. Jeffers also noted that the soccer field has been long-awaited by
the City, and recreation fees will pay for its construction.
Ms. Jeffers then pointed out the lot for “limited neighborhood commercial” use, which has been
approved by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Riehle asked whether the affordable units would be affordable perpetually. Ms. Jeffers said
they will. They will be managed by the HOA and the city, and there is a process to insure
affordability. They will possibly fall in the $200,000-$250,000 range.
Mr. Cota noted that 4 of the items have gone to final plat. The others are at sketch plan status.
He asked why this is being presented now. Ms. Keene said it is the applicant’s choice.
Mr. Barritt asked about the left-turn lanes. Ms. Jeffers said the original traffic counts were done
when Rt. 7 was under construction. The numbers are now far reduced. Mr. Barritt then asked
how drivers will get to the soccer field. Ms. Jeffers said they will improve the road now used to
access the solar display.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas was concerned about pesticide runoff from the soccer field. Ms. Jeffers said
the South Village by-laws forbid the use of pesticides and non-organic fertilizers.
Ms. Greco said the soccer field is prime ag soil. Mr. Marshall said that is true, but it is rated at 6
with the lowest rating be 8. He said it would be very challenging to farm.
Ms. Riehle asked if this is where Spear St. will be widened for the bike path. Ms. Jeffers said
there is a 20-foot easement along Spear St. if the city wants to go ahead with the path.
CITY COUNCILJ
19 APRILE 2021
PAGE 6
Mr. Dorn noted that the city researched the use of the Wheeler property for a soccer field, but
Act 250 says it must be contiguous to the South Village property. Ms. Emery felt they were
respecting the topography by putting the soccer field there. Ms. Jeffers said the neighborhood
is very happy to get that playing space. Mr. Cota said that is what the DRB heard from
neighbors. He felt it was a great project.
Mr. O’Brien noted that Common Roots leases the farm, and 30-35% of better farmland is
currently not being farmed. He also noted that the specification for the soccer field includes
inches of topsoil to be added. Were it to be farmed in the future, it would be better than it is
today.
Ms. Riehle asked if the parking lot will be paved. Mr. Jeffers said it will be crushed stone.
Mr. Barritt then moved to close IZ-21-03. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
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 single-family home into Lot 1 (7.02 acres), Lot 3 (0.48 acres), Lot 4 (0.48
acres) 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:
Mr. Currier showed the plan. He noted there will be no new infrastructure. The wetland will be
delineated by a split-rail fence. There was good feedback at the DRB at sketch plan. Most of the
comments related to orienting homes to the west; however, wetland people favor the
development as proposed.
Ms. Emery said if the homes were oriented to the south, they could have solar on the roofs. Mr.
Barritt said that depends on the pitch of the roof. He said whatever the developer can do to
maximize solar would be great.
Sen. Chittenden asked that the barbed wire in the area be pulled out as it is begging to cause
problems. Mr. Currier said that will definitely be done.
Ms. Emery moved to close IZ-21-02. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 7
Ms. Emery then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
8. Interview with applicants for appointment to South Burlington Boards,
Commissions and Committees:
The City Council interviewed the following applicants for appointment to Boards, Commissions
and Committees:
Joyce Werzer………….……….…………….. Development Review Board
Ariel Jensen-Vargas ……………………….. Affordably Housing Committee
Mark Behr ……………………………………… Development Review Board
Denise Townsend ………………………….. Public Art Committee
Ray Gonda …………………………………….. Natural Resources & Conservation Committee
Bill Wargo ……………………………………… Natural Resources & Conservation Committee
Denise Hersey ……………………………….. Library Board of Trustees
Donna Swarthout ………………………….. Library Board of Trustees
Ted Lenski …………………………………….. Library Board of Trustees
9. Consider and possibly approve the Local Emergency Operations Plan:
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Local Emergency Operations Plan as presented. Mr. Barritt
seconded.
Chief Francis said the plan is all up to date and dovetails with the State plan. There have been o
major changes in the last year.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously.
10. Council discussion and possible action on recommendations related to the
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission I-89 Corridor Study:
Ms. Riehle said it was helpful to read comments from all of the committees, a great majority of
whom preferred the Exit 13 diamond interchange.
Mr. Cota said his support would go to 12B as he didn’t feel the city should stop thinking about
improving the economy.
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 8
Ms. Emery said she would prefer to see housing where there is already transit.
Sen. Chittenden said he agrees with Mr. Cota.
Mr. Barritt agreed that 12B is the perfect place to put an interchange and get traffic off Rt. 116
and Kennedy Drive.
Ms. Emery said the Planning Commission unanimously supported Exit 13.
Sen. Chittenden said he is sold on the pluses of 12B. He suggested a “park & ride” to address
climate change issues.
Ms. Emery felt people won’t want to live there, and that conflicts with housing goals.
Ms. Riehle said that by the time something gets built, the business model may not be viable. It
is hard to predict.
Sen. Chittenden felt that 12B will attract smart growth and reduce commute times.
Mr. Cota moved that the Council support continuing to investigate 12B as a viable option for the
community. Sen. Chittenden seconded.
Ms. Riehle noted that the Economic Development Committee recommended doing both 12B
and 13. She asked whether that is possible. Mr. Baker said it would cost more to do both, and it
might stretch out the time.
Mr. Mittag said the Planning Commission chose 13 with the single diamond interchange
because of access to City Center. He felt that 12B will use up acres of land and destroy a
wetland.
Mr. Chalnick said 13 doesn’t work great now, and he felt it would be better to fix it. He noted
that the Energy Committee actually felt it would be better to spend the money on mass transit,
biking and pedestrians. Ms. Emery added that 12B had the lowest “environmental stewardship”
rating.
Mr. Burton of the Economic Development Committee said they saw 12B as providing the most
economic benefits to the city with high-paying jobs and an increase to the tax base. It would
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 9
also take large truck traffic off local roads, and that would be a win for the environment. They
felt the absence of 12B has slowed businesses settling in the business parks. The tax money
gained from 12B could be used to provide other benefits to the city.
Mr. Mittag felt it was a question of balancing quality of life with access to business parks. He
said 12B will use up a lot of land, and he didn’t see that it was needed. He felt Exit 13 gives
access to the Tilley Drive area and is also the lowest cost.
Mr. Barritt said not to forget that all the bridges will have to be replaced. 12B will reduce travel
time and provide connection where it doesn’t exist today.
Mr. Trombly said the Affordable Housing Committee looked at this and saw 12B as an
opportunity to bring in jobs which is good for housing. They did not weigh in with a choice.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas said there is a grant I place to revamp the hill on Spear Street which will take
a lot of traffic off Shelburne Rd.
In the rollcall vote that followed the motion passed 3-2 with Ms. Emery and Ms. Riehle voting
against.
Mr. Baker said he hears the split and will look long and hard as to whether both 13 and 12B can
be done.
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 of enactment:
Sen. Chittenden moved to approve the resolution as presented. Mr. Cota seconded.
Mr. Dorn noted the City Attorney is still researching issues and is in touch with the Land Trust.
Mr. Barritt said he is concerned with legal technicalities that could slow the process down.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously.
12. February and March Financials:
Mr. Hubbard said that ¾ of the way through the fiscal year they are at 86% of anticipated
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 10
revenues and 66% of anticipated expenditures. They are tracking a number of revenue items
including local option taxes (anticipated $400,000 shortfall from the rooms and meals tax),
property taxes, Planning & Zoning revenues, fire inspection revenues ($100,000 shortfall),
ambulance revenues, Recreation & Parks activities ($140,000 revenue loss, some of which will
be offset), and interest income (2% was anticipated, and they are getting .25%). Property taxes
are doing well with 99% received.
On the plus side, the city has received $150,000 from FEMA, the City Clerk’s office is $55,000
above anticipated. Reduced recreation expenses are at $95,000. Health insurance savings are
at $100,000 as of this date. Not having to pay on the original pension loan has resulted in a
savings of $668,000.
Overall, Mr. Hubbard said the city is $32,000 to the good, which he feels good about. He also
noted these figures don’t take into account additional FEMA money of the $5,000,000 from the
American Rescue Plan which should be received in the coming year.
Mr. Hubbard also said he would like to see the city bring up some of the projects and purchases
in the CIP. He was comfortable releasing some of those funds with the exception of the paving
money.
Mr. Barritt asked about projections for the Rooms & Meals local option taxes. Mr. Hubbard said
the hope is it will get better. He was also hopeful the losses could be backfilled with money
from the American Rescue Plan.
13. Liquor Control Board:
Sen. Chittenden moved the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
The Board considered the following:
Chipotle Mexican Grill, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License; Dave’s Cosmic Subs, 1st Class
Restaurant/Bar License; Duke’s Public House, 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License
Sen. Chittenden moved to approve the licenses as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passes unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
19 APRIL 2021
PAGE 11
Sen. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
14. Other Business:
Ms. Riehle asked members to think ahead to when they will be away on vacation so meetings
can be scheduled.
Sen. Chittenden noted that Sen. Ginny Lyons is very concerned about the potential sinking of
the ferry in the Lake. He raised the possibility of dry-docking it on land and asked members to
think about that. Mr. Barritt noted that in Maryland they brought a jet fighter into a park and
kids can crawl around in it. He felt the ferry is very special and could possibly be used in the
same way.
As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:56 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 3 MAY 2021
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 May 2021, at 6:30
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Lafferty, City
Attorney; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; C. Holm, R.
Gonda, M. Schaal, A. Crocker, P. Leonard, M. Murray, R. Greco, B. Sirvis, S. Dopp, J. Velevance,
Wayne, K. Morrison, J. Kochman, F. MacDonald, K. Ryder, A. Anderson, K. Epstein, J. Louisos, C.
Trombly, J. Shields, L. Yankowski, T. Woodard, B. Britt, D. Azaria, L. Kupferman, M. Sarfoadu,
emille, M. Reale, M. Cross H. Gagne, L. Black-Plumeau, M. Larkspur, D. Leban, E. Goldman, B.
Gagnon, S. Wyman, J. Nick, J. Bossange, J. Garup, M. Ostby, S. Dooley, B. Milizia, Penel, J.
Stinnett, S. Goddard, P. Taylor, D. Bugbee, A. & A. Chalnick
1. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Ms. Riehle asked to move item #13 to between #11 and #12 where it logically belongs.
2. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Bellevance spoke regarding the climate crisis and the need to create empathy for other
living things. She said the biggest obstacle is hopelessness and the feeling that it is too late.
She hoped the Council will have the courage to lead and to review all city issues as they relate
to climate change.
3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Sen. Chittenden thanked the 30 volunteers who participated in the clean-up at the Shelburne
Road Cemetery.
Ms. Emery cited the success of Green-Up Day.
Ms. Riehle participated as a “weed warrior” for removal of invasives and participated in Green-
Up day. She also attended a meeting with Mr. Dorn, Ms. Emery, Lisa Bettinger and Sue Connelly
regarding parallel justice. The possibility of a rental registry was part of that meeting, and she
hoped the Council will take up that discussion.
Mr. Dorn: City Hall, the City Clerk’s Office and the Library are now open, and it great to see
everyone back.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 2
ARPA funds should arrive about 10 May along with rules for how those funds can
be used.
The Council will tour 180 Market Street this week. There will also be a special
meeting on Thursday evening, mostly in executive session.
Appraisal numbers will be published at the end of May. The City of Burlington
has had some issues that they want to address differently.
Lou Bresee has come up with a novel idea for Airport Parkway to reduce
electrical costs. More will be heard about that.
The MOU with the Cities of Burlington and Winooski was signed today.
There is a rapidly changing story regarding TIFs in the State Legislature. It
appears the city may not be able to change the boundaries of the TIF district.
The appointment for CCRPC representative is up. Chris Shaw, who has been
serving in that capacity, is interested in continuing. The Council should address this at its next
meeting. Mr. Shaw has been elected Vice Chair.
The City is doing a public service campaign reminding people to keep their dogs
on leashes and to clean up after their pets. The situation has gotten out of control. The City is
working to expedite the dog park but has encountered some wetland issues that are being
addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
4. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Award bids for annual paving contract and Kimball Avenue culvert project
c. Designate and convey a burial plot at the City Cemetery on Shelburne Road
Mr. Rabidoux noted that a conclusion was reached with the Town of Williston this morning
regarding the culvert project. This will be on the agenda for their Selectboard tomorrow
evening. The City is hoping for $360,000 in grants which would make this a ‘no-brainer” for
Williston. Mr. Cota noted that if the project had to be re-bid, it would come in at higher
numbers.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 3
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. Report and discussion on the Summit Employer’s Health Center/Captive Insurance
Model:
Ms. Holm reviewed the history and noted that the Center opened in July, which was good
timing in light of the COVID pandemic. The aim of the Center is to address health employee
health concerns and health costs. The Center is run by Marathon Health with insurance through
CBA Blue. There are 3 other businesses partnering with the city. One additional partner is
being sought.
The Center focuses on primary car, prevention, disease management, occupational health,
acute/urgent care, some lab work, and coaching for better health. Their records are accessible
by the Medical Center. There is easy access to the Center with same-day appointments
including COVID testing, at little to no cost to employees. The staff includes a Nurse
Practitioner, Medical Assistant, and Mental Health Counselor. Review from staff have been very
good.
Ms. Holms showed a calendar of topics to be focused on during the years and a graph of visits
from July of 2020 through March of 2021. The Center has seen at least 30 employees and or
their spouses and children a month since the Center opened. This was a huge plus during the
pandemic. The City gets a daily report to help manage people coming and going to and from
the work site. 70 people have been seen which is helping to provide information on the type of
care needed. 76% of those seen have chronic conditions and 75% of those people are receiving
health coaching.
Ms. Holm noted that since July 1, 2020, the total savings to the city has been $120,973.00 of
which $60,00 is in redirected care. The cost of this service is about $40,000 a month. This
coming July, there will be a “health care blue book” which will enable people to compare costs
so they can choose where to go for a procedure.
Mr. Barritt commented that it is sad that we haven’t figured out how to do this as a nation.
6. City Center Update and consider approval of the submittal of an application to the
Vermont Bond Bank for the summer round:
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 4
Ms. Blanchard said the Bond Bank has a call out to municipalities to fund capital projects. Since
interest rates are very low and may start to climb, staff is recommending doing this now. An
amount does not have to be determined at this time. The proposed bond would cover Garden
Street and the remaining cost of 180 Market Street.
Ms. Emery moved to approve submittal of an application to the Vermont Bond Bank for the
summer bond pool. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote.
7. Public Hearing and possible Council action on extension of the Interim Zoning
Bylaws:
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Ms. Lafferty reviewed the history.
Sen. Chittenden said he understands that 13 November is a hard deadline. Ms. Lafferty noted
that if the new amendments to the Land Development Records are available before that date,
Interim Zoning can be repealed. When the LDRs are warned, they will be in effect for 150 days
or until approved. Ms. Louisos noted that the warning has to be by the City Council.
Ms. Dooley and Mr. Gonda supported the extension of the IZ by-laws. Mr. Gonda praised the
work of the Planning Commission but felt the results lack clarity.
Sen. Chittenden moved close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Sen. Chittenden moved to extend Interim Zoning to 13 November 2021. Mr. Cota seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
8. Council discussion and possible action related to qualification to serve on a South
Burlington Board, Commission or Committee:
Ms. Emery said she was contacted by Sandra Dooley who has researched housing and equity
and how housing regulations have excluded certain people from a standard of living that others
enjoy. This leads to inequity in education, etc. Ms. Emery noted there has been a question of
whether minors and non-citizens can serve on city committees. She cited the importance of
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 5
including youth who have a stake in the future of the community. She suggested possibly
limiting the number to 2 students and 2 non-citizens so they would not be considered “token”
members. They would be voting members but would not be able to attend executive sessions.
A teacher felt this was a wonderful opportunity for students and would address the community
service requirement.
Ms. Riehle noted the possibility of students leaving to go away to college and suggested a one-
year membership. Ms. Emery felt they should be full-fledged members with the same
commitment. Mr. Cota agreed.
Ms. Louisos noted there are specific references to committee membership on the DRB and
Planning Commission in the City Charter and also in the Land Development Regulations.
Sen. Chittenden said he would like the City Manager to weigh in on any concerns from staff’s
point of view and possibly tweak the language.
Ms. Greco noted that some years ago people were on committees “for life” and this
discouraged others from applying. She also felt that appointees should commit to “doing what
the city wanted.”
Ms. Riehle suggested the DRB and possibly the Planning Commission be eliminated due to their
specific regulations regarding membership.
Mr. Dorn suggested that if the application form was changed from “are you a voter” to “are you
a resident” it would cover what Ms. Emery is suggesting. Ms. Riehle felt the Resolution makes a
statement, but she acknowledged that advertising could cover that. Ms. Murray noted that
there are South Burlington students who are not residents of the city.
Mr. Barritt said he preferred a limit of 2, not 2 students and 2 non-citizens. Mr. Cota and Sen.
Chittenden agreed. Mr. Cota also did not want to increase the size of committees.
Members agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting.
9. City Council follow-up on Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission:
Ms. Riehle said she spoke with the Commission Chair and they agreed the Council had said to
get Chapters 10 and 12 done/approved and then move on to PUDs. Ms. Louios said that if the
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 6
Council has comments during the public comment period regarding mapping, etc, it would be in
the meeting packet.
Mr. Cota said he still was not sure he wanted to do the environmental and PUD standards
separately. He asked what would be most helpful to the Commission now.
Ms. Louisos noted that the Open Space Committee work was “parcel-based” while the
Commission’s work is “resource based.” If the Council wants to deal with the parcel-based
information, that would be their work, not the Commission’s. She wanted that to be clear. Sen.
Chittenden said that was a great point and important for the Council to consider when
budgeting.
10. Interview with applicants for and appointments to City Committees, Boards and
Commissions:
The Council interviewed the following candidates for appointment to Committees, Boards and
Commissions:
1. Jennifer Savas ……………………… Library Board of Trustees
2. Margaret Cross ……………………. Library Board of Trustees
3. Leslie Black-Plumeau …………… Affordable Housing Committee
4. Emily Krasnow ……………………. Affordable Housing Committee
5. Havalah Gagne …………………….. Bike-Ped Committee
6. Matty Larkspur …………………….. Bike-Ped Committee
7. Stephanie Wyman ………………… Development Review Board
8. Patricia Leonard ……………………. Development Review Board
9. John Bossange ………………………. Natural Resources Committee
10. Lisa Yankowski ………………………. Natural Resources Committee
11. Bernie Gagnon ………………………. Planning Commission
12. Andrew Chalnick ……………………. Energy Committee
13. Mary Jo Reale ………………………… Energy Committee
14. Steven Crowley ……………………… Energy Committee
11. Consider and possibly take action on a Resolution related to climate change:
Ms. Emery noted the effort to reduce emissions by 90% by 2050 and said that “business as
usual” won’t accomplish that. She felt there were some things in everyone’s reach. She cited
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 7
the need to think morally about finding solutions for equity. She noted there are
recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan related to climate change and cited the need to
look at everything through the lens of climate change.
Ms. Greco asked what is the city’s plan for not having “business as usual.” She said the obvious
one is to stop destroying the environment. Ms. Leban said the city needs to place more
emphasis on climate change in all of its decisions.
Mr. Cota asked why Ms. Emery is not using the laws which are not goals but mandates. He said
the City is charged by the State to come up with a climate change action plan, and the City has
to comply in order not to be sued. He also cited action taken by the Council tonight that would
have been in violation of the proposed Resolution. He noted that with the proposed
Resolution, the city can’t have affordable housing.
Ms. Emery said they would have to balance housing with transportation and not have housing
that is only accessible by car.
Mr. Barritt felt 10:30 p.m. was not the time to start this discussion, and he asked that it be
tabled. Sen. Chittenden echoed this. He also said he had an issue with the word “morality.” He
didn’t feel they can be legislating “morality.” He felt it made more sense to integrate Ms.
Emery’s concerns with the law.
Ms. Riehle agreed it was very late and also a very dense subject which the Council needs time to
consider. She suggested the possibility of a “sustainability committee.”
Ms. Murray felt that having a Resolution to use climate change as a filter was good in the short
term. She added that everything will be affected by this crisis. Ms. Greco agreed and felt it
should be considered at the next meeting, early on the agenda, and with committee members
being invited to attend.
Ms. Emery asked Council members to submit any proposed changes to her during the week.
12. Council discussion regarding the so-called Swift Street Extension:
Ms. Riehle noted that the Planning Commission felt this was an important conversation to have
and noted that it will require a change to the Official City Map.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 8
Ms. Louisos said this was discussed at the 13 April Planning Commission meeting. The Official
City Map shows a road connection to Hinesburg Road which goes through some
environmentally sensitive areas. The Commission decided to proceed with steps to remove the
Swift St. Extension from the Official City Map but continue to show it as a path connection. The
next step will be a draft change to the map and warning for a public hearing. The City Council
would have to hold a public hearing as well.
Mr. Cota asked whether that would occur before or concurrent with updates to the
Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos said the map in the Comprehensive Plan would have to be
changed as well. Mr. Cota noted there are 2 other east-west corridors that haven’t been built:
Cider Mill Road and Old Cross Road. He asked if there are changes proposed for that
connectors. Ms. Louisos said not before there is an analysis done.
Mr. Cota said the Council should get input from the Director of Public Works. Ms. Riehle added
the Fire Chief as well.
Ms. Borsellino, Ms. Crocker and Penel thanked the Council for considering this change.
Sen. Chittenden said he was not opposed to the change. His only concern was that any
developer on the other side would be responsible for building the bike/ped connection, not the
City. Ms. Louisos said the Commission can make sure that is the case.
13. Possible reconsideration of vote taken by the Council taken on 19 April 2021
related to making a recommendation to the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission on their I-89 Corridor Study:
Mr. Barritt said he understands the importance of both 12B and 13, and he was not backing
down on his vote.
Mr. Barritt then moved that the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission be redirected
to study interchanges 13 and 12B.
Sen. Chittenden said this is an advisory vote to keep options open. He felt it is important to
keep 12B in the plan.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 9
Ms. Riehle said she felt the public didn’t get all the information from committees and had asked
the chairs to share the conversations and conclusions that had occurred.
Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission unanimously supported the 13 single point diamond
and continued study of a pedestrian crossing at Exit 14.
Mr. Goddard of the Bike/Ped Committee said they also supported Exit 13. They had concerns
with 12B as it is a complex region of the city on the edge of rural and commercial areas. They
were also concerned with how much infrastructure the city would need to provide to handle
traffic from 12B and didn’t feel Rt. 116 was set up to handle that amount of traffic. Mr. Goddard
said if they learn new information about 12B, it would be something to consider in the future.
Mr. Goldman of the Energy Committee said they felt the weighting and scores gave a false
perspective and missed the point of comparing all the impacts. Their focus was more on
bike/pd and public transit. In the end, they chose 13, but it was not a strong recommendation.
Ms. Riehle read from the report of the Natural Resources Committee which supported 13 and
14 because of reduction of impervious and noise mitigation to existing neighborhoods and also
better access to the Airport.
Mr. Trombly of the Affordable Housing Committee said they wanted to bolster salaries for local
workers and need an environment to create those jobs. They also understand that all
development is not desirable.
Ms. Emery read from the mission of the Economic Development Committee. Economics is tied
to housing, quality of life, etc. and you can’t look at economics without the rest.
Ms. Riehle said that the values for 13 and its closeness to 12B had led her to believe 13 was a
better choice.
Public comment included the following comments:
Ms. Greco: 12B is a disaster to the environment at a huge economic cost and it caters to cars.
Mr. Gonda: There are different ways of planning without encouraging more cars.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 10
Ms. Gagne: 12B does add some bike/ped infrastructure but not enough. 13 is better. 12B could
be for “someday” but do 13 first.
Ms. Sirvis: UVM announced today it is selling some property which could increase the demand
in that area, so she supports 13. 12B destroys some open land.
Mr. Dorn said he felt the Council should have a discussion with the School Board regarding 13 as
the design would dump traffic in front of the Middle School and High School. He added that as
City Manager, he is concerned with traffic stacking up in front of the Fire Station and delaying
getting those vehicles out to respond to a call.
Ms. Emery moved to table the discussion until the Council can meet with the School Board. Ms.
Riehle seconded.
Mr. Cota asked whether tabling would affect the time-line given by CCRPC. Mr. Dorn said CCRPC
wants a decision the City will stand behind, as this had been a problem in the past. Ms. Emery
said she felt they should hear from all stakeholders and that CCRPC would feel better if
they got a firm decision on 17 May. Ms. Emery also noted she has a petition signed by 363
people opposing 12B. She noted there is on the Official City Map a service road north of
Williston Road. She asked Mr. Baker if that had been taken into account, and he said it had not.
Mr. Mittag said he felt the scoring was defective as it didn’t take into account the cost of land
acquisition.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Sen. Chittenden and Mr. Cota opposing.
Ms. Leban commented that she hoped the city would take up the issue of non-resident housing
in the City and its effect on affordability. She said many condos in her neighborhood are not
lived in much of the year.
14. Consider and possibly appoint Auditor for FY21:
Mr. Hubbard said the 2020 audit has just been completed and the city is awaiting the pre-audit
for 2021. There are still opening in the Finance Department and Management Team. His
recommendation is to extend the Smith contract for one year for the 2021 audit and then go
out to bid for FY 22 in the fall.
CITY COUNCIL
3 MAY 2021
PAGE 11
Ms. Emery moved to extend the Smith contract for auditing services for one year for the 2021
audit and go to bid for the FY22 audit in the fall. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
15. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments:
Ms. Riehle: The Airport Commission: Canadian traffic is 17-20% of Airport traffic. They feel
they are a year away from a “new norm,” but July and August are looking good. The noise
monitoring grant offer was received. The Airport has hired a contractor. Three sites have been
identified for monitors, and these have been approved by the FAA. They will monitor all flights.
Ms. Emery noted that the Wing Commander informed her that the Guard has decided not to
establish a “Restoration Advisory Board.” She felt this was a subject for Executive Session to get
legal advice. Mr. Dorn said for that purpose, an Executive Session was appropriate.
16. Convene as Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
a. Duke’s Public House, Outside Consumption Permit
Ms. Emery moved the Council reconvene as Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Barritt seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Outside Consumption Permit for Duke’s Public House as
presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Sen. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
17. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Sen. Chittenden seconded.
Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:31 p.m.
_______________________, Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 6, 2021
The Council meeting began at 6:30 PM Members present via electronic means: H. Riehle, M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, M. Cota Also present via electronic means: K. Dorn, City Manager, A. Bolduc, City Attorney, A. Lafferty, Deputy City Attorney, D. Hall, Zoning Administrator, M. Keene, Acting Director of Planning and Zoning
1. Welcome 2. T. Barritt moved that Council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the Council’s consideration of confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the council and pending or probable civil litigation to which the City would be a party would clearly place the City at a substantial disadvantage. M. Emery seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. T. Barritt moved that the Council enter into executive session to consider confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the City Council and pending or probable civil litigation to which the City would be a party. M. Emery seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Council entered executive session.
3. T. Barritt moved to adjourn. M. Emery seconded the motion and the Council adjourned at
7:43 PM.
_______________________, Clerk
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl .com
May 17, 2021
Jon Kaplan, P.E.,
Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Manager
VT Agency of Transportation
Municipal Assistance Program
219 North Main St.
Barre, VT 05641
RE: VTrans Small-scale Bicycle/Pedestrian Grant Program Application – Construction of New Crosswalks
along Williston Road, City of South Burlington
Dear Mr. Kaplan,
On behalf of the City Council of South Burlington, I am writing to state the City’s strong support for and great
interest in grant funding for the construction of three new crosswalks along Williston Road, between Kennedy
Drive and Hinesburg Road. There are no pedestrian crossings located along this stretch of busy road, and the
existing infrastructure creates an unsafe and uninviting environment for pedestrians. These new facilities will
improve pedestrian access to a variety of residential and commercial locations, including bus transit stops and an
assisted living facility. A scoping study completed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
on behalf of the City in 2019 noted that this section of Williston Road does generate enough pedestrian activity
and demand to warrant these new crossings.
The City is ready to provide the 50% matching funds required for construction costs. These funds will be
allocated from a dedicated tax (Penny for Paths fund) that was approved by voters in August of 2018. The City
has experience in the design, construction and oversight of similar projects.
Maintenance of the shared-use path will become part of the City’s regular maintenance program for public
facilities, including plowing in the winter. We are proud of our commitment to maintaining quality public
infrastructure and this will not impose any substantial additional burden on our maintenance resources.
Our community has long requested this project be completed and we are extremely enthusiastic about
completing it. We appreciate your time and attention in consideration of the City’s application for funding to
build these important crossings that will help us reach our goal of creating a more walkable and bikeable
community.
Sincerely,
Helen Riehle, Chair
South Burlington City Council
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
From: Ashley Parker, Project Manager
Cc: Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works
Subject: Approve submittal of grant application for the 2021 (Round Two) VTrans
Small-Scale Bicycle/Pedestrian Grant Program Application and signature of a
letter in support of the application to construct new crosswalks along Williston
Road.
Date: May 17, 2021
Background:
VTrans is accepting submissions for its 2021 (Round Two) Small-Scale
Bicycle/Pedestrian grant program. If successful, the grant award would provide
state funding for 50% of the construction costs associated with the
implementation of three new crosswalks along Williston Road, between
Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road (Williston Road Crosswalks). This is a
priority project for the City that works to fulfill the vision of a more walkable
and bikeable community by creating safe crossing for users across Williston
Road, one of the City’s major thoroughfares for road traffic. City staff feels
positive about this application due to the strong support of the City’s Bicycle
& Pedestrian Committee and support of staff at VTrans.
The Williston Road Crosswalks will help users access a variety of residential
and commercial locations, including bus transit stops and an assisted living
care facility. This section of Williston Road generates enough pedestrian
activity and demand to warrant these new crossing locations, but there is
currently no infrastructure to ensure a crossing can be done safely.
In 2019, a scoping study was completed by Toole Design on behalf of the City
and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). This
study analyzed and evaluated the feasibility of mid-block crossings along this
stretch of Williston Road. They identified possible crossings at Pillsbury
Manor, Davis Parkway/Pine Tree Terrace, and Mills Avenue. This study
considered many safety features in proposing designs for these crossings,
including: raised concrete median refuges, high visibility crosswalks,
rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs), advanced yield lines, and
required regulatory signage. Once the design work on these crosswalks
officially begins, staff expects there will be some design changes as a result of
existing site conditions.
The maximum grant award is $125,000, and staff intends on applying for the
full maximum award amount. If awarded, the grant will cover approximately
50% of the project’s construction costs, and the City will need to provide a
50% match. The required match will be approximately $125,000. Costs for
design of this project will be approximately $50,000, and cannot be included in
the funding for this grant application. This project is included in the Bicycle &
Pedestrian Committee’s Penny for Paths project list which is the proposed
source for the required matching funds. The Committee is supportive of the
allocation of Penny for Paths funds for this project, as shown in the most
recent Capital Improvement Program budget for Bike/Ped Improvements.
If awarded, the City would begin working with on selecting a design
consultant as early as July 2021, with construction hopefully taking place at
the end of FY2.
Attachments: • Letter of support from Helen Riehle on behalf of the City Council
acknowledging the City’s willingness to provide the local match and
future maintenance responsibility
• Grant Request Form
Recommendations: Approve submittal of grant application for the 2021 (Round Two) VTrans
Small-scale Bicycle/Pedestrian grant program and execute a letter in support of
the application to construct three new crosswalks across Williston Road,
between Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road.
Additional
Considerations:
The application is due June 4, at 1 PM. Staff will be working to complete this
application the week of May 17.
City of South Burlington Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Deputy City Manager.
Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two
weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Deputy City Manager as soon as possible.
Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed
Ashley Parker, City Project Manager 05/17/2021
Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date
1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date:
2021 (Round Two) VTrans Small-scale Bicycle/Pedestrian Grant Program; Deadline: June 4,
2021; 1:00 PM
2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose?
To fund approximately 50% of the construction/implementation of three new crosswalks across Williston
Road, between Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. The project is focused on creating safe and accessible
crossings for users across a major arterial roadway in the City. A previous scoping study (in 209) looked
at this section of Williston Road and identified three potential crossing locations, so the overall project will
look to finalize these.
3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)?
It will fund approximately 50% of the construction costs. It will not fund any design or administration that
is need to implement these projects. Staff expect to cover costs associated with design and any remaining
construction costs by using Penny for Paths funds as identified in the CIP.
4. Total Project Cost:
a. Amount of grant request: $125,000 (the maximum amount)
b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? There is a 50% match
required. Staff are proposing more than this match in currently allocated Penny for Path dollars.
The full amount of the proposed match is approximately $150,000, which includes estimated design
costs. If the City is awarded the grant, these funds would be spent between FY21 – FY22.
c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching
funds for this grant? Not at this time.
5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? The match will be
paid from the Penny for Paths fund that will be collected for the purposes of City bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure improvements as outlined in the Bike/Ped Improvement CIP.
6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe?
The City will be required to maintain the new crosswalks.
7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)?
This grant is for a stand-alone construction project. The new infrastructure is a continuation of the City’s
desire to create a more walkable City by improving pedestrian safety and access along Williston Road, one
of the City’s major thoroughfares for road traffic.
8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? It is likely to extend into FY 2023.
9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)?
Ashley Parker, City Project Manager
10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form?
16 hours plus review and input by other staff and members from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee.
11. How likely is it that we will receive grant?
VTrans has indicated that the proposed crosswalks are a good fit for this funding source.
12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is
filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is
that time available? Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? Can in-kind
service be used as part of the City match?
Ashley Parker, Justin Rabidoux and Martha Machar will manage the grant and the involved paperwork.
Grant funds from this source cannot be used to cover the costs for Project Administration, which includes
management of the project by an identified Municipal Project Manager, which will likely be Ashley Parker.
It is expected that the administration of the grant and the project management will be rolled into the
project manager’s existing work load. As previously stated, any additional design costs will be covered by
funds from Penny for Paths. The project should be complete the year following execution of a grant
agreement. The local match may be either a cash match or the value of project applicant labor and
equipment used to construct the project or a combination of these.
13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow:
Reimbursement for expenditures made.
14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request?
If yes, please update status:
Yes, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee supports this request and is assisting in the preparation of the
grant request paperwork.
15. In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it fits
into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that mission:
This project has been expressed as a strong interest on the part of the City and fits into the City’s interest in
being a walkable and bikeable City.
___________________________________ _______________________________
Reviewed by Deputy City Manager, Date If approved, grant money will be in this fund
____________________________________ _______________________________
Approved by City Manager, Date Not Approved By City Manager, Date
___________________________________________ ______________________________________
Approved By City Council, Date Not Approved By City Council, Date
2/17/11
Procedure Regarding Grant Request Form
1) No City of South Burlington staff member or volunteer shall apply for a grant without completing
and receiving approval of the attached Form.
2) All Form questions must be answered – if you need assistance on financial questions please
contact the Deputy City Manager (846-4112).
3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Deputy City Manager at least two (2) weeks
before the City Council Meeting where the application will be reviewed. Exceptions can be made
especially when the funding source(s) do not provide sufficient lead time
4) Attach any supporting documentation to the Form.
5) Deputy City Manager will review Form for accuracy and completeness – Deputy City Manager
does not approve or reject application.
6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Deputy City Manager will submit form to City
Manager for approval or rejection.
7) City Manager may request meeting with applicant for clarification.
8) City Manager will determine whether to approve or reject the application and have the project
manager informed of the decision. Project manager can request a meeting with City Manager
prior to Form being reviewed by Council.
9) Whether Form is approved or rejected by City Manager the Form will be reviewed by the City
Council. Project manager will be given the opportunity to discuss Form with Council.
10) Council will make final decision as to whether to approve or reject grant submission. Council
approval of grant submission also signifies approval and acceptance of the grant unless there is a
significant change in grant terms. If there is a significant change in grant terms the issue of
whether or not to accept the grant will be brought before Council for consideration.
11) If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to
guide the actual grant application.
12) Project manager will update Deputy City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal,
approval, and implementation progress.
13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Deputy City Manager and
Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials – upon request
of project manager report time frame can be modified by Deputy City Manager based on actual
grant conditions.
14) Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related to
financials.
15) Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book.
4/4/11
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
From: Ashley Parker, City Project Manager
Cc: Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works
Subject: Authorization to Negotiate and Contract for Allen Road Shared Use Path Project Construction Services
Date: May 17, 2021
Background:
The Allen Road Shared Use Path project was originally part of a 2017 scoping
study that looked at the approximately 800-foot gap in bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure along Allen Road, beginning east of Baycrest Drive and extending to the Spear Street intersection. The project involves the construction of approximately 830-linear feet of an 8-foot wide paved shared use path beginning at the end of existing infrastructure just east of Baycrest
Drive and running along Allen Road and then connecting to another existing
shared use path across the intersection of Spear Street. It will involve the removal of the existing southbound right-turn lane on the Spear Street approach to Allen Road, construction of the path itself, the installation of new painted bike boxes on Spear Street, new pedestrian signals, crosswalks, and
lane striping at the Allen Road and Spear Street intersection. At the beginning
of 2019, the City initiated a design for this project and finalized plans at the end of 2020. The City released a request for bids on April 6, 2021; and On May 4, 2021, a bid opening was held for this project. The City received bids from seven
contractors to complete this work (Table 1). The low bid for this project was submitted by Courtland Construction for an amount of $175,219.00. This cost is within the project budget. The electronic bids were reviewed by a panel consisting of Lamoureux & Dickinson, the City’s engineer for this project; Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; and myself. The panel determined
that all required materials and bonds were included, all contract addenda were received by the contractor, and all necessary documents had been signed. This project is being funded by the City’s Penny for Paths fund.
Table 1. Summary of Bids Received for the Allen Road Shared Use Path Project
Contractor Total Bid Price
Courtland Construction $175,219.00
Dirt Tech Company $183,254.72
Desroches Construction Serv. $184,727.50
S.D. Ireland $184,900.00
Don Weston Excavating $188,132.00
Munson Earth-Moving $218,063.00
All Seasons Excavating $261,585.00
Staff is recommending that Courtland Construction be awarded the contract for
the construction of this project.
Recommendation: Approve by motion consent agenda item that states - Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the recommended contractor, Courtland Construction, to provide construction services for the
Allen Road Shared Use Path project.
Memo
To: Kevin Dorn
From: Dave Wheeler, Stormwater Superintendent
CC: Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works
Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Environmental Services
Date: May 13, 2021
Re: CWSRF Application - South Burlington 3 Acre Stormwater Retrofit Designs
The State of Vermont has amended the FY21 Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF)
Intended Use Plan (IUP) to include $1.5M for preliminary engineering and final design work for “3 Acre
Sites” impacted by the Stormwater General Permit 3-9050. CWSRF funds used for this purpose will
include 100% loan forgiveness, up to $100,000 per project site. These funds are available on a first
come, first served basis and are only available to municipalities.
Under this program, municipal applicants will assist local 3 Acre Sites in moving through the design and
permitting stage of their required stormwater project. The City will take out a single loan for all combined
project sites and upon final completion of the design projects, the entire loan will be forgiven. The State
proposes the utilization of up to $1.5 million to be reserved for this program. There is a maximum cap of
$100,000 per project site, with no maximum per borrower for this program.
The City has approximately 46 of these 3 Acre Sites located within its boundaries. The City is proposing
to submit a loan application to the CWSRF program to help fund the engineering design for up to 12
sites, which is estimated to cost $675,000. With 100% loan forgiveness, there will be no cost to the City.
The State is making this design money available now so that projects are “shovel-ready” for potential
construction funds. The governor has requested $55M in ARPA money be used for design and
construction of stormwater projects for 3 Acres Sites. As the City owns impervious surfaces covered by
many of these 3 Acre Sites, there is significant value in pursuing this funding opportunity.
Therefore, I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this project and the City’s loan
application to the State’s CWSRF loan program. I am requesting that council take a formal vote
on this matter and sign the attached loan application. If you have any questions, please contact me
at (802) 658 – 7961 x6113 or dwheeler@sburl.com.
City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Assistant City Manager.
Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two
weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Assistant City Manager as soon as possible.
Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed
David Wheeler, Stormwater Superintendent May 13, 2021
Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date
1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) –
South Burlington 3 Acre Stormwater Retrofit Designs.
2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? The CWSRF Program currently includes $1.5M in loan
forgiveness for engineering design of stormwater projects for properties identified as 3 Acre Sites in the
State’s Stormwater General Permit 3-9050. Under this program, a municipal applicant will assist local 3
Acre Sites in moving through the design and permitting stage of their required stormwater project. The
applicant will take out a single loan for all combined project sites. Upon final completion of the design
projects, the entire loan will be forgiven.
3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? The loan will fund 100% of engineering design costs
for a stormwater improvement projects associated with 3 Acre Sites, up to $100,000 per site. The City is
proposing to complete engineering design for 12 sites in South Burlington for $675,000. Upon final
completion of the design projects, the entire loan will be forgiven.
4. Total Project Cost:
a. Amount of grant: $675,000
b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? No.
c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching
funds for this grant? No
5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? Design services
will be paid from a forgivable loan.
6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No.
7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)?
Following the completion of engineering design, these projects will be ready for construction funding.
8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? We plan to begin design work in FY22 and complete in
FY23.
9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? Dave Wheeler, Stormwater Superintendent.
10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? 4 hours
11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? This money is available on a first come, first served basis. It is
our understanding that there are still adequate funds available.
12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is
filling out this form)? Dave Wheeler and Tom DiPietro. What are any grant compliance requirements, how
much time will this take and how is that time available? Use of this funding requires compliance with State
permitting requirements. We do not anticipate that this will take additional time to comply with this project.
Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? No. Can in-kind service be used
as part of the City match? N/A.
13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City is responsible for all payments to
engineering firms. The City will receive a loan for these payments which will be forgiven.
14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? Not necessary.
If yes, please update status:
15. In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it fits
into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that mission. This
project ranks a 5. The stormwater utility’s mission is to construct stormwater improvement projects and this
project will have a significant impact on our stormwater-impaired watersheds, as well as address permit
compliance for many property owners in South Burlington.
___________________________________ _______________________________
Reviewed by Asst. City Manager, Date If approved, grant money will be in this fund
____________________________________ _______________________________
Approved by City Manager, Date Not Approved By City Manager, Date
___________________________________________ ______________________________________
Approved By City Council, Date Not Approved By City Council, Date
2/17/11
Procedure Regarding Grant Request Form
1) No City of South Burlington staff member or volunteer shall apply for a grant without completing
and receiving approval of the attached Form.
2) All Form questions must be answered – if you need assistance on financial questions please
contact the Assistant City Manager (846-4112).
3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Assistant City Manager at least two (2) weeks
before the City Council Meeting where the application will be reviewed. Exceptions can be made
especially when the funding source(s) do not provide sufficient lead time
4) Attach any supporting documentation to the Form.
5) Assistant City Manager will review Form for accuracy and completeness – Assistant City
Manager does not approve or reject application.
6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Assistant City Manager will submit form to City
Manager for approval or rejection.
7) City Manager may request meeting with applicant for clarification.
8) City Manager will determine whether to approve or reject the application and have the project
manager informed of the decision. Project manager can request a meeting with City Manager
prior to Form being reviewed by Council.
9) Whether Form is approved or rejected by City Manager the Form will be reviewed by the City
Council. Project manager will be given the opportunity to discuss Form with Council.
10) Council will make final decision as to whether to approve or reject grant application. Council will
also have to formally approve accepting the grant itself if/when it is awarded.
11) If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to
guide the actual grant application.
12) Project manager will update Assistant City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal,
approval, and implementation progress.
13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Assistant City Manager
and Deputy Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials –
upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Assistant City Manager
based on actual grant conditions.
14) Deputy Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related
to financials.
15) Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book.
Water Infrastructure Financing Programs Form (revised: 2/19/2020, vers. 1.9)Page 1 of 12
VERMONT WATER & WASTEWATER REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS
State Revolving Loan Programs
FUNDING APPLICATION
IMPORTANT: Please select the Type of Entity and Loan Type(s) before completing the application. This information is used to set up the rest of the form.
This form MUST be completed electronically, handwritten applications will not be accepted.
Select the Type of Entity this application is for:
Municipality, Fire District, or other similar entity
Homeowners Association, LLC, Proprietorship, 501(c)3 Non-Profit, or other similar entity
LOAN TYPE
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
This loan will be used for (select all that apply):
Step I Drinking Water Loan (Feasibility & Planning)
Step II Drinking Water Loan (Final Design)
Step III Drinking Water Loan (Construction)
Drinking Water Loan Amendment
Municipal Source Water Protection Loan
Planning Advance (uncommon; requires State legislative approval)
Step I Clean Water Loan (Feasibility & Planning)
Step II Clean Water Loan (Final Design)
Step III Clean Water Loan (Construction)
Clean Water Loan Amendment
Please submit a draft Engineering Services Agreement with this application if applicable
Pollution Control Grant
CWSRF Interim Financing
APPLICANT INFORMATION
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
LOAN APPLICANT
City of South Burlington
SYSTEM NAME
South Burlington Stormwater MS4 (7027-9014.A1RA1A1)
WSID NUMBER
N/A
MAILING ADDRESS
104 Landfill Road
TOWN
South Burlington
STATE
VT
ZIP
05403
PHONE
802-658-7961
DATE OF APPLICATION
May 11, 2021
TAX ID
03-6002712 0 1 9 5 0 6 6 9 0
CELL PHONE
WASTEWATER PERMIT NUMBER
N/A
DUNS NUMBER
CONTACT PERSON - AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
CONTACT NAME
Thomas J. DiPietro
TITLE
Deputy Director of Environmental Services
MAILING ADDRESS
104 Landfill Road
TOWN
South Burlington
STATE
VT
ZIP
05403
Page 2 of 12
PHONE
802-658-7961
EMAIL ADDRESS
tdipietro@sburl.com
CELL PHONE
ALTERNATE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE(S)
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAME
David Wheeler
TITLE
Stormwater Superintendent
MAILING ADDRESS
104 Landfill Road
TOWN
South Burlington
STATE
VT
ZIP
05403
PHONE
802-658-7961
EMAIL ADDRESS
dwheeler@sburl.com
CELL PHONE
Add Alternate Representative
ENGINEERING FIRM & REPRESENTATIVE (or Legal Firm and Attorney's Name if this is a Source Protection Loan)
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
FIRM NAME
TBD
CONTACT NAME
MAILING ADDRESS TOWN STATE
VT
ZIP
PHONE EMAIL ADDRESSCELL PHONE
LOAN REQUEST
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
Project Title:South Burlington 3 Acre Stormwater Retrofit Designs
Total amount requested for this loan: $675,000
Total projected project cost: $675,000
Please describe the history of the project:
The City of South Burlington contains approximately 46 developments/commercial properties identified as 3-Acre Sites in the
State's Stormwater General Permit 3-9050. Among the 46 sites, the City estimates there are at least 34 new stormwater
treatment practices that will need to be constructed, along with 38 existing stormwater treatment practices identified for
potential upgrades or expansions. The City is proposing to complete engineering design for 10 to 12 of the 46 sites with the
money requested in the loan application.
Please describe who will benefit from the proposed project:
The project will benefit both residential and commercial property owners in South Burlington who are subject to the State's
Stormwater General Permit 3-9050. Additionally, as the City owns impervious surface in many of the identified 3 Acre sites, all
South Burlington property owners will benefit from the City's ability to comply with the requirements of the 3-9050 permit.
Do current and potential customers have alternative sources of water and is the proposed project the best and most cost-
effective alternative?
Alternate sources of water is not applicable to this project. The properties identified in the list of 3 Acre Sites are required to
comply with the State's Stormwater General Permit 3-9050.
Page 3 of 12
Please provide a description of the project as it relates to this loan. Include specifications and materials used, water sources,
and treatment facilities (attach sheets if necessary):
The project will include engineering design including site survey, soil borings, natural resource delineation, site plan and
specification development, cost estimating, legal agreements, landowner coordination, permitting, etc. This project will result
in construction ready documents, but does not include construction.
Please include estimated or actual project cost summary/estimate of probable project costs.
Is the Applicant interested in sponsoring a Water Infrastructure Sponsorship Program (WISPr) project?
Yes No
SITE INFORMATION
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
An attorney's legal opinion may be required regarding the site or sites where the project will be located.
The Facilities Engineering Division's Construction Section will make this determination for the project.
Do you own all land or possess all the easements or rights-of-ways for project sites?
Yes No Enter the date expected to complete ownership and site information:N/A
Please describe how this site is integral to the project:
By their nature, 3 Acre Sites are spread across public and private property. As part of the engineering design process, the City
will work with landowners to identify maintenance responsibility.
ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
This section should be completed by the engineer
Estimated Project Initiation Date:7/1/2021
Estimated Project Completion Date:6/30/2023
ESTIMATED SPENDING SCHEDULE OF LOAN PROCEEDS
This section may be completed by engineer or applicant
Quarter Year Amount
July - September 2021 $120,000
October - December 2021 $99,000
January - March 2022 $130,000
April - June 2022 $84,000
July - September 2022 $60,000
October - December 2022 $42,000
January - March 2023 $44,000
April - June 2023 $96,000
Add Another Quarter TOTAL --> $675,000
Page 4 of 12
REVENUES
This section should be completed by the applicant
What is the Applicant's fiscal year?State Fiscal Year
User Rate Revenue Table
Current FY - 2 Current FY - 1
Current FY
(estimated)
Current FY + 1
(estimated)
Current FY + 2
(estimated)
Amount Billed $2,184,487 $2,250,503 $2,400,000 $2,205,595 $2,273,868
Amount Collected $2,291,747 $2,202,384
Amount Uncollected/Outstanding
Estimated Amount of Commercial Revenue
Does the system use tax revenue to support any utility related activities, including capital projects?
Yes No
EXPENDITURES / SYSTEM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
This section should be completed by the applicant
Current Fiscal Year O&M Costs (exclusive of debt and reserve fund payments): $1,704,467
Post Project Fiscal Year O&M Costs (exclusive of debt and reserve fund payments): $1,360,370
Please attach a copy of your actual YTD revenue and expenses, and projected budget.
EXPENDITURES / SYSTEM DEBT
This section should be completed by the applicant
What is the applicant's total long-term outstanding debt? $0
What is the applicant's total annual long-term debt payment? $0
Direct Debt
Current FY Current FY + 4 Current FY + 5
Total Payment $0 $0 $0
Current FY + 3
$0
Current FY + 2
$0
Current FY + 1
$0
Long-Term Debt Schedule
Purpose of Long-Term Debt
Direct or
Self-Supporting
Year of
Maturity
$ Amount
Outstanding
N/A
Add Another Long-Term Debt Total As of -->
Does the system have any authorized but unissued debt (excluding the debt requested in this application)?
Yes No
Page 5 of 12
Yes No
Does the Applicant have any future borrowing plans over the next 5 years?
Are there other capital projects in the near term (5 years)?
Yes No
Please describe those other capital projects planned for the near term (5 years)?
The City has identified a suite of stormwater treatment projects as part of its Flow Restoration Plans that will be required to be
implemented by 2032. The total estimated cost to the City is $24M to implement these stormwater projects in this time frame.
Does the Applicant have an annual or cumulative deficit?
Yes No
Does the Applicant anticipate an increase in revenues as a result of these improvements?
Yes No
Does the Applicant anticipate a reduction in operating expenses as a result of these improvements?
Yes No
What are the economic trends in your service area - jobs, population increases/decreases, housing starts, property values, etc.? For
Mobile Home Parks, please provide an occupancy history for the past five (5) years.
N/A - South Burlington is a growing community. Due to the current pandemic, it is difficult to provide an accurate analysis of
current economic trends. Unemployment has fluctuated dramatically with a significant amount of Vermonters on temporary
unemployment or reduced working hours in 2020. According to a recent article in Vermont Digger, "The Chittenden County
region is in the midst of a real estate market boom, largely brought on by the pandemic... The demand in Burlington’s market
is partially being driven by people migrating from big cities and other densely populated areas, as working from home
becomes more ubiquitous, and families are yearning for more space." The money itself being requested for this load is
originating from the federal government as a response to the economic crisis brought on by the pandemic. Prior to the 2020
pandemic, a Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for the Burlington-South Burlington region published by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development rated the economy of the region as strong, with unemployment rates
averaging 1.8% and accounted for nearly 40 percent of all nonfarm payroll jobs in the state in the 12 months prior to the end
of September 2019.
List any current or potential connections using greater than 5% of demand or provide a general description of service area.
N/A
SYSTEM RESERVE FUNDS
This section should be completed by the applicant
Does the Applicant have any reserve funds?
Yes No
Please describe the reserve fund and what it is used for:
The City Reserve Fund is used for City costs that were unforeseen and therefore not part of the City's Annual Budget.
Additionally, the Stormwater Utility carries a Reserve Fund to carry out Capital Improvement Projects.
Is the Applicant actively contributing to reserve funds in accordance with a short-term Asset Replacement Table (START)?
Yes No
What does the Applicant do with surpluses, if any?
Page 6 of 12
Stormwater Revenue surpluses are spent on capital improvement projects in subsequent fiscal years. These funds cannot be
used for purposes other than stormwater.
Reserve Funds
Current FY Current FY + 1 Current FY + 2 Current FY + 3 Current FY + 4
Amount Available $1,636,167 $1,225,851 $498,894 $275,444 $75,444
Financial Documentation & Controls
This section should be completed by the applicant
Please submit 3 years audit financial statements. If not available, submit:
• 3 years statement of revenue and expenditure, AND;
• 3 years year-ending cash balance (checking, savings, and investment accounts)
Has anything occurred since the date of your last annual financial report or financial statement that would have a significantly
negative effect on your revenues, expenditures, or ability to pay future debt service?
Yes No
Did the Applicant have more than one budget defeat in the last two years?
Yes No
Does the Applicant have any pending litigation in excess of $10,000 on the system and/or the municipality?
Yes No
Does the Applicant offer a retirement plan to its employees (including VMERS)?
Yes No
Please describe your plan, your estimated proportionate share of unfunded pension liability:
Generate monthly financials, budget annually and audit yearly.
If the Applicant has its own retirement plan separate from VMERS, does it have any unfunded pension liabilities?
Yes No
Describe the Applicant's budget control system. Does the Applicant use multi-year forecasting or interim (quarterly or
monthly) financial reports to monitor your status?
Are all account records currently maintained for:
Checkbook Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Receipts Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Page 7 of 12
Disbursements Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Deposit Slips Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Are bank statements reconciled on a regular basis?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Are bank accounts and ledger balances reconciled on a monthly basis?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Are financial records maintained in a computerized system?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Are any financial records maintained in manual form?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Does the applicant maintain separate reporting for this utility?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Does someone other than the treasurer receive unopened bank statements and review bank reconciliations?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Page 8 of 12
Comments:
Does the same individual open the mail and deposit checks?
By Whom:Finance Assistant
Comments:
Yes No Don't Know
Does the organization receive payments in cash?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Does the Applicant have pre-numbered receipt books for cash payments?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Are checks always written to specified payees and not to cash?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Are pre-numbered checks used for all bank accounts?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Are checks written by the same individual who approves payments?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Have there been any changes in authorized signatures during the fiscal year?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Page 9 of 12
Has a signature stamp ever been used for any account?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Is the organization professionally audited by a CPA?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:RHR, Smith & Company
Comments:
Refer to Attachment X of the South Burlington MS4 CSWRF loan application for Federal Compliance Audits of the City of South
Burlington, VT for the latest available years FY 201X, FY 201X, and FY 201X.
Does the Authorized Representative assist in the audit planning process?
By Whom:
Comments:
Yes No Don't Know
Is a specific individual responsible for correcting audit findings?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Are regular financial reports prepared for the board?
By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Yes No Don't Know
Are budget to actual reports prepared for each department?
Don't KnowNoYes By Whom:Finance Officer
Comments:
Has the Authorized Representative borrowed money from the utility?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Page 10 of 12
Has the organization had a theft, embezzlement or wire fraud in the last 5 years?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Has the Treasurer or CFO participated in any business which does business with the system/utility?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Does the Applicant loan money to employees?
By Whom:
Comments:
Yes No Don't Know
Have board members attended financial trainings?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Has the Treasurer/CFO attended trainings on recordkeeping?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Does the Applicant have written financial policies and procedures?
By Whom:
Comments:
Yes No Don't Know
Does each employee have copies of these policies and procedures?
Yes No Don't Know By Whom:
Comments:
Page 11 of 12
KEY PERSONNEL
Please list the names and qualifications of the following key personnel including areas of expertise, years of experience in
similar programmatic work, years at current position, and/or any relevant qualifications.
Please include all personnel related to the loan. Authorized Rep, Alternative Authorized Rep(s), Clerk, Board Members, Financial Manager, etc.
Failure to include all key personnel will result in the application considered incomplete.
NAME
Kevin Dorn
POSITION (select from the list or enter another value)
Town Manager/Administrator
QUALIFICATIONS:
8 years with the City as City Manager
NAME
Donna Kinville
POSITION (select from the list or enter another value)
Clerk
QUALIFICATIONS:
Elected Official
NAME
Tom Hubbard
POSITION (select from the list or enter another value)
Treasurer
QUALIFICATIONS:
8 years with the City as Deputy City Manager/Treasurer
NAME
Martha Machar
POSITION (select from the list or enter another value)
Financial Manager
QUALIFICATIONS:
NAME
Helen Riehl
POSITION (select from the list or enter another value)
Governing Body Chair
QUALIFICATIONS:
Elected Official
Add Another Key Person
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Provide any additional comments for your application here:
Page 12 of 12
Certification
The Applicant certifies that it possesses the legal authority to apply for the SRF loan, and to finance and construct the proposed
facilities. A resolution, motion, or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the Applicant's Legislative
Body authorizing the filing of the application. A resolution, motion, or similar action has been duly adopted or passed
authorizing the person identified herein as the authorized representative of the Applicant in connection with the project for
the purpose of furnishing information, data and documents pertaining to the project as required by the State of Vermont.
Authorization Date:
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
Clerk Certification
Clerk Signature Date:
SIGNATURE OF CLERK PRINT NAME
Authorized Representative Certification
Authorized Representative Signature Date:
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRINT NAME
Submit completed application and all attachments via email to:
Tom Brown, CWSRF Project Lead
[phone] 802-622-4205 [email] thomas.brown@vermont.gov
Department of Environmental Conservation
Facilities Engineering Division
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF MINORS AND NON-RESIDENTS TO
BE VOTING MEMBERS OF OUR CITY COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington (City) bylaws provide for the membership of volunteer
City committees, which serve in an advisory role, non-exclusive of age or any other personal
identifier or attribute; and,
WHEREAS, South Burlington is a welcoming community, home to a diverse population,
including residents of all ages, nationalities, and backgrounds; and,
WHEREAS, the work of our City committees benefits from a diversity of viewpoints; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to appoint a diversity of residents to volunteer City
Committees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby allows
for the appointment of both non-US residents and US residents of 15 years and older, as long as
they are residents of the city of South Burlington, to any of our advisory City Committees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all members of our City’s advisory committees shall be
voting members counted toward the quorum (the Development Review Board excluded).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the volunteer non-US resident members and members who
are of minor age shall not participate in executive sessions or participate in votes based on
executive session discussions in any of our advisory City Committees.
Signed this _____ day of May, 2021.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, South Burlington City Council Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, South Burlington City Council Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, South Burlington City Council Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, South Burlington City Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, South Burlington City Councilor
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: May 17, 2021 City Council meeting
At its April 19th meeting, the Council elected to immediately continue the hearing to May 17th in order
for the sketch plan review of the application before the Development Review Board to be concluded.
The DRB held a meeting on May 4th and concluded the sketch plan meeting on this application at that
time.
• Minutes from the DRB’s two reviews of this application (April 6th and May 4th) are available on
the City’s website: https://sbvt-records.info/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=198&dbid=0&repo=sburl
• Video recordings of the DRB’s two reviews are available on CCTV’s website:
https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/series/south-burlington-development-review-board
DRB and Interim Zoning Review
The applicant presented the proposal to the DRB on April 6th and May 4th. Following their normal
procedures, the Board opened this informal meeting, received a presentation from the applicant, and
then reviewed of the project’s components using the staff notes as a guide.
Based on presentation by the applicant and in conjunction with questions and feedback from the public,
the Board provided design recommendations to the applicant as they develop their sketch plan proposal
into a full preliminary plat application. These recommendations included guidance regarding
landscaping and screening, connectivity of walking paths and open spaces, aesthetics, and preparation
of a design guide for the proposed homes.
The applicant has provided a supplemental letter to the City Council prepared following conclusion of
the DRB’s sketch plan. It is enclosed with this packet.
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 and iteratively
modified the proposal with the objective of presenting a Plan that responds to and 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 to the east of the proposed neighborhood, to be field delineated as part of the preliminary
plat application to the DRB) and a portion of a mapped Habitat Block. The mapped Habitat Block in the
2
Planning Commission’s draft Regulations cover the area from the eastern property boundary 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.” This involves the 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. If adopted, the applicant would be in a position to pursue this option.
Regarding overall project layout, the proposal includes an interconnected street and pedestrian
network, a mix of housing types that complement the nearby built environment context, and a small
central green space.
With this continued hearing on May 17th, the Council is invited to initiate its review of the application,
pose questions of the applicant and take public comment. 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 any supplemental information from the applicant, staff, or committees
that the Council deems necessary in order to render a decision on the application.
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].”
Enclosures:
• Applicant updated cover letter (May 10, 2021)
• Applicant Initial Cover Letter to Council (February 12, 2021)
• Applicant Initial Cover Letter to DRB (February 12, 2021)
• Existing conditions plan
• Overall Site Plan
43 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730
May 10, 2021
South Burlington City Council
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear City Councilors,
The sketch plan for development of our properties at 1720/30 Spear Street has now been
reviewed favorably by the Development Review Board. In the words of one Board member, we
are proposing a “great little infill development.” However, in light of the public comments that
were received in response to our application, a few points merit clarification. As I have
mentioned previously, our proposal seeks to maintain the balance between conservation and
responsible development that is the mandate of Interim Zoning.
Open Space:
Our property was identified as one of the highest-priority parcels for conservation by the IZ
Open Space Committee, since the eastern portion of the property forms part of the Great
Swamp. It should be noted, however, that the Committee’s methodology did not distinguish
differences in development appropriateness within parcels. If it had, the western portion of
our property would not have been rated highly by any of the Committee’s criteria, except
possibly Aesthetics.
Housing:
The Affordable Housing Committee has sent the DRB a statement supporting our proposal on
several grounds, including our commitment to make five of our dwelling units affordable in
perpetuity. It is also worth noting that the Housing Working Group’s study (“The Case for
Housing,” March 2020) presented to the CC last summer would have included our property as
appropriate for development, but for some reason they did not recognize that our parcels were
zoned residential.
Density:
Using the City’s current formula for clustered density after subtracting the 22 (of 39 total) acres
conserved under the 2006 NRP statute, we would be allowed to build 68 (4 X 17) units of
housing on our combined properties. However, we are proposing many fewer units (49), in
order to present a diversity of building types, maximize the green space within the
development for residents, and provide buffers for abutters. Also, valid suggestions from the
DRB for connecting our proposed green spaces may reduce the number of units further.
Compatibility with Adjacent Developments:
Both South Village to the south and South Pointe to the north have strong neighborhood
associations, with bylaws governing land use, building styles, landscaping, etc. We intend to
work with both associations to ensure that our development will also promote good
environmental practices and standards that are harmonious.
Connectivity:
The City has requested that our plan include access from Spear Street via South Pointe Drive to
avoid additional curb cuts, and a long-anticipated joining of stubbed roads in South Pointe and
South Village. We also plan to grant the City an easement along the east side of Spear Street to
accommodate an eventual bike path, and a 9.7 acre easement to allow the public to enjoy our
portion of the Great Swamp. Access to that easement is already available via the Underwood
property and an easement to the City from South Pointe. We look forward to working with the
City’s Recreation and Parks Department to ensure that our plans are consistent with theirs.
Screening:
We are proposing a green corridor on the northern edge of our project that will not only screen
much of the development from South Pointe but also provide a daytime recreational path and a
nighttime animal corridor from Spear Street through an old-growth copse and into the eastern
portion of the property. On the southern edge of the project, we intend to preserve as much of
the greenery along the boundary with South Village as possible, with sensitivity to the routing
of their “Quiet Path” that parallels that boundary and to the visibility of the parking area
proposed for our adjacent multi-family units. On the western edge, we propose to construct a
berm with plantings that should screen the back yards of the homes nearest Spear Street from
not only the busy roadway, but also the homes across the street (and, of course, vice versa).
Comprehensive Plan:
Because of the timing of our proposal, we are still under the constraints of the current LDRs.
Neighbors have mentioned the Comprehensive Plan of 2016, and in particular the conservation
areas shown on Maps 7 and 8 of that Plan. Our plan does not overlap any of the
“environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas” shown on Map 7, Primary Conservation Areas.
We do plan to develop portions of the Secondary Conservation Areas shown on Map 8, but the
Comprehensive Plan (p. 125) allows “limited encroachment … in accordance with siting and
management practices that are intended to avoid, minimize or mitigate … adverse impacts….”
There is a small tongue of Prime Ag soil extending across the South Pointe development into
our property from the north that will be an appropriate site for our proposed neighborhood
garden. Our mitigation strategy for the deciduous forest shown on Map 8 is to preserve a
significant copse of older-growth trees at the crest of the north-south ridge on our property
(this is the area in which South Pointe residents, with our permission, have observed and
photographed animal activity), trading that preservation for limited development on the
eastern edge of the project in a transitional meadow. Any wetlands will of course be subject to
field verification – no City or Agency of Natural Resource (ANR) maps are prescriptive for
wetland delineations.
.
Interim Zoning and Habitat Blocks:
We have worked closely with the Planning Commission and with Planning and Zoning staff over
the past two years to arrive at a plan that will comply with not only the current regulations, but
also the proposed new LDRs. If adopted, the habitat blocks in the Natural Resources Map will
supersede those plotted on Map 8, and under the newer delineation, we will be conserving
approximately six (6) more acres in addition to the 17 protected under NRP, for a total of at
least 23 of our 39 acres. We are proposing additional green space inside our development,
leaving only about 10 acres for development.
We appreciate and support the City Council’s role during IZ to prevent development that is not
sensitive to the City’s parallel goals of housing and conservation. Our proposal conserves ~75%
of our land and creates an infill between two existing developments that includes both green
space and affordable housing.
We respectfully request that the Council allow us to proceed, working with the DRB, the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Committee, the Planning Commission, and our neighbors to move this project
forward.
Sincerely,
Alan Long (on behalf of the Long family)
Alanklong56@gmail.com
781-521-5429
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