Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Larkins LP to adjust Shelburne Road lot line to avoid habitat block, keeping plan a minor subdivision
Summary
At a Nov. 18 DRB sketch-plan review, applicant Larkins LP agreed to reconfigure a proposed lot line at 1690 and 1720 Shelburne Road to exclude a habitat block so the proposal can remain a minor subdivision; staff said mitigation inside the habitat block was not feasible.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The South Burlington Development Review Board on Nov. 18 reviewed a sketch-plan boundary-line adjustment from Larkins LP for properties at 1690 and 1720 Shelburne Road and heard that the applicant will change the proposed lot line to avoid cutting through a mapped habitat block. Applicant representative Doug Boardman told the board, "we're happy to change that lot line to the 1 suggested by staff." The application as described at the hearing would reconfigure existing parcels (an 8.14-acre lot with a 63-unit multifamily building and a 13.26-acre lot with hotel and multifamily buildings) into two new lots of roughly 6.38 acres and 15.02 acres.
Board and staff discussion focused on whether the proposal required master-plan review and how the town's habitat-block rules apply. City staff explained the code requires lands within a habitat block be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition and that building envelopes may not include habitat-block land; staff said the applicant had two options: "Adjust the boundaries to exclude the lines of the habitat block or subdivide the habitat block onto its own lot." The applicant indicated a preference for the first option so the submittal can remain classified as a minor subdivision, and staff and the board said master-plan requirements could be revisited if and when a development application is filed.
The applicant said the adjustment is driven by the fact Bartlett Brook bisects the neighboring parcel and that the change would make adjoining land more developable in the future; no specific development plans were presented at the sketch stage. Staff asked that site features and any field-surveyed information be shown on final-plat drawings for later review. The board took no formal motion at sketch stage and closed the hearing; the applicant is expected to return with revised lot lines and more detailed plats at the next phase.

