HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-75-0000 - Decision - 0000 Ridgewood DrivePLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1Z.L_UZ
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, June 17,
1975, in the Conference Rood, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road.
MEMBERS PRESENT
William Wessel, Chairman; James Ewing, Arlene Krapcho, Ernest Levesque,
Frank Lidral, Mary Barbara Maher
MEMBERS ABSENT
David Ellis
OTHERS PRESENT.
Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Edward Johnson, Frank Armstrong, George
C. Crooks, Fred Blais, Alfred A. Calcagni, Terrence Boyle, Kay Neubert, Clark
H. Bensen, Richard Segal, William J. Schuele, Steven Bushey
Chairman Wessel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
MJNUTES OF JUNE 10, 12Z.�L and JUNE 1_21975
In the Minutes of June 12, 1975, Mrs. Krapcho asked that in her motion the
word some be changed to a portion.
It was moved by Mrs. Maher that the Minutes of June 10, 1975 and June 12, 1975,
be accepted.
Seconded by Mr. Ewing and voted unanimously for approval.
Final subdivision plan review of Ridgewood Estates
Because there have been four new members on the Planning Commission since the
original application of Ridgewood Estates, Chairman Wessel asked Mr. Ward to
review briefly for their benefit the plan of Ridgewood Estates.
Mr. Ward described the land as approximately 57 acres located on Swift Street
and Dorset Street in the AR District. The City Council and the Planning Com-
mission reviewed the plan and approved it around October of last year for the
construction of approximately 100 townhouse units and some single family lots.
One of the conditions was that each phase of the project would be reviewed by
the Planning Commission, and that Phase One consisting of approximately 30
units would be served mainly by the Swift Street access. He said the City
Manager had been working with Fred Calcagni and Fred Blais on utilities, and
he himself has reviewed it with respect to the stipulations, some of which
are contracts which are in the hands of Dick Spokes, and some of which are
dealing with phase placements now. Now they have come up with 103 townhouse
units and 11 single family lots. This has been before the Environmental Board
under Act 250 and was approved in November, 1974. The Tree Planting Committee
has not yet worked with Mr. Boyle. Mr. Ward indicated the various plans on
display on the board as well as the model of the project.
Mr. Calcagni stated this was still the essential plan presented before. All
utilities are to be underground. They are scheduled to meet on Wednesday with
the environmental sanitation officers and also to get the discharge permit
for stoma discharge areas. He said Terry Boyle has had an opportunity to walk
the site in the spring to see what has happened in the previous year. They
are now showing some specific hickory trees exposing a large natural brook
2.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1975
to which they are giving a little more interest. The recreational area has
been refined. The units th,�rnselves are quite varied, some one story, some
two, some two bedrooms, some with three. These are not repetitive units;
they have tried to create privacy and orientation for sunshine. He said the
utilities have been reviewed with the gas and power companies and with Mr.
Szymanski's office. There are no restrictions on locating gas mains in a
trenth adjacent to water and electricity. All sewers are oriented so that
they are in back of the building, but gas, phone, electricity, and water will
be coming in at the front of the buildings. The main sewer system has been
approved. The pumping station is at the end of the cul de sac and there will
be a forty foot right of way.
M'.r. Boyle said they would be starting with six units and the recreational
complex. One change made from the last plan which had three additional sub-
division lots which took up the frontage close to Swift Street involves
moving the recreational area rather than using these lots for homes. It seemed
more feasible to have the recreational area over next to the stream bed, using
it as a basic resource, with tennis courts across the bridge over the stream
gully. This, he said, has allowed them to use the land across the stream for
more condominium units; it also softens the plan and allows for more easy
looping of drives and smaller scale clusters, with the same peripheral loop
roads as before. The entrance is a right angle 90 degree with center median.
The swimming pool has an outdoor deck leading to the bridge to the tennis
courts.
Mr. Boyle then displayed the planting plan showing the approximate size and
quantity for the 32 units, and described the kinds of plantings. Four of the
first units will be oriented to the west and two to the north, the wooded
knoll. There will be space for one car in the garage and one outside, with
an average of 2.2 spaces per unit. All trees and stone walls have been taken
advantage of when possible. A fire hydrant is to be in each cluster; no problem
in getting a fire truck in. The road will be maintained by the maintenance
copporation. He indicated the open spaces called North Meadow and South
Meadow, also the woods in the vicinity of the first phase, on the drawing;
also the trees along the stream bank. The proposed planting is to reinforce
these spaces and give privacy in the courtyard areas. They are planting 21"
to 3" diameter trees as well as small trees and shrubs. Evergreen will screen
some of these garages, will give privacy and a buffer between adjacent prop-
erties, and protect against potential headlight glare. They are introducing
earth berms for headlight control and to give a sense of privacy and to define
space; also to separate the garages from the travelled way. The 20-square
plan is the detailed plan which the contractor uses to build. Planting will
probably be contracted out. Evergreen and flowering trees will be 6' or 8',
and shrubs will be 24" to 36" with $1,000 per unit for the first phase to be
spent on planting including prorating the cost of planting around the clubhouse
and recreational area. There will be 20 feet of owner land in front of each
unit.
Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Ward about the 8' vs. the 12' sewer pipe. Mr. Ward
explained this is the line that will run up Swift Street, and the cost differ-
ence between the 8' and the 12' which Bill would like will have to be worked
out with City Council and Bill.
Mrs. Maher asked if Council would be willing to pay for that, if they wanted it.
Mr. Ward replied he thought so.
Mrs. Maher asked what the Planning Commission's position would be, would it be
a separate agreement between Council and the developer.
Mr. Ward said he thought it would be.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 197
Mr. Blais listed the other stipulations as: 1) no salt on paved area; 2) a
gravelled walkway on Dorset Street; 3) sewer pipe size; 4)-maintaining the
common open spaces in proper condition; 5) in'the event that the City is
asked to take over the roads the Association would have to bring them up to
then existing City standards. It was also agreed to allow an access for
bicycle trails at such time as the City would implement bicycle trails on
adjacent property. Proof is required that they intend to execute what is
shown on the plan and proof of financial capability prior to receiving
building permits; the bond for construction of sewer and storm drains.
Finally, he said, there was a formula of the 30 units per year unless the
2% factor of the County rate would apply; and also that all roads that cross
the brook would be culverted, and that the road called Hickory Drive would not
cross the stream more than twice.
Mr. Ward explained Item #2 in his memo concerning the setback from the street.
Even though this is to be a private street, he felt the setback should be
30 feet as on a public street; that leaving it at 20 feet would be setting
a precedent.
Mr. Boyle said they had changed the location of one of the garages to bring
it in line with the others, so they now have a 30 foot setback from the edge
of the right of way in Phase One.
Chairman Wessel asked about maintenance of the small private area in front
of each unit and was told that would be an option of the owner. It coule be
maintained by the management corporation or it could be done by the owner
within the 20 foot deeded parcel.
Mr. Wessel asked if that was mentioned in the agreements to be reviewed by
the City Attorney.
Mr. Blais said it is not; the covenants go far beyond that; there can be no
snow mobiles or boats stored in the owned area. He said this was similar to
a fire district in that the Association has the right to assess in the same
fashion a municipality does, and this covers much of what is being talked
about, maintaining plantings, and keeping the integrity.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the State gets involved at all in reviewing the contracts
for the homeowners' Association.
Mr. Blais said their attorney is working out the Articles of Association,
and he is 99% sure there is no supervision on the State level.
Mss. Krapcho then asked what protection the City has that the Association
would not dissolve itself.
Mr. Blais said there would have to be a 100% vote to dissolve it and there
would have to be someone to receive it. There is no one to convey it to.
Chairman Wessel said he would question a variety of visual things; would the
covenants restrict that.
Mr. Calcagni said it involves covenants and site plan; they are restricting
the privacy areas in the detail of the fences. Any change in color must be
voted by the entire Association membership. They are trying to give a feeling
of ownership and identity to the lot. Some different kinds of siding and
some different colors will be used, and privacy will be created by the plant-
ings. What happens between the garage and the 20 foot area can be pretty
much what the owner wants, an opportunity for diversity.
Mr. Wessel asked when the covenants would be complete for review.
Mr. Blais replied the City Attorney had said they did not need to be reviewed.
They gave their priorities to their attorney to get a contract agreement
which Dick Spokes has approved, also the easement right of way for the sewer.
Now he is getting together the Articles of Association to which they feel
they will be adding some.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1975
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the recreation building A s part of the first phase
• and if that had been relocated relative to the drainage way and if there was
a required setback from that drainage way.
Mr. Boyle said that had never been brought up.
Mr. Ward said there has to be 50 feet from the center line of the drainage
way.
Mr. Boyle said he suspected they were closer than that, but they did not plan
to upset the stream at all; the reason for the bridge is to link up with the
courts.
Mr. Blais said that is not a stipulation under the PUD concept; setbacks are
not categorized. That particular stream could be moved anywhere they wished;
it was nothing but a drainage way.
Mr. Schuele said it depends on who you are whether it is a ditch, a stream,
or a beautiful natural resource.
Mr. Boyle stressed this was a matter of refinement, making it more attractive.
They have captured the amenity that is there in the form of that stream, and
hoped to have a pool later on.
Mr. Schuele said that the only question is that minor streams get a 50 foot
setback, and that Mr. Boyle knew it was in there and chose to ignore it.
Mr. Calcagni referred to a letter from Russell Reay stating that the stream
is not a significant natural resource and if it becomes advantageous to relocate
the stream he could see no danger in doing so.
Mrs. Neubert said the integrity of the stream must be maintained and the
stream bank stabilized and there must be a setback.
Mr. Schuele insisted the developer must conform to the zoningordinance unless
he is able to convince the Planning Commission to ignore the zoning ordinance.
The developer can't wipe it off just because he has decided to ignore it.
Mr. Calcagni said they have oriented their plan more to the stream than ever
before.
Mrs. Krapcho suggested that under PUD the Planning Commission does have the
authority to revise; that dimensional requirements may be varied by the
Commission.
Mr. Wessel said he would interpret the conservation space as a district or
zone and it could not be waived.
Mr. Boyle said the recreation building as shown on that plan is approximately
35 feet from the stream. It may be possible to accommodate the setback but
it may also be quite a constraint to their planning. He said they didn't
need to have it any closer than that but they have a deck and bridge that
actually span the stream.
Chairman Wessel said his interpretation would be that it would be within the
district and there is not the same freedom within the conversation district
or open space.
Mr. Ward said it is an interpretation thing.
Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Boyle what is in the 20 extra feet, is it a deck or a
building.
Mr. Boyle said the deck actually crosses the stream, there would be a post to
hold it. He didn't know whether that would be considered a piling or a post.
The recreation building is 35 feet from the stream, the tennis courts are 25
feet. -
Mrs. Maher said the Commission has a question of two structures, whether or
not they have the right to waive setbacks from the stream.
Mr. Boyle said they were proposing a pond at a later phase and if the inter-
pretation is followed it could affect the siting of the additional units in
Phase One.
i
PLANNING COMMISSluN JUNE 17. 1975
Mrs. Maher said there is no ultimate problem if the City is willing to waive.
The City Attorney might say the Zoning Board was the logical way to proceed.
• Asked why the stream was not shown on the map, she explained all major streams
are shown and anything else is considered a minor stream.
Mr. Schuele urged the Commission to think about the consequences of ignoring
a conservation zone.
Mr. Levesque moved that the Planning Commission allow the recreation building
and deck to be within 35 feet of the stream because the developer is enhanc-
ing the stream by providing an innovative design which will increase the
value of the stream.
Seconded by Mr. Lidral.
The motion did not pass.
Mrs. Maher then moved that the Planning Commission refer to the City Attorney
the question of whether or not the Planning Commission in site plan review
on a Planned Unit Development has the authority to waive setbahk requirements
from streams within the conservation open space zoning.
Seconded by Mr. Ewing.
Mr. Levesque wished to make an amendment to allow for the developer's creative
design as one of the reasons for this request.
Mrs. Maher said she could not accept the amendment because it is in its nature
different from the legal question she was asking and she didn't think the legal
question should be colored by telling the lawyer what the intent might or
might not be.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if it would appropriate to ask if the Commission has the
power to waive the setbacks of the interstate which is dealt with in the
same ordinance as the setbacks on major and minor streams.
Mrs. Maher added to her motion the following3 Further, the Planning Commission
would like an opinion on whether or not it has the right to waive the 150
foot setbacks on the right of way of the interstate when reviewing a site
plan for a Planned Unit Development or a Planned Residential Development.
This addition was seconded by Mr. Ewing,
Mr. Boyle asked about the reference in the zoning ordinance to a conservation
zone as being 100 feet either side of a major stream, saying he assumed this
shows on a zoning map. Mr. Ward said no.
Mr. Boyle then said that by reference and not by map this is included as an
entity.
Mr. Ward explained they do not have all drainage ways or major or minor streams
as a conservation district. It shows up in the boundaries and it shows up
in the setbacks. There is no doubt about it.
Mr. Boyle asked about structural changes in the land, grading it up, and Mr.
Ward answered that if it is part of the development it is included.
Mrs. Maher explained that any change in the earth c ontours must have
approval.
Mr. Blais said he felt this was a valid question to ask of the City Attorney
abut he would hate to think that the Board would postpone for two weeks
his being able to move on to the Act 250 and building permits on the basis
of a legal technicality. He suggested that perhaps the Board might like to
approve the final phase of the subdivision review subject to the clarification
of the motion as presently on the floor. Given the fact that the City Attorney
says you don't have the right to waive, the developers will resubmit -the
recreation building showing a 50 foot setback. They could then proceed into
the final phase toward ground breaking.
Chairman Wessel said he would like to finish this tonight but the Commission
has the motion and it has other questions.
Mrs. Maher said she was prepared to make a motion and have it contingent upon
the opinion of the City Attorney.
b.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17. 197,E
Mrs. Krapcho asked if there wasn't another question -- to ask him to rule as
to whether or not a deck qualifies as a structure.
Mr. Boyle said more specifielially a bridge.
Mr. Lidral suggested asking for clarification of the word structure rather than
a specific question. Mr. Ward read the definition of structure from the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Calcagni objected to asking a legal question of the City Attorney because
it would mean the Commission would get a legal opinion. The Commission, he
felt, should in its area of planning be looking at a specific natural area.
Mr. Levesque said that was what his motion was all about.
Mrs. Maher's motion was voted unanimously for approval.
Mr. Wessel asked about the difference in width of the two accesses and Mr.
Boyle said the right of way width from Dorset Street does not permit the
splitting of the entrance by a median.
Mr. Wessel then asked about the outdoor storage for boats, campers, etc.
Mr. Boyle said they are tlooking to an area that would appropriately screened;
it will be shown then they work out the whole area.
Mr. Blais said they were tocome before the Planning Commission f-or-specific
approval of the first phase and the storage area does not fall under the
jurisdiction of this.
Mr. Schuele asked what if they are needed by the first phase.
Mx. Blais replied they would just have to use some of the recreation area.
Mrs. Neubert asked where these things would be put if they can't be put in
the cluster area because of aesthetic reasons.
Mx. Blais said the storage area is planned for the second phase and will have
the Association's maintenance equipment and there would be enclosed storage
stalls for trailers, boats, etc., which are not allowed to be stored by
covenant in the townhouse concept.
In reference to the memo from the City Manager, Mr. Blais said all the stipula-
tions had been met. He indicated on the map some changes that had been made
to meet Mr. Szymanski's stipulation that the water remain ten feet from the
structures.
Mrs. Neubert asked about the setback for the utility storage area, and Mr.
Blais said about 30 to 32 feet.
She asked what the ordinance says, and Mr. Ward replied it doesn't say. In
agricultural use the rear yard is 50 feet.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the 2.2 parking spaces per unit will meet the City
requirements, and Mr. Ward replied the City only requires 11 per dwelling unit.
Mrs. Krapcho said she was concerned that there might not be adequate parking
in some of the complexes to meet the need not just for the people living
there but for visitors as well. She wondered if the City's parking standards
are sufficient to provide adequately for parking.
Mr. Blais said they had gone to 2.2 because they felt 1.5 was not sufficient.
Mrs. Maher moved on behalf of the Planning Commission to approve the first
base of Ridgewood Estates consisting of 32 units and shown on the four draw-
ings dated May 30, IM contingent upon the followin . 1 review and
approval of the landscaping lan by the Tree Planting Committee 2 all build-
iniz setbacks will be no less than 30 feet off the major internal arteries;
ne otiations between the City and the developer regardins the stipulations
outlined in preliminary approval will have been completed 4 the necessa
bonding will be posted to meet all requirements of the Ci y Managerir _al��-
regiiirementd will be adhered to;regarding drainage; 6 if the legal interpre-
tation from the City Attorney should be that the Planning Commission _doesn't
7-
PLANNING COMMISSIUN JUNE_17, 1975
have the authority to waive setbacks from streams in the conservation
district within a PUD, the developer will take the normal channel for a
variance or he may modify his plan; if, however; the Attorney rules that the
Planning Commission does have the right to waive the setbacks, this motion
is to be considered as approving the setback as shown on all the plans
dated May 30, 1975.
Seconded by Mr. Levesque
Mr. Schuele asked if the Planning Commission or the City Council follows
through on the terms of what was called a contract by Fred Blais.
Mr. Blais said no permit is to be issued until it is signed, and he assumed
that Dick Spokes is preparing to recommend that Council sign. This comes
first, the State second.
Mrs. Maher said that was the intent of her point #{3. Agreement will be
reached before a building permit is given.
Chairman Wessel stated he was against the motion as he did not believe
they should encroach on the conservation district; there might be a good
reason to do so but he couldn't see it.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if he would prefer that the Commission just defect action
on that proposal until the opinion is received from the City Attorney or
would he just vote against the variancing of the setbacks under any circum-
stances.
Mr. Wessel said he would feel more comfortable if the opinion was received
from the Attorney first.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if it would be possible to amend the motion to set it
up that way.
Mrs. Maher said she didn't know what Bill could hear two weeks hence on the
setbacks from their topographic point of view and in two weeks Bill is going
to vote against it.
M.r. Wessel said he might find it more viable if something different was found.
He felt it was better to take this particular project into consideration,
and any structure of this kind is an encroachment, and it seemed to him that
a certain amount of adjustment could be made in order to preserve the basic
principles.
Mrs. Maher said this stream was less of a drainage way than what she has three
feet from her driveway and ten feet from her house; that surely anyone could
see from these plans the quality of the work; the Commission has spent hours
and hours with this developer; they are not going to hurt the stream.
Mr. Levesque said the developer is creating the environment.
When it was suggested that Mrs. Maher's stream was just a drainage way or
ditch, Mrs. Maher sait it was not, it was a natural stream and is on her
property.
Mrs. Neubert said the new ordinance tends to maintain the integrity of
natural waterways.
Mr. Schuele said this is one of theimprovements the City was striving to main-
tain; now someone wants to modify it just because the guy has a good program.
Mr. Blais said they did not intentionally come in to this meeting to modify a
law; every bit of the subdivision section has been honored by the developer.
He said he felt the motion was reasonable. If the City Attorney says no, the
law says 50 feet, they would move back although he didn't know how at the
moment. -
Mr. Boyle said it seemed a perfectly valid motion, but if in fact they can't
have a bridge it will mean walking up the road to get to the courts, so it
will mean going back and making a significant change in their plan.
8.
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1975
That is going to significantly affect the plan and make a hardship to
redesign the whole concept. I ,
Mr. Schuele said the City *as devised the concept of open space.
Mrs. Neubert felt if a stream is in a conservation zone, then no one can go
to the Zoning Board for a variance; they would be required to go for a zone
change.
Mr. Blais said the motion is still perfectly valid.
Mr. Calcagni said laws are laws but basically laws are changeable by the
people in the community. 50 feet doesn't mean 50 feet for 200 years. The
Commission will get a specific ruling without any consideration of aesthetics
or specific planning.
The motion was voted for approval 5 to 1. Mr. Wessel voted against it.
After a brief recess the meeting was reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
Application of Smart Associates tabled from June 10, 1975, meeting
Vice Chairman Levesque presided because Chairman Wessel disqualified himself
from any consideration of the application due to the fact that he is a
neighboring property owner.
Mr. Ward stated a motion had been made that the City Attorney draft -up a -
formal agreement between Smart Associates and the City. The agreement waw
drafted by the attorney for Smart Associates and Dick Spokes has reviewed it.
Mr. Ward read aloud the agreement as drafted, then read the suggested -
additions, one to paragraph 2, two additions to paragraph 3, and the -addition
of a new paragraph 4. It was recommended that the agreement be witnessed and
recorded as a legal document.
Mrs. Krapcho asked who signs for the City, and Ms. Ward said probably the
City Manager.
She asked who would draft it, and Mr. Ward said the attorney for Smart
Associates. The agreement would be made part of the deed.
Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission approve the 150 foot extension
of the private road on the property owned by Smart Associates located on
Hinesburg Road with the understanding that the legal agreement between Smart
Associates and the City of South BurlinKton meet with the aDDroval of the
City Attorney.
Seconded by Mr. Lidral. Motion voted unanimously for approval.
Application of Richard Derridinger tabled from June 10, 1975, meeting
Mr. Ward said a letter addressed to Chairman Wessel from Harry Yawney was
on file in which Mr. Yawney stated he was withdrawing his objections to the
granting of the variance rather than selling the 200 feet of frontage from
his own lot. He did not wish to jeopardize the lot's meeting the 10 acre
requirement.
Mr. Derridinger is anxious to build a road on the 60 foot right of way, Mr.
Ward said, because he could be evicted from the other right of way at any
time.
Chairman Wessel was concerned that this would be a private road now but might
be expanded into a public road later.
Mrs. Krapcho said the Commission has to make the assumption that any right
of way could ultimately be extended to serve other properties. She asked if
the City Manager felt there was necessary protection with a 60 foot right of
way with the necessary culverting.
Mrs. Maher said the concern Harry Yawney has will be covered by subdivision
regulations and she could appreciate Mr. Derridinger not wanting to be at the
PLANNING COM11ISSION
l � 571 `��',�� %�� 5•
SEPTEIMBLR 27, 1977
Ridgewood Estates, final revlapw of phase II
Mr. Terrence Boyle said that there were 34 units in phase II of this plan. It
is the same concept that was presented a year ago except that the units in this
phase are farther apart than phase I. Access is still from Swift Street. The
units here are townhouses. The Fire Chief has looked at this plan and has OKed
it but he still has to know the number and placement of the hydrants. Mr.
Morency asked when this would be started and was told that it would begin this
fall, and the units Would be started in the spring. It should be completed
between December 1978 and March 1989, said Mr. Blais. Sewer capacity is
available for this project. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning
Commission approve the plan of Ridgewood Estates for phase II, consisting of
34 townhouse units, as depicted on a plan entitled "Ridgewood Estates, 1"-60 1",
dated 9/22/77, unsigned, sub.�ect to the following stipulations:
1) Final utilities plan shall be reviewed anal aporoved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a land development permit.
2) The following shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits
for phase II.
a) execute a revised bonding agreement to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney. `
b) record a plan or plans for phase I as built and phase II as approved,
showing lot lines, easements, waterlines, sanitary and storm sewers,
buildings roadways walkways and Parkin; areas.
c) landscaping bonds, or suitable agreement, shall be posted or executed
d) landscaping plans for phase II shall be reviewed and approved by
the Tree Planting Committee or the County Forester.
e) the Fire Chief shall approve the location of the fire hydrants.
3) The 30' building setback from interior collector roadway shhll be
maintained.
4) The application for phase III shall specify the location of the bikepath
and/or pedestrian easement, and include an offer of irrevocable dedication
The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed with Yr. Rozenda,l abstainin`.
Mr. Blais, in reference to point 4, read a copy of a contract between him and the
city concerning the bikepath or easement. tie said that they would abide by the
contract. In principal, he does not disagree with the bikepath, but he does not
wish to put it in until the rest of the system, or a substantial portion of it,
is already in. He does not want this development to become the biketrail island
in the city. Mr. Page explained that that was understood by the city and that
he would not be asked to be the only one.
Review of lighting plan for Nordic Realty, 40 Creen Mountain Drive
Mr. Rozendaal removed himself from this discussion. Kr. Herman Warner said that
the steepness of the incoming drive had been lessened and that junipers will be
.i
1 ,
`
�..-
e -� �`�'
stir i n
�. z�T)ll