The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAO-98-0000 - Supplemental - 0000 Pinnacle DriveSTATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS MBL ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff ) V. ) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ) Defendant. ) Chittenden Superior Court Docket No. S392-98 CnC AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD WARD I, RICHARD WARD, being duly sworn, hereby depose and state on my personal knowledge: 1. I am the Zoning Administrator for the City of South Burlington, Vermont, having served in that capacity for over thirty years. 2. As the Zoning Administrator, I am responsible for issuing zoning and other permits specified in the zoning regulations of the City, and for the collection of fees associated there those permits. 3. Zoning/building permits are the only permits issued by the City of South Burlington as precondition for "land development" within the City. 1 4. The City determines, assesses and collects impact fees at the time that the zoning/building permits are applied for. 5. The first zoning permit for development of a lot within Dorset Farms was applied for and issued on , 199, and �,, zoning permits have been issued to date for this project. For each such zoning/building permit, I have assessed and collected the impact fee determined by the Ordinance, less the $75.00 credit provided for in the final plat approval. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this day of March, 1999. Richard Ward Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of March, 1999. Notary Public son562.1it.RWardaffDFarms 2 STATE OF VERMONP CRITTENDEN COUNTY, SS LARKIN MILOT PARTNERSHIP Plaintiff V. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL, Defendant Chittenden Superior Court Docket No. 5168-98 CnC AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD WARD I, RICHARD WARD, being duly sworn, hereby depose and state on my personal knowledge: 1. I am the Zoning Administrator for the City of South Burlington, Vermont, having served in that capacity for over thirty years. 2. As the Zoning Administrator, I am responsible for issuing zoning and other permits specified in the zoning regulations of the City, and for the collection of fees associated there those permits. 3. Zoning/building permits are the only permits issued by the City of South Burlington as precondition for "land development" within the City. 1 4. The City determines, assesses and collects impact fees at the time that the zoning/building permits are applied for. 5. The first zoning permit for development of a lot within Pinnacle at Spear was applied for on C i� 199 and zoning permits have been issued to date for this project. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont, this day of March, 1999. Richard Ward Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of March, 1999. Notary Public -560. lit-H ., affid 2 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802 660-25551EMD) STEVEN F. STITZEL OF COUNSELPATTI R. PAGE* FLETCHER -M5052�660255 EM@FIRMSPF.COM) ARTHUR W. CERNOSIAROBERTE. WRITER'S E-MAIL (RFLETCHER@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) March 18, 1999 Dennis R. Pearson, Esq. Gravel and Shea 76 St. Paul Street PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Re: MBL Associates v. Cit Dear Dennis: Enclosed is the original of the deposition of Mr. Richard Ward. Since ly, o E. Fletcher REF/bj1 Enclosure cc: Richard Ward son3949.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 OF COUNSEL PAM R. PAGE" fi-MAIL. FIRM2555 n FIRMSPF.COM ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA ROBERT E. FLETCHER WRITE t -E" CIi �,R ) I M, COM JOSEPH S. MCLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) March 8, 1999 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Deposition Transcript Dear Dick: I enclose the original of your deposition transcript. The top sheet is an "Errata" sheet. Please read through your deposition, note on a separate sheet any errors (typos, misspellings, misquotes) along with the page and line number. When you are satisfied that you have identified all the errors, transfer them to the Errata Sheet and provide an expl nation. for the change. Then date and sign both documents, have your signature on the deposition notarized. Then, keep rafull copy -for yourself, and return the original. to me. .� �•' Thank-s-far-y-o - iT- r---- �-�ince , obert Fletcher REF/bj1 Enclosure son3931.cor City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658- 7955 January 13, 1998 Stephen Crampton, Esquire 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Zoning Board of Adjustment Appeal Dear Steve: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This office has been advised that a "Decision and Findings of Fact" have been rendered by the City Council of which a copy is forthcoming to your office. During the appeal hearings, this office was advised by you to "hold" the appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Now that a decision has been rendered, I am returning your "notice of appeal' along with check #92166 in the amount of fifty (50.00) dollars. I am of the opinion that any other appeals should be filed with the courts. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp u Z12 3.`31 eum A-1 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES (Use separate Form R-1 for single family and multiple family dwellings) PROJECT DATA: (1) NUMBER OF DWELLINGS BY TYP: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (2) "EFFECTIVE DATE" �//-- FOR TAX CREDITS: JU/ IMPACT FEES: (3) SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PER UNIT ( From Sheet R-2 ) $ /�� / unit times NUMBER OF UNITS (From (1), above) X 1 units cc�� equals TOTAL SCHOOL FEE _ $ /� ✓O (4) RECREATION IMPACT FEE PER UNIT ( From Sheet R-3 ) $ J66 / unit times NUMBER OF UNITS i (From (1), above) X units equals TOTAL RECREATION FEE ( 5 ) ROAD IMPACT FEE PER UNIT (From Sheet R-4) $ �� 7,�8 / unit times NUMBER OF UNITS (From (1), above) X units j �J equals TOTAL ROAD FEE _ $ (6) TOTAL IMPACT FEES (3+4+5) l Is Co. U a L ` 1,1z (,�- ' W 3 - - o7aZ 9io- - z 6 /Z 9�-- /3 7�5�1, ✓ V3 12- -7, l 1�111�)19 � < < 117,,) s� � 7 -3c -�Ilol� s 1-7 q7 - ��lk 7/21/s 7� z 9 7- 1,714 �/z3Z5 � -9/- liV ( / 01161y -;7 -) Vl� 11-11-1yy'r bti: b5Hr1 h-HUM M1Lu I i u CRAMPTON P.02 P(,ANNI 11 065 p e. - of South Burlington M DORSET 6TREU BURUNGTON. VEFAAONT 05403 FAX ON 4746 Novenber 6, 1997 Ic.shr• • ..1 r.NHr.nutOp mr, . ,lohn Larkin Larkin Realty 410 s ha l bu=a Road South Burlington, dsxmont Og403 Re! binnacle We r Impact Fees I Daaj- Mr. Larkin! This Latter will c nfirta, our recent discussion regarding the recreational impac fees which were a condition of your approval granted by the Pla►ni.in4 Commission on December 21, 1993• Condition #S from your approval states that the Planting Commis>iion grants a credit of three hundred ($300) dollars per lot for constructOn of the portion of they proposed recreation path located outBiFF�Se of any public street right-of-way. This to he now adoptionfees which were in tho ap�rocess at thesaa+ettine asi�t credit rsubdivision pplic-ation rev 1 ow . Recently the City staff discovered the twenty-one toning permits were issued withaut consideration of that condition. This matter was revitwed by t City Attorney in order to determine if Pinnacle at spec= was exempt from the new recreation irpaClesee. His opinion Was t Pinnacle at Spear must pay the fees, the three hundredi(5300) dollars credit. A copy of his opirLfc>n is enclosed- fee My record shows that six (6) permits were issued in 19g�it�ewere at that time was 01306.03 per lot. in 1996, six xh(6)is Vez it date issued and the to at that time was t$1306.09.he fee Year A ; o data. nine (9) permits leave been issued, i ib d � JS1'iq�2l _. tY Z �121t� 7 �� i NOW i —IA r _.. r.a. 11-11-1yy't 08: dbHN FHUM M I Lu I I u l_NHVR-j I UN Mr. John Larkin Pinnace ospoar i Noventber 6, 1997 Paqu 2 Be advised that set. forth within Fees t fees are adjusted manually, the formula is South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. Theretore, to date � tha pinnacle at Spear development is reyuit'ed to p&y impact fees in the amount of twenty eight thousand throe hundred ninety twoldollarrs and sixty nine cents less a credit. of sixt-y three hundre dollars It you have any Rw/ncp Lions, please don't hesitate to call me - Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer ze - a 7q�2! Nx>4L,l -1 QQ- =r 14OW ir__0T—^ON STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1307 BURLINOTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 ($02) 660.2333 (VOICI MD) STBVEN F. STITZSL FAX (902) 660.2532 PATn R PA08• E-M+SLfFIItMssbsf�A ROMT Ii FUTCHBR JOSEM S. Md AN TIMOTHY M BUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED W N.Y.) December 11, 1997 Mr. Charles Hafter City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 OF COUNSEL ARTR= W- CMNOSIA Re: Recreation impact fees for Nowland Two and Southeast Summit subdivision projects Dear Chuck: I am writing in response to your request relative to the above -referenced matter. Specifically, you have asked whether the Nowland Two ("Pinnacle at Spear") and Southeast Summit ("Dorset Park") subdivision projects, developments which received final plat approval from the South Burlington Planning Commission prior to January 9, 1995, are subject to the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. it is my understanding that the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final plat approval for the Nowland Two and Southeast Summit subdivisions on December 21, 1993 and January 11, 1994, respectively. At that time, the City was in the process of developing its Impact Fee Ordinance, adopted January 9, 1995, and amended April 17, 1995. Neither subdivision approval contained any express condition requiring payment of impact fees to the City. However, both approvals did contain a provision indicating that the developments would be entitled to a per lot/unit credit ($300.00 per lot for Nowland II and $75.00 per unit for Southeast Summit) for any recreation impact fees that were required. Specifically, item 5 of the Nowland II Final Plat approval (copy attached) provided that "(alt the time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $300 per lot credit." Similarly, item 5 of the Southeast Summit Final Plat approval (copy attached) provided that "at the time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $75 per unit credit." All relevant zoning/building permits for these 3c)d4� SOV11 IaZ,LI.LS 115 1 1 (P.ti ) L6 . t b aaC Charles Hafter City Manager December 11, 1997 Page 2 development either were issued or will issue after January 9, 1995. The South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended, requires payment of a recreation fee for any land development which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington zoning Regulations after the effective date of the Impact Fee Ordinance (January 9, 1995). 1. South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, D (B). Subparagraph 3(B)(5), added by amendment in April, 1995, however, provides a limited exemption from payment of the fee for land development that meets each of three specified criteria. The first listed criteria provides that the fee shall not apply to land development which ,is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding recreation improvements." ;&L at 3(B)(5)(a). As noted above, neither the Nowland Tvo nor the Southeast Summit development meets this first criteria because the respective final plat approvals did not contain any condition requiring the payment of fees to the City. (Rather, the language of condition 5 in both approvals, regarding payment of ,the difference" between the recreation impact fee and the credit, clearly indicates that the Planning Commission intended that these projects be subject to the then anticipated :uture recreation impact fees.) Given that these projects do not meet the first exemption criteria, we need not determine their compliance with the other two criteria. Since the first zoning/building permits for the Nowland II development were applied for and issued subsequent to January 9, 1995, that project must pay the recreation fees required by the Ordinance, less the three hundred dollar ($300.00) per lot credit specified in the Final Plat approval. To date, the first zoning/building permits for the Southeast Summit development have not been applied for. Accordingly, that project must pay any applicable recreation impact fees, less the seventy-five dollar ($75.00) per unit credit at the time of application. I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Please let me know if you have any questions. very truly yours, '7 pi , kephS. McLean son3478.cor 3ovd 3ov n7azl:_,_ 5t7 " i, ::1HL; L6 . :: gal PLANNI It 8" rr•- of South Burlington ss o0ABST 6TREU I BURUNGTON, VERAONT 05403 FAX ONA74B movember 6, 1997 Kr. John Larkin Larkin Realty 410 s by l burnQ Road South Burlington, dfxmont osao3 Re- vinnaicle 19" r ;'act Fe«s I Duay Mr. Larkin: This Latter will confirm, our recent discumsion regarding the recrnational impac{{ fQQz which were a condition of Your approval granted by the Pla tn ing Commission on December 21, 1993. pp Condition 05 Erase your a rovdl states that the Planning Commisgion grants a credit of three hundrQd ($300) dollars Per lot for constructibn of the portion of the proposed recreat Tht�n path located out8i6a of any public street right-of-way. credit was to be applied to the n*w, impact teas which were In the adoption process at the same tlAe as your subdivision application reviva. Recently the City �staff discovered the twenty -on. :aning permltiII ware lasted with consideration of that condition. This odtter was revitwed by t City Attorney in order to determine if Pinnacle at spear was exempt from the new recreationimpact f0e gs His opinion Was that Pinnacle at Spoar must pay the the three hundredi(1300) dollars credit. copy of his opirkfc,n la enclosed. i My record shows that sic (6) permits wQre ,issued in 1993, the fee at that time was + 1306.03 per lot. in 1996, six (6) P-Qzmi" were te issued and the fob at that tiw® wasthe3fe�0thisTyear isis r;1413a33. nine (9) permits have been inauQd, I fb d J 11V�2! - I N I JIZJta-7 1-�. � T NO1.1 i F. —u T _.. r... i Mr. John Larkin Pinnace ISpQar ink t Fees November 6, 1997 Paqu 2 Be advised that impact lees are adjusted annually, the lormul•i is set. forth withSn the South S%rl.irigton Impact Fee Ordinance. i Theretore, to date tha Pinnacle at spear development is required to pay impact fees in the amount of twenty eight thousand throe hundred ninety two dollars and sixty nine cents less a credit. of sixty three hundre dollars 1[ you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me_ Vest' truly, IAO Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative oftic:er RW/mcp zo - a I 1t7�2! N Z �121rl� =Q = 1-- r Now T 6-0 T -ISO N City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 November 6, 1997 Mr. John Larkin Larkin Realty 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Pinnacle @Spear Impact Fees Dear Mr. Larkin: This letter will confirm, our recent recreational impact fees which were a granted by the Planning Commission on ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 discussion regarding the condition of your approval December 21, 1993. Condition #5 from your approval states that the Planning Commission grants a credit of three hundred ($300) dollars per lot for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street right-of-way. This credit was to be applied to the new impact fees which were in the adoption process at the same time as your subdivision application review. Recently the City staff discovered the twenty-one zoning permits were issued without consideration of that condition. This matter was reviewed by the City Attorney in order to determine if Pinnacle at Spear was exempt from the new recreation impact fee. His opinion was that Pinnacle at Spear must pay the fees, less the three hundred ($300) dollars credit. A copy of his opinion is enclosed. My record shows that six (6) permits were issued in 1995, the fee at that time was $1306.03 per lot. In 1996, six (6) permits were issued and the fee at that time was $1306.09. This year to date nine (9) permits have been issued, the fee this year is $1413.33. Mr. John Larkin Pinnace @Spear Impact Fees November 6, 1997 Page 2 Be advised that impact fees are adjusted annually, the formula is set -forth within the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. Therefore, to date, the Pinnacle at Spear development is required to pay impact fees in the amount of twenty eight thousand three hundred ninety two dollars and sixty nine cents less a credit of sixty three hundred dollars If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STEVEN F STITZEL PATTI R. PACE* ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S.McLEAN TIMOTHY M. EUSTACE (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street (802) 660-2555 (VOI(--E/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 L'-\Q,�,1✓,'FilLM2SSS;ry A� 1L i'O?vll October 30, 1997 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Nowland Two subdivision; impact fees Dear Dick: OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W. CERNOSIA I am writing in response to your request relative to the above -referenced matter. Specifically, you have asked whether the Nowland Two ("Pinnacle at Spear") subdivision, a development that received final plat approval from the South Burlington Planning Commission prior to January 9, 1995, is subject to the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. It is my understanding that the South Burlington Planning Commission granted final plat approval for the Nowland Two subdivision on December 23, 1993. At that time, the City was in the process of developing its Impact Fee Ordinance, adopted January 9, 1995, and amended April 17, 1995. The Nowland Two approval did not contain any express condition requiring payment of impact fees to the City. The approval did contain a provision, however, indicating that the development would be entitled to a three hundred dollar ($300.00) per lot credit for any recreation impact fees that were required. Specifically, item 5 of the Final Plat approval provided that "[a]t the time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $300 per lot credit." All relevant zoning permits for the Nowland Two development were issued after January 9, 1995. The South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended, requires payment of a recreation fee for any land development which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations after the effective date of the Impact Fee Ordinance (January 9, 1995). See South Burlington Impact Fee Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator nctober 30, 1997 Page 2 Ordinance, §3(B). Subparagraph 3(B)(5), added by amendment in April, 1995, however, provides a limited exemption from payment of the fee for land development that meets each of three specified criteria. The first listed criteria provides that the fee shall not apply to land development which "is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding recreation improvements." Id. at 3(B)(5)(a). The Nowland Two development does not meet this first criteria because the final plat approval did not contain a condition requiring the payment of fees to the City. Given that the Nowland Two project does not meet the first criteria, we need not determine its compliance with the other two criteria. Since the first zoning permit for the project was issued subsequent to January 9, 1995, the Nowland Two development must pay the recreation fees required by the Ordinance, less the three hundred dollar ($300.00) per lot credit specified in the Final Plat approval. I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Verr t ul your , Joseph S. McLean son3433.cor CHARLES T. SHEA STEPHEN R. CHAMPION STEWART H. MCCONAucHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY VALLIAM G. POST. JR. CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. KNAPP JOHN R. PONSE= DENNIS R. PEARSON PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MON7GOMERY Lucy T BRowN STEPHEN P. MAGOWAN ERIK B. Fn7.PATRfIX LEIGH POLK COLE ROBERT H. RUSHPORD HAND DELIVERED Ms. Margaret A. Picard, City Clerk City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAw 76 ST. PAUL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 369 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 November 20, 1997 oRe: Pinnacle at Spear - Appeal of Impact Fee Assessment Dear Ms. Picard: AREA CODE 802 TELEFHoN7E 658-MO FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAVEL COUNSEL NORMAN WILLIAMS SPECIAL COUNSEL WRITER'S E-MAIL: SCRAMPTON®GRA VSHEA.COM Pursuant to Section 9 of the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the South Burlington City Council from the November 6, 1997 assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrator, together with a copy of the Zoning Administrator's written decision. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA Stephen R. Crampton SRC:ecp Enclosure cc: Mr. John Larkin (w/enclosure) / Mr. Richard Ward (w/enclosure) �J Joseph S. McLean, Esq. (w/enclosure) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL IN RE: ) John F. Larkin ) d/b/a Larkin Milot Partnership ) Pinnacle at Spear ) NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COMES the Larkin Milot Partnership, by and through its attorneys, Gravel and Shea, and hereby appeals the November 6, 1997 assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrative Officer. Dated: Burlington, Vermont November 20, 1997 GRAVEL AND SHEA Attorneys f Appellant By: Steph n R. Crampton, Esq. cLafkm Milot Novice of Appeal (Pi—,1,07284/u UII. WP/RHR> CITY COUNCIL 6 March 1995 page 4 is concerned with the entire community and with generations to come. Mr. Maclaughlin asked the candidates thoughts on the proposed City Center. Mr. Beaudin said he is impressed with the model done by the students. He felt the city deserves a downtown noting the geographical split. He felt the Dorset St. improve- ments have helped connect the city. Ms. Murray felt the city lacks a core and that it would be good to have a place people identify as being the heart of the community. Mr. Wilking felt it is often more difficult to put it into place and felt public and private support would be the toughest part. He felt it would take a long time to realize. He added that people who own the land must help make it happen. Mr. Maclaughlin then asked how the candidates would handle a situation in which there was a conflict between the city's Master Plan and the Regional Plan. Mr. Wilking said he would support the city's plan. Mr. Beaudin said he would tend toward the city's plan but would not be blind to other issues. Ms. Murray agreed with Mr. Beaudin and said she would want to know why the two plans differed. Mr. Chittenden asked if the candidates favored maintaining the balance between residential and commercial. All candidates were comfortable with the mix. Mr. Wilking felt the city needs to attract more non -retail business. Both Messrs. Beaudin and Wilking favored the Planning Commission. Ms. Murray said she would serve on either Board. 5. Discussion of Implementation of Impact Fee Ordinance and - Consideration of Amendment: Mr. Hafter said there is a question of when impact fees are charged. The language of the ordinance says it is when the developer gets a building permit. The city has, however, a number of approved projects for which all permits have been obtained except a building permit, and some of these go back a long time. This raises a question of fairness. The City At- torney has proposed language which would grandfather for three years projects approved before. the impact fee ordinance. This would not apply to education impact fees since no such fees were in effect at the time of approval. Mr. Pomerleau asked for a longer period than 3 years, if possible as they are doing a lot of road work for some of their projects. David White agreed and felt that the language of the enabling legislation made such impact fees a condition of approval at the time of approval. Mr. Pomerleau felt 5 years would be J CITY COUNCIL 17 APRIL 1995 page 10 Vermont to get away from this kind of place. 17. Chris Spannbauer: Mr. Spannbauer felt that people who want this type of entertainment can go to Montreal. 18. Marrianne Callahan: Ms. Callahan said she had been told that although no one heard of any problems in Barre there had been a problem in Montpelier with Mr. Cliche soliciting dancers for his club at the school Mr. Condos then moved that the application of Club Fantasy be continued to Wednesday 26 April 1995, at which time the Liquor Control Board would take action. Mr. Maclau hlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously._ M_r. Condos moved the Liquor Control Board adjourn_ and re -convene asyCity Council. Mr. Maclauqhlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearing on Proposed CDBG Grant for South Burlington Senior Citizen Center at the Pines: Mr. Hafter noted receipt of letters of support for this project from both United Way and the Area Agency on Aging. Mr. FlahertV moved that the ublic hearin be closed and that the city Council si n the Resolution for the VCDP arant a lication authority. Mr. Maclau hlin seconded. The motion was passed unanimously_. 6. Public Hearing on Amendment to Impact Fee Ordinance: second reading of same: M.r_. Hafter reviewed the history of the amendment and advised that it can be adopted at tonight's meeting. .. Mr Flaherty moved to adopt the Amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance as presented. Mr. Maclau hlin seconded. Motion assed unanimously. 7. First Reading of Ordinance Prohibiting Parking on Either Side of Dorset Street Between Grandview Drive and Swift Street; scheduling of Public Hearing: Mr. Hafter noted the request for this ordinance comes from the Police Department. Residents of the area do not use this parking. The Police fear that it will become a safety hazard when the Park is in use. Mr. Audette felt the "no parking" area should extend about 1000 CITY COUNCIL 6 March 1995 page .5 acceptable. Mr. Condos noted there are a nmber of approved projects that will have a tremendous impact on the schools. Mr. Cimonetti suggested getting the Planning Commission's input on this question. Mr. Hafter said he would like to bring a range of proposals to be considered for a public hearing. Members Mr. Condos left the meeting at this time. 6. Consideration of approval of Letter of Intent to Apply for Community Development Block Grant for Development of Senior Citizens Center as Part of the Pines Development, Dorset St: Mr. Brush noted there was once a proposal for a Seniors•Center, and if approved, seniors could use the facility he is propposing. The City would become applicant for the grant to complete the project. A letter of.intent would be the first step in the process. There would be no financial obligation to the city. Mr. Maclau hlin moved to authorize the city' - s suort in a letter of intent for the development of a senior citizens_ center as part of the Pines Develo merit Mr. Chittenden seconded. _Motion passed 4-0. - - -- - 7. Consideration of approval of Chittenden Solid Waste District Budget, 1995-6: Mr. Cimonetti said he got a response to the questions raised by the Council and all issues were addressed. Mr. Fla_ herty moved to approve the Chittenden Solid Waste District_ 1995-6 Bud et. Mrs Chittenden seconded.Motion passed 40. 8. Discussion of Proposal to Amend the South Burlington City Charter to Modify Tax Appraisal Methodology on Unimproved Commercial/Industrial Land Holding Approved Permits: Mr. Cimonetti said that 2 public hearings would be necessary plus a public vote and approval of the General Assembly. Members agreed to hold the public hearings on 10 and 17 April. Mr. Chittenden moved to put the proposed Charter amendment on the_ 16 May ballot and to schedule public hearings on the amendment for 10 and 17rA�ril. Mr. Flaherty seconded.- Motion passed ' unanimously. 9. Discussion of Proposed Expansion of Bartlett Bay Water ... •<..�•—s;:�...:.'FC.69YY�eNt+Y�ew�iW��iY.1r:'.tynuYi:�Ycu'�YYwmpYYY4tsW'M�'fvYMil$8'MI�MnRS.4q�8iY3t�l4'8'C ,�y,'u. y��..: r CITY COUNCIL 20 March 1995 page 4 Mr. Chittenden suggested an appeal process. Members continued discussion on the length of the grandfathering period. ` Mr. Maclauqhlin then moved to amend the motion_ to increase the grandfatherinq period from 5 to 10 years from 1 9/95 or the obtainin of the first n7.permit. Mr. Chittenden seconded. The motion to amend was defeated 2-3 with Messrs. Condos, Flaherty —and Cimonetti opposinq. Mr. Maclauqhlin then moved to amend the motion to increase the grandfatherinq period from 5 to 10 years from1/9/95. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion to amend asked unanimousl . In the vote that followed the amended motion passed unanimously. 6. Appointment of Town Service Officer: Mr. Cimonetti noted that Tom Chittenden now holds this position and would accept reappointment. Members felt that in the spirit of interviewing all applicants for appointments, the Council should interview Mr. Chittenden. 7. Consideration of Ballot Item to Accept Revolving Loan Fund for Expansion of Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant: Mr. Cimonetti said he wants to have the language on the ballot item absolute clear, and the City Attorney is still in discussion with the Secy. of State on acceptable language. He asked for a concensus from the Council that they want this ballot item. Members said they do and also want the language absolutely clear. Mr. Whitten then briefly showed the proposed expansion plans. 8. Consideration of Approval of Capital Equipment Note and Capital Equipment Borrowing Resolution for Truck and Plow: Mr. Audette noted the total cost is $51,381 though the note is for only $50,000. Mr. Condos moved to approve the Note, Resolution and non- Arbi_ trage Certificate as presented. Mr. Chittenden_ seconded. The motion_2assed unanimously. 9. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 21 March 1995: No issues were raised. CITY COUNCIL OP 20 March 1995 page 3 statutes. Article I: added a definition of "lot" similar to that in the Zoning Ordinance. There is also a new definition of "sub- division. Article II: minor changes, mainly clarifying information re- quired by the Planning Commission for consideration of a sub- division plan Article III: no significant changes Article IV: changes in the public/private street policy and a change in the regulations regarding extension of a public sewer line. In the latter instance, an off -site property owner is now required to reimburse a developer for hooking onto a sewer/water line. This is not legal and has been removed. The section on recreation fees has also been deleted due to the impact fee ordinance. Articles V and VI: no significant changes. Appendix A: minor changes Mr. Weith noted a request from Messrs. Szymanski and Audette to increase the pavement width around a cul de sac from 18 ft to 24 ft. He recommended this be done tonight. Mr. Condos moved to close the ublic hearingwaive reading of__ the ro osed Subdivision Re ulations and a rove the second reading of same with the additional amendment to increase the width around a cul de sac from 18 to 24 feet. Mr. Flaherty seconded. and the motion was passed unanimouslv. --- 5. Consideration of Amendment to Impact Fee Ordinance; Schedule Public Hearing: Mr. Hafter said he confirmed with the City Attorney that impact fees are legal and that the proposed amendments are also legal. The amendment would extend the grandfathering period to 5 years from issuance of a building permit. This is only for projects approved before the impact fee ordinance was passed. Mr. Pomerleau said they would prefer 10 years. Mr. Flaherty moved to set a public hearing for 17 April and include changes extendinq the grandfathering period front three to five years from the obtaining of the first buildinq permit. Mr. Condos seconded. 26. Subdivision plat: --- survey data for the recreation path/pedestrian trail easement and the utility easement between lots 41-42 and 57-58 should be provided. 27. Other: --- lot numbers not correctly shown on sheet 2. --- the plans should show a 20 foot drainage easement across the Ratkus property for the drainage pipe. This easement should be included in the legal documents. DECISION & CONDITIONS Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Planning Commission approves the Final Plat application of Larkin-Milot Partnership for a planned residential development consisting of 73 single-family lots on 66.7 acres of land located on the east side of Spear Street opposite Deerfield Drive as depicted on a plat entitled, "Nowland Two, Subdivision Plat, and last revised 7/28/93, and a 28 page set of plans, page one entitled "Nowland Two, South Burlington, Vermont", dated October, 1992 (stamped "received" 7/30/93), prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. with the following stipulations: 1. Any previous approvals and stipulations affecting the subject property which are not superseded by this approval shall remain Ln effect. 2. In accordance with section 26.602 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission approves the creation of lots for development upon land designated as "restricted area" on the Southeast Quadrant Official Zoning Map. It is the commission's opinion that based on the information submitted by the applicant the proposed development will not adversely affect wetlands on the property. Also, it is the Commission's opinion that the goals for maintaining an open space corridor along the north -south arterial roadways in the Southeast Quadrant will be promoted through the establishment of building envelopes on lots 5 through 8. The allowance of buildings in this manner is compatible with adjacent development along Spear Street. Finally, the Planning Commission supports moving the r.o.w. for a future north - south collector road to the east as proposed so as not to impact the wetland area. 3. The Commission approves the 1100 foot long cul-de-sac street serving lots 52 - 73. It is the Commission's opinion that the 1100 foot length will not result in unsafe or inefficient traffic conditions particularly since r.o.w.'s are being reserved for roadway connections to future developments on adjoining parcels. 5 4. In order for the Commission to find that the proposed development will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect of use of the highways, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a) The applicant shall construct the southbound left turn lanes at each project access on Spear Street (sheets 5 and 7) prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit for the 38th lot. b) The applicant shall construct the improvements to the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection as shown on the plan entitled "Spear Street/Swift Street Intersection Improvements" dated 5/93, prior to the issuance of a zoning/building permit for the construction of any residential structures. c) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall post a bond to cover the costs of constructing the improvements referenced in a) and c) above. This bond or bonds shall remain in effect until such time as the improvements are constructed. d) Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits for this development, the applicant shall be responsible for retiming the signal phasing at the Spear Street/Swift Street intersection as recommended in the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant. 5. The Planning Commission grants a credit of $300 per lot for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outside of any public street right-of-way. This credit may be applied toward required recreation fees. At time of application for a zoning/building permit, the applicant shall pay the difference between the recreation impact fee and the $300 per lot credit. 6. The developer shall be required to install two (2) trees on each lot as required in Section 19.104(a) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. A "Notice of Condition" addressing this requirement shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 7. Prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits, the applicant shall post a $130,366 landscape bond for proposed street and common area trees, and a $65,335 bond for proposed lot trees. The bonds shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that the planted landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. 8. Legal documents for all public streets (i.e., irrevocable offer of dedication) and easements (e.g., utility easements and recreation path easements) shall be submitted to the City Attorney N. for. approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records prior to issuance of any zoning/building permits. 9. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the height limitations for structures and landscaping on each lot shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 10. In accordance with Section 301.5 of the subdivision regulations, within 14 days of completion of required improvements (e.g., streets, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.), the developer shall submit to the City Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a registered engineer. 11. A "Notice of Condition" addressing the building envelopes on lots #5 - 8 and purpose and restrictions thereof shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records prior to recording the final plat plans. 12. Prior to final plat submittal, the plans shall be revised to show the following: a) The survey plat shall show survey data for the recreation path easement and the utility easement between lots 41-42 and 57-58. b) Lot numbers shall be correctly shown on sheet 2. c) The plans shall show a 20 foot drainage easement for the proposed drainage pipe on the Ratkus property west of Spear Street. This easement shall be included in the required legal documents. 13. A bond for streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, sewer and water shall be posted prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. The amount of the bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 14. No zoning/building permit will be issued for a lot until the street serving that lot has a gravel sub -base installed in conformance with City specifications. 15. The Commission approves a total sewer allocation of 46,957 gpd for this development. The length of time that this sewer allocation approval shall remain in effect shall be tied to roadway construction. The roadways serving this development shall be completed within four (4) years of final plat approval. The sewer allocation for any lots served by roadways which are not completed within this four (4) year time limit shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. In addition, if at the end of three years no more than 50% of the roads have been completed, 25% of the total sewer allocation shall be lost unless reapproved by the Planning Commission. FA 16. No zoning/building permit will be issued for construction of any dwelling unit within this development until after the City adopts an education impact fee ordinance or September 1, 1993, whichever first occurs. This condition is being imposed to provide the school district a reasonable period of time to complete development of an impact fee ordinance and present the ordinance to the South Burlington City Council for adoption. No zoning/building permits shall be issued after the adoption of such an impact fee until that impact fee has been paid. 17. A "Notice of Condition" shall be recorded in the land records prior to recording the final plat plans which addresses the requirement of the homeowner's association to maintain the community mailbox area and all drainage ditches. 18. The final plat plans, including survey plat, shall be recorded in the South Burlington land records within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 19. As provided in Section 605 of the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, if no action is taken to construct substantially the proposed subdivision within three years, said approval shall become null and void. 20. The retention ponds shall be maintained by the homeowners' association. The legal documents for the Association shall state this responsibility. The legal documents shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to permit issuance. 21. The recreation path shall be constructed by the completion of Pinnacle Drive or during the construction of the cul-de-sac, whichever first occurs. Chairman 6r Crerk, South Burlington Planning Commission IA&Z/ 3 Date I 0 PLANNI 14 958 r r.. y of South Burlington SET STRM TH f3uFL NGTON, VEPOAONT 05403 FAX %W-4748 November 6, 1997 Ji.6hh•, z I if.v Ne. It UIOA ,'n 'YJ' Kr. john Larkin Larkin Realty 410 stwiburns Road South Surlln( ton, �i�x�aont 05403 Re.- vinnacle ISpe r Imp'act Fees I Doal- Kr. Larkin! � This letter will c nfirm, our recent discussion regarding the rRcrwational impac fQos which were a condition of your atppxclvnl granted by the Pla>In19 Commission on December 21, 1993• Condition #5 from your approval states that the Planning Commisslon grants a credit of thr" hundxad ($300) dollars PQr lot for construction of the portion of the proposed recreation path located outVi a Of any public street right-of-way. This credjt was to b-8 d to he now fees which adoption process est at the sametine asiyour tsubdivision we rev i low , Recently tha City ataf f discovered the twenty-one zoning pedal to were issued with t consideration of that Condition. This opdtter was reviewed by t City Attorney in order to determine if Pinnacle at Speaz ats exempt from the new recreation impact fee. His opinion was tart Pinnacle at spear must pay the f¢eJ, less the three hundredi($300) dollars credit. A copy of his opir►S.un iu enciosed. i My record show% that six (6) permits wears issued in 1993, the tee at that time was �1306.03 per lot. In 1996, six (6) pQzmit:i were issued and Permits have been iesuwdat. that time asthe 30 the feethis9. Tyear isr to datu nines (9) Pe$1413.33. i i d .` 11V �21 N Z �12iry 1 i T - - NOl-, I Hr. John Larkin Pinnace ESpQar I November 61 1997 Pagel 2 t Fees Be advised that i pact lees are adjusted annually, the lormul•, is set_ f ortil within tl a South surlington Impact Fee ordinance. i Theretore, to date th.a pinnacte at spear developatent is required to pay impact fees in the amount of twenty eight thousand throt- hundred ninety twoollars and sixty nino cents less a credit. of sixty three hundreddollars it you have any quMpations, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard ward, Zoning Administrative Ofticor RW/racp Z0 .�x 1- —,,a N Z >4rI"� Q Q_ r NO W ► 6-0 1 —n0 N GRAVEL AND SHEA CHARLES T. SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON 76 ST. PAUL STREET TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 WILLIAM G. POST, JR. CRAIG WEATHERLY BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CLARKE A. GRAVEL JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT F O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY WRITERS E-MAIL: LUCY T BROWN SCRAMPTONCa3CRAVSHEA.COM STEPHEN P. MAGOWAN ERIK B. FITZPATRIcx November 20, 1997 LEIGH POLK COLE ROBERT H. RUSHFORD HAND DELIVERED Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Pinnacle at Spear - Appeal of Impact Fee Assessment Dear Secretary: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the South Burlington City Council from the November 6, 1997 assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrator, together with a copy of the Zoning Administrator's written decision. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA JAW - Stephen R. Crampton SRC:ecp Enclosure cc: Mr. John Larkin (w/enclosure) Mr. Richard Ward (w/enclosure) Joseph S. McLean, Esq. (w/enclosure) CHARLES T SHEA STEPHEN R. CRAMPMN STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY WR11AM G. POST JR CRAIG WEATHERIY JAMES E. KNAPP JOHN R. PONSETIO DENNIS R. PEARSON PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEE.L MARGARET L. MONT omm LUCY T BROWN STEPHEN P. MAGOWAN ERIK B. FITZPATRICK LEIGH POLK C,OLE ROBER7 H. RUSHPoRD HAND DELIVERED GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 ST. PAUL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 369 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 November 20, 1997 0 Re: Pinnacle at Spcar - Appeal of Impact Fee Assessment Dear Secretary: AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 658-0220 FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAvEL COUNSEL NORMAN WILLIAMs SPECIAL COUNSEL WRITERS &MAIL: SCRAM PTON®GRA VSHEA.COM Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the South Burlington City Council from the November 6, 1997 assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrator, together with a copy of the Zoning Administrator's written decision. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA Stephen R. Crampton SRC:ecp Enclosure cc: Mr. John Larkin (w/enclosure) Mr. Richard Ward (w/enclosure) Joseph S. McLean, Esq. (w/enclosure) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN RE: ) John F. Larkin ) d/b/a Larkin Milot Partnership ) Pinnacle at Spear ) NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COMES the Larkin Milot Partnership, by and through its attorneys, Gravel and Shea, and hereby appeals the November 6, 1997 assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrative Officer. Dated: Burlington, Vermont November 20, 1997 GRAVEL AND SHEA Attorneys for Appellant IN <LaAin Milot Noticc of Appc l (Zoning ♦)oardy77704/ssg011. WP/SRO R. Crampton,