HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-79-0000 - Supplemental - 0002 0004 0006 0008 0010 Pheasant Way7. MEADOWWOOD AT SPEAR ® RESUBDIVIDE c LOTS PHEASAII:T WAS',
SKETCH PLAN
This project consists of boundary line adjustments for lots one through five. The South
Burlington Planting Commission approved the final plat for Meadowwood at Spear in 1976.
Since that time; there have been several revisions; including one boundary line adjustment. The
proposal will both decrease and increase the lengths of lot lines.
Boundary Line Adjustments: The boundaries for Lot One will increase on the north side from
349.9 feet to 359.74 feet and decrease on the west side from 139.07 feet to 138.83 feet. Lot
Two's boundary lines will decrease on the east side from 139.07 feet to 138.83 feet andd on the
west side from 425.98 feet to 425.96 feet.
Lot Three's will decrease on the east side from 425.98 feet to 425.06 feet and increase on the
west side from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet. Three of the four boundary lines on Lot Four will
change in length. The north boundary will decrease from 156.19 feet to 146.19 feet. The east
side will increase from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet while the west boundary from 459.59 to 459.90.
Lot five east boundary will increase from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet and the west boundary from
481.75 to 482.12 feet.
Easements: The proposed boundary line adjustments will not effect the Pheasant Way right -right-
of-way or the 15 foot drainage easement between Lot One and Lot Two,
Setbacks: Buildings and building envelopes have been delineated on a one -page set of plans
submitted February 25, 2000. All buildings appear to satisfy setback requirements.
8. & 9. WESCO, INC. — 2 PUMP GAS STATION & CONVENIENCE STORE — 1118
WILLISTON ROAD, SITE PLAN & CONDITIONAL USE
These applications were continued from the February 1, 2000 meeting to the February 15, 2000
meeting (minutes enclosed) to provide staff an opportunity to draft a denial decision. The
applicant then requested to continue these applications to the March 7, 2000 tweeting. Staff has
prepared denial decision (see enclosed).
10. WESCO. INC. — 3 PUMP CAS STATION & CONVENIENCE STORE-1118
WILLISTON ROAD, SITE PLAN
This project consists of amending a plan for a service station with 7 fueling positions (6 gas and 1
diesel), The amendment consists of 1) converting the service station to a convenience store including
a deli/bakery with 12 seats, 2) constructing a 450 square foot addition for convenience store use, 3)
access modifications, and 4) razing an existing residence.
This project located at 1108 and 1118 Williston Road lies within the C1 District. It is bounded on the
north by a hotel/restaurant (Econolodge), on the west by a hotel/restaurant (Holiday Inn), on the east
by a medical office, and on the south by Williston Road.
4
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
March 3, 2000
Beth A. Dann, Esquire
P.O. Box 406
Burlington, VT 05402-0406
Re: Boundary Line Adjustment, Meadowood at Spear
Dear Ms. Danon:
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and my comments
to the Board. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. to
represent your request.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincqgely,
h; /' 1 .1 , 11
v 'C'
nd J. Belair
Administrative Officer
Encls
v1 y I r
,d
Z,•, i � A h .r i
Arf w � :•
•i'. .�
t
s
Y.� 1
O
I n'✓'� 'I
•j
24
CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON
it
VOL. I26 P, 292
S e:
.6
I
■
30' Water,Sewor,oad Pedestr/oo
Easeann 1_
LEGEND
■ CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND
o CONCRETE MONUMENT SET
9 IRON PIPE FOUND
UNIVF,RBITY OF VERNONT
AI/SC-- VOL 34.. , P. R44 .
S 63. 41' 36' E
S 63. 54'6I'E
BAR TL ETT J
BAR T LE TT
/ 15, Sewer and Pedoelr/aa Easoweal
NOWLANO
VOL.34 P.409
S 03.19' 22"E 1002.78'
Noto. Lots 10, 11,15,15 and the Park
canlain minor dromoee ways.
1 ors 25 and 27 subject to 15' Oro,nooe
Eosemon , along naturo/ drainage ways
not shown.
150.00'
I48.00'
192. 91'
00' 16 "E
� 66•.
GRAPHIC SCALE
This Plot is based upon a transit and
CNAPLIN B LONG
(In feel)
rape survey, evidence found in the field
VOL.34 P. 187
and information abstracted from the
South Burlington Land Records and
100 50 0 100 200 300 400
a plan enti l led 'National Life Ins. Ca".
dosed 6-12-73,revised 1-23-76. by
NOTE: TO CONVERT TO METERS
Webs ter- Marlin.
A FFEC-rElj Lrnti
MULTIPLY FEET BY
/ hereby certify that this plot) represents
.3048
a survey and is Correct to 'he best ofmy
knowledge.
•rl 1%,if
/ I
CHAPLIN
VOL.9/ P.182
1% 1
V
O C
q e[
r
64
'y
I ��o
by bb
ti e
W
r
Q•
'APPROVED'
Q•t Department
r' of
Environmental Conservation
APproved By:_ !2L
Permit Z{ Z
DPLnTf NONUNENTAT/oN,BAR7LETT L/NE 14•27--79 7N
To: Applicants
From: Sarah MacCallum, City of South Burlington
RE: Project Staff Notes
Date: February 16, 2000
SD-00-05 Boundary Line Adjustments Lots 1,2,3,4 & 5, Amended Final Plat for Meadowwood
@ Spear
Previous Action:
Boundary Line Adjustment between Lots 8 and 10, Final Plat Amendment, State of Vermont Land Use
Administrative Amendment, March 26, 1998
Transfer of Ownership (Streets to City), Final Plat Amendment, February 6, 1979
Private Ownership of Streets, Final Plat Amendment, June 28, 1977
41 Single -Family Lot Subdivision, Final Plat Approved, February 10, 1976
Overview:
The South Burlington Planning Commission approved the final plat for Meadowwood @ Spear in 1976.
Since that time, there have been several revisions, including one boundary line adjustment. The applicant
has proposed boundary line adjustments for lots one through five which both decrease and increase the
lengths of lot lines.
Proposal:
■ The boundaries for Lot One will increase on the north side from 349.9 feet to 359.74 feet and decrease
on the west side from 139.07 feet to 138.83 feet.
■ Lot Two's boundary lines will decrease on the east side from 139.07 feet to 138.83 feet and on the
west side from 425.98 feet to 425.96 feet.
■ Lot Three's will decrease on the east side from 425.98 feet to 425.96 feet and increase on the west side
from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet.
■ Three of the four boundary lines on Lot Four will change in length. The north boundary will decrease
from 156.19 feet to 146.19 feet. The east side will increase from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet while the
west boundary from 459.59 to 459.90.
■ Lot five east boundary will increase from 442.97 feet to 443.04 feet and the west boundary from
481.75 to 482.12 feet.
Issues:
■ Will the resulting boundary line adjustments decrease the Pheasant Way right -right-of-way?
■ Will the utility easements be infringed upon?
■ Any proposed changes to the 15 foot drainage easement between Lot One and Lot Two need to
be delineated on new plans.
■ Buildings should be delineated on the site plans. Variance requests should be noted.
Completeness of Plan:
The applicant has submitted sufficient information for Development Review Board to consider the final
plat with the exceptions noted above.
MICKENBERG, DUNN, KOCHMAN, DANON & SMITH, PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
29 PINE STREET P. O. BOX 406 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0406
BETH A. DANON
JAMES J. DUNN
F. L. KOCHMAN, INC.
AILEEN L. LACHS
NEIL H. MICKENBERG
O. WHITMAN SMITH
February 24, 2000
Sarah MacCallum, Planning & Zoning Assistant
City of South Burlington
Department of Planning & Zoning
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
TEL (802) 658-6951
FAX (802) 660-0503
OF COUNSEL:
WILLIAM M DORSCH
ADAM R. NECRASON
MICHAEL D. SIROTKIN
Re: Boundary Line Adjustments Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Amended Final Plat for
Meadowood at Spear
Dear Ms. MacCallum:
I enclose for the benefit of the Development Review Board a site plan prepared by
Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. that delineates the house locations on each of the lots affected
by the above -referenced requested boundary line adjustment. I also spoke to the surveyor, Scott
Taylor, who assured me that all of the construction of the development occurred after the
discovery of the boundary changes and therefore none of the easements, including utility
easements, were changed or infringed upon. Also, there has been no change to the 15 foot
drainage easement between Lot 1 and 2, as drainage pipes were never installed, and there has
been no change to the 60 foot Pheasant Way right-of-way.
Mr. Taylor will be attending the hearing before the Board scheduled for March 7, 2000 at
7:30 p.m. and can address these questions and any other questions the Board may have regarding
our request for amended final plat approval.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
>eth A. Danon
Attorney at Law
BAD/bad
Enc.
cc: Lis Barfod and Steve Lidofsky
Douglas K. Riley, Esq.
Scott Taylor
11. Financing:
a. Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project?
$270,000 . Applicants for subdivisions should include cost
of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc.
b. How will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and
what additional financing will be necessary? Personal funds
c. If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details
of the bonds. N/A
12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? x police�;X�fre
protection; solid waste disposal; X road maintenance; X sewage
disposal; X water supply; other. (explain).
13. Will this project involve any of the following: (check those that apply.)
a. Fuel burning equipment c. Incinerators
b. Process equipment d. Air pollution control equipment
NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to (Io so by a district coordina-
tor.
14. I/we hereby certify and affirm under oath that I/we have notified by personal
service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled
to notice of my/our application pursuant to Title 10 VSA, §6084, as follows:
(Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans):
City of South Burlington
1 Complete(Name and Address of Municipality)
Set
South Burlington Planning Commission
(Name and Address of Municipal-NanningCommission)
)-tial Set Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Name and Address of Regional RlanningCommission)
Signature
__....._...._. ._
j
Criteria #1
A. The development lies between elevations 370 and 220 in the area between Shelburne
Road and Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The lower portion abuts on
the South Burlington conservation district area and is -above the flood plain
level of that stream. There are established drainage patterns along the lower
portion of the property that feed the stream flowing through the conservation
district. These areas will be articfically drained through the confines of the
development.
B. Waste disposal shall be via municipal sewerage system. Application for storm
water discharges have been applied for.
C. The design incorporates present day standards of water distribution. The Vermont
Health Department does not allow recycling of water for human consumption.
D. The development is not in a floodway. However, the proposed subdivision involves
construction of a pipe arch and sewer main through an existing floodway.
During construction, a temporary channel shall be excavated to allow undisturbed
normal flow through the construction area. Down stream from the construction area
a debris basin shall be constructed to prevent the passage of debris or sedimentation
1 into down stream waters. After completion of the pipe arch, the temporary channel
J and debris basin will be removed and the channel will be restored. Rip rap will
be placed on the new channel edge as shown on the detail plan (Sheet 23 of 23).
The pipe arch is designed to accommodate the flow produced by a 100 year storm.
E. The natural stream bank of the stream will be maintained through the mechanics of
the South Burlington conservation district coning.
F. The development is not on a shoreline.
Criteria #2
The South Burlington water mains are connected to the Champlain Water District
system which is presently operating at approximately 50% capacity.
Criteria #3
The development will not cause an unreasonable burden on the municipal system and
connection has been approved by the City of South Burlington.
Criteria 14
The development will be drained by use of a subdrainage system and erosion control
methods, as described in the specifications, will be utilized. The Soil Conservation
M
F. The subdivision is planned for the latest technoligical advances of energy use
including use of solar energy and modern practices of insulation.
G. No private utilities are planned. The subdrainage system shall be the responsibility
of the homeowners for maintenance purposes.
H. The development is planned in an area zoned for residential housing and has been
reviewed by the City of South Burlington.
I. The public utilities affected by this development will be available at its completion.
The water and sewer and power will be provided by the developer and approval has
been obtained for connection to them.
K. The City of South Burlington has property contiguous to the development and has
stated that the development will not have an unnecessarily adverse effect.
L. The development is in an area zoned for residential use and meets the requirements
of South Burlington.
Criteria #10
The subdivision is in accordance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
J
J
4U
J
J
City of South Burlington
1175 WILLISTON ROAD
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
TEL. 863-2891
OFFICE OF
CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI
February 13, 1976
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Attention: Mr. Curt Carter
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Re: Meadowood Subdivision
Spear Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Carter:
The water and sewer services for the above referenced
project will be connected to the municipal systems.
Final design and construction will conform to the city
standards.
WJS/h
Very truly yours,
William J. Szymanski
City Manager
Pebruary 13, 1976
Agency of LnVironmental Conservation
Attention: Mr. Curt Carter
111 Wast Street
Lssex Junction, Veniiont 05452
,�eaaowood Subdivision
Spear Street
south !iurlington, Vemont Ob401
Dear Mr. Carter;
The water and sewer services for tho above referenced
project will be connected to the iiunicipal systems.
Final design and construction will conform to the City
standards.
Very truly yours,
william J. Szymanski
City Manager -
WJ.S/h
At30'
Water, Sever, end Pedestrian
Eesam on t
4t
rL
e3. 49 O
N 3 p0.0
1 I
_
r 54.44'•4.
' _ R.75.00'
f Na/tAAorAood
'?
4
Par*�
t
t6l.40'
LEGEND
■ CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND
o CONCRETE MONUMENT SET
IRON PIPE FOUND
310. 70,
25
° P
• d 24
e "E d•4a•
.7/'
S 8a•06'34'E
19E1t
so
oo
?5
Wag
Wb:
'See
oO.
35'0!E
1�8B.41W
IrtB7
w",
26
0'0'asd+tt30
27
Otdf
`
R+I63.
Z L+104.07'
d •trso'oc'
1
UN/VF,RSITY OF VERMONT
MISC. .VOL 34, . #244.
S 83. 41' 56' £
Iso.00'
/a0.00:
Iitoo,
I/a.00'
/is,
2/
W
bw /
W
o 17
W
b r.
W
/5
/3
at
at
at
x
aaod
is .00'
Utoo'
law'
/is
S !• 4s 64
PHEA$A
T
WAY
0.00
rzI3droTaMi
laoo'r
9T0.400
+40.Od
R.4aO0'
nOO/oail
IOT
J
s O'.~oo'
Rr40 Od
c
.
$ L •62.95,
Is 2
20
0 /8 16
0/4
/2 t
1laoo'—
—/toad
raoo— r3ood--150..00'—
— —
— — —
—�-- s 8! 4 'a4'E -�
• lS'Orol
-- —
W
reem selgpnbe�
g 30
g 32
I
8 34 °e 8
g
e
$
36
e o I
3B Io
40
°
16`
o /00,
°
rlo.00'
I�o.00'
130.00' i3o.00'
aaoo'
I30:o0'
"/650d
rtNs;rl.e
QUAIL
ser4JYarE
RUN
E
S or4s WE
AV
/tY.65
IJG.00
/l6I00
/la00
130.00
I30. 00
—
130 QOT
a� �r
/d+43•
d0v,inape W
'o'
yr
W
W
.26
W
Eaemenls W I
tu
g
W
-
k�
T+64.91'
R`t6J00'o�Izz.6S,=jSo.00,_L_r30001
g
ti g♦
d
0
b
g°
29 bM
3/ e`
33 F4
35 �k
37
bo
39 oe
41 '
1
at
at
'r
70
166.Sir
vk
i3aoo'—
--130.00'-
—150,00'-
130od/
S 83'54'51'£
15' Droinoee £asoment
N6•/O'06'El
BAR TLETT
GRAPHIC SCALE
(/a feet!
too 50 O 100 zoo 300 400
NOTE., TO CONVERT TO METERS
MULTIPLY FEET BY .3046
15, Sewr end Pe4esrrles Easement
NOWLAND
VOL.34 P.409
_ S 63•19' WE 1002.78, •� t.V
+iiiE P H E A S A N T WA Y
e' S 93. 19' 22" E t LL
178. 21, 46.19' Woo, 15a. 00' y, 34A 71' _J
n
A
5 4 3 2
lS, ominage Q b°
2 Eermald
ry
W W 'r 0900 ?
b S 66. d
° 48.
e m i. i°a ° 'So.
A ' o • ? O Ory VOL. 85 P. 176 Q
Z Z p0 ye I•,p
'APPROVED'
Nora. Lars lo, ll,/l, Is and IAe Pors 2 I Department
Q''q'I
cM loin minor drainage ways. C HA P L / N i 01
Environmental Conservation
L ors 25 and Z7 suyect to 15' Dla 1no9e VOL.9/ P.1B2
Eosemeets along natural drainage ways 5000• wPPrOVedRy;— QyrOL•.
n01 shown. 148.00, 15000 - Permit
19P.91' 6o' t6 " £ D
This plot 1s based upon a transit and CHAPLIN 8 LONG
top, survey, evidence found in the field VOL. 34 P 187
and information abstracted from the
South Burlington Land Records and t V111_upt,rE NONONENTAT/ON,BARr4Err LINE 1/-J
a plan entitled ' Noliono/ tits, Ins. Co*, o° r . Rt VI!-0 LOTS r s e s c 'iir
do'ed 6-12-73, revised 1-23-76. by FPROJECT ^^
Webster•Martin. AGFECYEP LIn•� o.Tl
I hereby certily that this plan represents PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
a survey and is correct to the bell allay SD
knowledge.
,arc MEA DOWDOD AT SPEAR T FM
v?`��dr;\.• SOUTH BURL/NGTON, VERMONT
TRUDELL
CONSULT Ih;
ENGINEERS Inc. wrnislon Vermont
'
d•4s•
T+�
R.
a
0 .OQ'
0
t1/6'
S 03'49' 54"E
183, 9
8
9
P
W
1
sfr49's4'E
O
/fP.6t'
W
O W
gc
8
0°0
b C
:
S sr 49'64'E
^
b
re2,15
r
Z
$
Z
n 7
n
S Br 49'b4' E
181.36'
bo
6
a d•I9•t9't8'
h
c
T.24.78'
S 03'199 /
BAR rL Err J
m
a
N A
LlM
7.79 rN I
is
I
UN/VCRS/TY OF VERMONT
MISC.. VOL 34, . P. 244.
S 13. 41 J16' E
i r� � {{ t -{�� + ♦ `.•'u :'.;r' 7/0. 70 I50.00 ISO.Od IIA00 1I'm .00 118.00' 3/8.30' /3' serer end P•d•e Irlu Easement
,64
23xi 2/ �q /9 0 17 /3 go 13
ts
O D ie $ s 09 ryb
r.11.4r' at >o s b 6 T,43• its
9•.
1•'•' ♦ /6a00' /a0.00, 11800'-1/10a, /N.00' 30. /� /0 0,
$ r 4! a4 e
PHEASANT WAY
CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON R• 0009' sai, 91641E R•10�0
VOL. 126 P, 292 La
t9.71'
S 03.06,341E
E, /9L 7t
O1,
!
touo
N
25
W W
a4t
See, 35,0! E
�. O
4,
I8B.41 W /7t.17
� b
a
h 26
♦
a : :
O
Water, Sewer, end Pedestriana~p,263.
`
:
un1 Z
4 &02.301OG' L• 104.0?' fz
Nt, �
YA•90•
1J0.00
/JG.00
/SOt 00
�
13000'
9o.
d•90•`('
7-40.Od
W
ap•
Eos•m•n 1a
T•40.00,
R,40.00
c L•6t.13'
o
O
g 6
g ad 5
$
$ L •6IA3'
0 22
$ 20
0 /8
16
°o /4
$ /2
b
-- actoo'-
-13oiod -
- 150.00'-
- 13aod -
-130.00'-
- - - LD7.00,-
W
In
•
Eonm\nb
`�
c'
g 30
g 32
8 34 0
°e
0 36 I
g 3B l
040 g
e
a
° e
/00'
/30.00'
1�0.00'
/30.00'
i�o.00'
��aoo'
i3o:0o•
S 83'49'34'E
/83.19
o
g
g
W
`
b
Ser 491541E
O
18t.82'
W
W
O
go
a
,o
2
S 83' 49'64'E
h
b
/et./s
io
2
g
Z
O
°n
7
n
N 131 j9.04 , r'J7 R�P6S.od 1NR'.Puc QUAIL S Ir1!' 341E RUN - 503.491341E
,0 r F
300f /1!. !s
44 /LJP.65 /lO.00 /lQDO /l00o IJO.GO 130. '
d •71•d6'S0' % E dWoinape y, W W �+ ti
T•34.44' j1•1' 6>r �i /W d•4a. W I Eo,emenH W I �� 6
`.R•7500' N T,B4.9I' bb g y co 00 n
•r `" L•91./1' age' g♦ IQ Og, A•89•29'28"vi
g Y ,� ♦ R•YOS.00' c a 29 " 3/ 0 33 35 tz 37 `? 39 0, 4/ 3 T•24.78'
ai• Nelg A•orAaod Zw L•16OL Oki �N a Qb �e c e, R, 3 �.
•o~ Park
28 t.
at It =to is� =` 2e
as t65.40' 'Pit"
I47.1d 166.3!' /P2.6a' Il0.00'---/30.00' /5aoo' /30.00' /30.00' /300d e/
` S 13.54,61,E 15' Oraino • Easement N6.10106.r
S 13•I9'tt'E t36
10.07'
BAR TL E rr
9ARTL£TT W
NOWLANO
VOL.34 P.409
S 0$'19'22"E 1002.78, •��
SPIKE ��d
41'4e'EPHEASANT WA Y „o
�_• S 83'19'22" E t rr
178. 21' Id E.19, /50oo' /3U.00 ,3417" J
O
5 4 3 2 ally //oa
la' Drainage y y♦
� Ee,►m•rr1 ryy
W
a
W W Jrr90 Op•
o b 66.*
b a' wq m♦ e'S1 •E
w q ni q N w •b L A N G
.� • p Ory VOL. B5 P. 176 Q,
t 2 10 y0 \\
'APPROVED'
w 0 �•r Department
Note, Lots 10, 11,15,15 and III* Pork
al
'
contain ..or drainage ways.
CHA
r LIN
Environmental Conservation
LEGEND
is 25 and 27 sue/ecl to 13' Ora.nope
yOL.9� P./BZ
RPP/OVedBy:_!AyaC
In CONCRETE MONUMEN7 FOUND
Easemenrs along natural drainage ways
5000,
0 CONCRETE MONUMENT SET
not shown
150.00
I4 B.00'
Permit N:
192.91
3e!•,
• IRON PIPE FOUND
GRAPH/C SCALE
This plot is based upon o 1ronsiI and
CHAPLIN B LONG
(/n feel!
rope survey, evidence found in the field
VOL. 34 P 187
and information abstracted from the
South BarI /aglon Land Records and
t &PLATE MONUAr ENrAT/ON,"M ErT LINE //d7•T9 r.N
too a0 O too too 300 400
aplan entitled ,National Life Ins. Ca",
o`1 "y'•1O" REV0`0 LOTS I?.t4 O n/.i(:/77
"enOJEr,
do red 6-/Z-73, revised 1-23-76, by
u"TH V•6-77
NOTE, TO CONVERT METERS
Webs /sr• Martin.
Zeby
A ppECTE9 L/AJ�
PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
T
MULTIPLY FEET BY .304E
/ certify that this plan represents
a curve y and is correct to the bes t of my
SOT 6-77
knowledge
M£ADOWOOD AT SPEAR
ci
I""u100'
°,�!-�a`�
/
SOUTH SURL/NGTON, VERMONT
., � „•.. w.,
j/
�!•tL,s
T R U D E L L 1Y 5031
t. it `,-t w.J
CONSULT 11,,
"'
ENGINEERS Inc. Williston, Vermont
t �
UNIVcRS/rY OF VERMONT
MISC.. VOL 34., . P. ?44..
't
S8!•41'56'E
y.•'
l' 11.tr •, ...
.l •Y,
t
> ire - ..
t Y 1
J/O. 70
/SO.00 /a0.00' /1800
l /L00
/18. 0o•
315.30,
+
v -
W
�a
g
W
�/ 15' Sewer and Podostr/es Eosemenl
23
g n
?I a q /9 l7 g
l3 g o
/3 0
a
ow o e
'
O
'!• �•.. T. 41.41'
at
b' b b
6
a, 43• ti '. 1
• vt
14
laaoo'
C1 TY OF SO. BURLINGTON
n
4145•
T. 41.42'
R•100.ov
igo.00' Ne.00,
S ' J• 49 54
PHEASANT
68J• 9'a4'E
-
WA Y
10 a
dr45• "
rr,oijr' ,
VOL. 126 P, 292 Lr78.34..'
- -
SOS .0674 `E
t9r sr
1$84*
5'O!'E
p
x
26 a
x
4
'
30' Water, Sorer, eed Podutr/sn 6 b 27 T_rt•JO'O0'
a2.71'
Essemsnt i 2 Re
0...00
a •22•JOOC' Le /0407'
O R•265.OG! NN. awns S eJ• 4 9' 64" E
N e3'j9 QUAIL RUN
300.0 6<,r 4' 5e55*49's4'E S83'49'54"E
1lO.00' /lQOO /SGOO /30.00 /JD.00--%JO-Obr- 181.36'
4:71.56,56, %o E 15'Dro/n
T•54.44' 81.266t" �° /de45• W Ewemen�W •W1 W W W W �W M
_R•75.00' N Te84.91' L, b g W - u w 6 m
'tn L 494. 18 ' LC g n g 6 b b o O p .1 %
-�o ♦ -� Ti R.PO5.00' �n 'O 0 w 8c.
o ri N ' h d r99•P9'28` t.
:• " , Neighborhood �- ,W a e Le161. ° 4 29 a 3/ o" 33 4 35 R 3T o� 39 C. 41 m ° r,24.78,
41
o
z Pork a N 2x ,Z
B L x at x x /r[ 5 I3•19' 2_2"E /002.78' A
yy _ S BJ• 19 P E RR SPINE
r 265.40, 147 F .70' 166.3J' /2r.65, /So 00'— -- /30.Od — -- 150.00'— -- g0.00' - -- 130.o0' /50001 S �N8 4E'4eE P•H E A S A N T WA Y o '
S 83' 54'51'£ Ir S 63. 19, r2" E
15' Droinc a Eosemenl N6. 10`06`E S 83•19'EP"E ZJ6 178.21' .19' 13000' 13000' •- _! 16.07' la8W 344 7s'
wI IO /
BAR T[ETT J y
5 4 3 2
` 13' Droinoge ,y be
• - Z Eenme/d ry
ry
(. BARTLETT W W W W P90 �
566, 4e o•
7h yb ay 9•
G
*0 O oN' VOL 65 P. 176 E Q
2 x 2 00 � yO \ ,
4) 'APPROVED' " b v
NoteLots 10,11,15,15 and the Pork ry Q �:1 Department 1
LEGEND con loin minor droinape ro ys. v'
CHAPL/N of
■ CONCRETE MONUM£N1 FOUND is ?5 and 27 rub/ect to 15'O—nope VOL.9/ P.182 EnvitonmentalConservation
Easements alanp naluro/ droinape rays 0' _ ADDroved By:_�Ar4C — —
! O CONCRETE MONUMENT SET not shown. 150.00' 500
I 148.00, Permit 0:---
• IRON PIPE FOUND 19P 91 S 99•0010•E D,.-1 3-/f-4A-
GRA PN/C SCALE This p/a/ Is based upon a transit and CHAPLIN 8 LONG ,
fin feet) rope survey,evidence found in the fled VOL. 34 P, 187
and information abstracted from the
- /Ou so O South Bur/lnpton Land Records and 2 ..a /1PE ATE NONUMENTAr/om aARfLE7r LINE 1127-T9 r.H
/o0 Y00 300 400 a plan entitled •Notional Life /as. Ca ;
oV I •� "REV.'."D LOTS 1? 3 4 5 G 9/J(/)r u��lti
deed 6-12-73 , revised 1-23-76, by -PROJECT '7
NOTE: TO CONVERT TO Me TERS Webster-Mar/ln' AFGE�-T�% L11 a�rH -77
MULTIPLY FEET By! .3048 1 hereby certify that this plan represents PLAT OF SUBDIVISION .� OT
a survey and is correct to the best ofmy S7
6-77
knowledge. n _ _
u.ro
MEADOWOOD AT SPEAR
`CF YLI a.�1, • /00'
P ,aq�i SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
e: +Te/frnl1[,S. - CONSULT 1 L 50
/
, _
i
ENGINEERS Inc. Williston, Vermont
Yd+90• O
W
p
/10.00
/JG.00/IQOo'
f
90.E ` �l
T NO.Od
W
I`1 OroinaW
Eosemsn5
d•90•�c'
Ts40.00'
O L•6t.00,
O
g O
g /zd ad
o
9 R=4o.od.
$
0
$
0
p
O
L •62.83'
22
•
20
/8
e
/4
m /2
x
/lO.od —
— 150. 00'---
- - - 150.00'--
9 BS' 4
'54'E I
l3'Oroilmpe
�Eo»menls�
�--- —
W
°o
30
g 32
b
g 34 °
I
0
O
g
d
36 Iotoo
40
x
tee 0 .OQ
PL l6'
S e3.49' 34"E
183 49'
W
8
0 9
$
NOWLANO
VOL. 34 P. 409
b
583 •49'54`E
go
b �
=
'r
p /9P.82' p
B ,o
S 83.49'64'E `
%
b
102,15
x
8 0=
7
� v
Cc
tt
�1
i
1 .
r
.
S
CITY OF $O.
BURLINGTON
VOL. le
P, 292
eJO,
Water, Sower, end Po des lr/oa
tib b
Eosem on f
Ole►
2
6�rAl
N 85'
,Do. 0
err r
A-71.36'58' 48
T-34.44' 91
N
-�'
R.75.00,
L-91.1f'
Neighborhood ,W
Pa
Z
rs�
qy�,i
147.
LEGEND
■ CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND
a CONCRETE MONUMENT SET
• IRON PIPE FOUND
i
t
VNIVCRSITY OF VERMONT
MISC.. VOL 34, . P244_
2
S63. 41'Sf'E
70
/60.00
d0.00'
/1800
I/8.00
/08.
W
LW
�W
W
i
23
w
2/ a
q 19
g
17
)5
A- 45.4toz
0
6 O
oa
•.
by
/.
o
Ri
//
R. 00
at
at
at
at
tiK
Id•t _ MA6. /f7P ,
air
/ 13' Sewer and Padeelrlan Eesomenl
09 y0
43• ti I)
%
• '+i 24 /anod ito.00' Naoo' i/aoa' i/e ' 0 /O o
it T.4.42' PHEASANT 3 J•4D 61 WAY 4`45- N
R-I00.0� ' S8J•
b
29. 71'
S 85.06'34•E
•�
/9E 72
0h
06
o
yyo° 25
n W
g
Sf4. 33'O!'E
O
186.41 W /7P.B7
b .
h. 26
b
at 2
„„
of
27 T-22,30•00_
i R-P63.00'
L- 104.07'
A -22. 3010C
T.5271' -4-
t,' O
Yd+90•
W
1.l0.00
/30.00
/3n00
/l000'
90.E
T 30..00
O
W
0
l3'Oroinoae
Eosemenfa
p dd
J. 90•
T-40.00'
R-40.od.
C L•62./.7'
$
°m '
0 /20'
O
O
pp
V L-62.83'
22
20
/s °
/6
/2
i
/3o.Oo'-
- 130A0'-
--jjoO '-'-
---/l0.00'-
- - -
- -
D 83.4
'54'E
�
/5'Oroinapo
�EwemenN�
�-�- -
W
C
30
$ 32
b
8 34
I
36
�
39 Ic
C
40 g
0°
i
Io
Ii
m /00,
�.
00'
IlO.00'
/JO.00'
/lO.00'
1Sn00'
R+ O .0
P/16'
S 03.49'51"E
183.49"
8
g NOWLANO
0 9
W
4 VOL.34 P.409
N
583. 49'34'E
162.82,
b C
2
2
S B3. 49'64'E
~
%
IBP.lS
b
ao
,a
0
0
°n 7 .o
R- 5eg Nr/APIA% QUA/L Se3.4Y's4'E1104.0 RUN
'E S 8J•49' WE SBT 19'31'E
IP2.6J 1l0.00 /JO00 1- 00 /30. 00 /30.00 13000T 181.36'
•p6,e� E �d-45• W I £osemenW I t]0 LW W W W I u m n
T+94.9/' 6
R-P03.00'`go 29 g a 3/ o 33 F o �h ' 4/ m ° i+F�.78'2B' n / (v /,•
q L-16to N N 35 R 37 0,. 39 0,
2 _ b`
N 2 : a: S B!•l9' 22"E 1002.78'
S B!' 19 2 E RR SPIKE
7d N 166.55' /22.61" 130.00'- -- /JOpd - - /l0.00'- -- /30.Oo' - - /BO.00' /300d / c, O /
• /NB•4P'4f"EPHEASANT WA Y
PP.R'
S BJ• 51'a/'f S f!•19'P2" f o?
Droino a Easement N6•/p'06"E / S 8J•19'22"E 2563 17821' 15619' /3000 130.00' rr
16.07 ' W J497-' � J
BAR TL Err J ml lO
A
5 4 3
15' Dromage y b
= Comment ryAs
b
BAR TLETTe.90
00' 2
CO m 66•4d
N ti w q N m N w Iry L A N G E Q
r a e "ro e? O Oro VOL. 65 P. 176
2 2 =
-APPROVED-
Note. Lals /O, 5 and /he Po r4 r Q �••; Department
c on rain minor droinape rayr. CHAPLIN co i of
L ols 25 and 27 rubJecl fo 13' Oro lnoee VOL.9/ P./82'
Envi(onmenlal Conservation
Em-menls a/ono noJuro/ roved droinaye rays A
no r shown 150.00' 30 00 Approved 8 y:___ C
148.00' Permit
92. 91
GRAPHIC SCALE This Prof is based upon a tronsiIand CHAPLIN 8 LONG
(/n foot) ropand informationldence found abstracted /n the from the
VOL. 31 P. l87
South Burlington Land Records and P_ OPIATE NONUMENTAT/ON,BAR7Lfrr LINE II-2
/DO 30 D /00 200 300 400 o plan entitled 'National Life Ins. Co" o" 1 " REVCiO LOTS 17 } a e e 'g icy
doled 6-12-73, revised I-23-76, by "YROJfp
NOTE: TO CONVERT TO METERS Webster-Morhn. AFFEE-TES L1n.� u"TM
MULTIPLY FEET BY ,3048 /hereby certify that this plan represents PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
o survey and is correct to the best ofmy So
knowledge. �u
�' MEADOWOOD AT SPEAR _
SOUTH SURL/NGTON, VERMONT
1
T R U D E L L 5
CONSULT Ir.�
�t
ENGINEERS , Inc. Williston, Vermont
rN 1
l 714 -7& u- c p-,2-� &,L, c e<� ,mac, /lF,��"
dR
11�'tlXJl/L
s
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Stephen Page, Planner
Re: Next Meetings Agenda Items
Date: January 19, 1979
#2 Meadowood at Spear
rased on a vote following the meeting between Mr. Ireland and
the homeowners, a majority of the residents now favor private
street ownership. I wish to reiterate my personal opinion that
the streets should become public, based on my concerns regarding
overall community planning and administration of various municipal
services. In response to Mr. Jacob's question about utility owner-
ship, I can also reiterate that it has always been clear they were
to be public, based on meeting minutes, approval motions, staff
memos, and the developer's A250 application.
#3 Castlerock
At the suggestion of the Commlmpon, the developer has inverted
the layout of the project: where the road formerly circled around
the units, it now penertrates to the center of the development,
with the units distributed around the edge of the site. The sub-
stantive issues which must be resolved are the Fire Chief's comments
(memo enclosed) and consideration of a waiver on the recreation
fee, which on a per unit basis, is several times higher than that
required of other similar developments in the same general area. A
number of lesser issues can be resolved at the meeting or as a con-
dition of approval.
i
SPOKES F3 OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. 0. BOX 2325
SOUTH BURLINcrON, VERMONT 05402
RICHAB.D A SPOKES 1775 WIuJsTON ROAD
IOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI January 23, 1979 TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857
South Burlington Planning Commission
Municipal Offices
1175 Williston Road
So. Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Private Streets
Gentlemen:
It seems timely for me to express my reservations concerning
the City's practice of plowing certain private roads and
streets. I was alarmed to learn that South Burlington is
plowing the streets in the Meadowwood at Spear Development.
There are two compelling reasons why the City should not under-
take to voluntarily plow or maintain private streets. First,
from a legal standpoint, South Burlington has no right to per-
form this work without a specific written easement from the
owner of the streets. Secondly, I am concerned with the City's
liability exposure if this practice continues. Without a legal
easement, there is a question whether South Burlington's in-
surance coverages would be applicable. Even if coverage were
available, the City would be encouraging potential law suits.
In most instances private streets and roads are not con-
structed or maintained to City standards and thus the repair
and maintenance work is more difficult to perform. If the City
occasionally participates with the private street owners in plow
and maintenance work, the entire responsibility for such work
could be imputed to the City. Obviously if the City has the
entire legal responsibility for maintenance, its liability
exposure increases.
I would strongly recommend that we discontinue the practice
of plowing private streets. I am aware of the inconveniences
this may cause some South Burlington residents, but on the
other hand it may save South Burlington considerable aggrevation
and expense in the future. I should also advise you that my
South Burlington Planning Commission
Page 2
office represents some of the residents in Meadowwood at Spear
in their personal legal work, but we have not been consulted, nor
could we, on the private versus public street issue.
Very truly yours,
• Richard A. Spokes
RAS/ccb
cc: William Szymanski
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Meadowood Development - Spear Street
Date: January 5, 1979
Streets built to city standards including all utilities within
the streets or in easements should become cite streets maintained by
the city.
The above referenced development is substantially complete and
upon completion I would recommend they become public.
If the streets in this development do become public, the gate
house must be removed and curbs placed as per standard.
It has been the policy of the city to plow development streets
after they have been paved the first black top course. The citt7
has been plowing these streets, however, if they are to remain private
this service will cease.
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT made this _ s-+74/ day ofr/�s,`l
by and between the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corpora-
tion situated in Chittenden County, Vermont and IRELAND INDUSTRIES,
INC., of Burlington, Vermont, County of Chittenden and State of
Vermont, hereinafter referred to respectively as City and Real
Estate Owner.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of extending its public sewer
system; and
WHEREAS, the Real Estate Owner is desirous of having the
public sewer system extended to serve his property situated in
the City of South Burlington; and
WHEREAS, an extension of the City's public sewer system to
service the property of the Real Estate Owner is not presently
contemplated in the City's annual capital budget.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Real Estate Owner, in
consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, agree
as follows:
1. The City agrees to permit the Real Estate Owner, at his
own expense to construct and complete an extension of the public
sewer line to serve his property. The construction of said sewer
line shall only be in accordance with plans approved by the City
Engineer and shall be supervised by the City Engineer.
-2-
2, The Real Estate Owner shall, at his own expense, pay for all
labor, materials and equipment required to complete said sewer line
extension. However, the City shall pay for the cost of a pipe over
and above the cost of an eight (8) inch line, if the City requires a
line in excess of a diameter of eight (8) inches.
3. In extending the sewer system the Real Estate Owner is re-
quired to extend the public sewer system on Green Mountain Drive to a
point approximately two hundred and eighty (280) feet west of Spear
Street in conformance with plans and specifications titled Meadowood
at Spear, dated January, 1976, prepared by Willis Engineering Associ-
ates, which sewer system extends along frontage of other property
owners. The Real Estate Owner shall be reimbursed by the City the sum
of $10.00 per lineal foot for approximately twenty-eight hundred (2800)
lineal feet of frontage of said other landowners, when and if the
other landowners avail themselves of the sewer line extension constructed
by the Real Estate Owner, but not otherwise.
4. Front footage, as used herein, shall mean the length in feet
of the real property line which borders a public right-of-way or
easement.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns, and
successors of the parties hereto.
CITY OF SOUTH BU INGTON
By:
William J. S anski, City Manager
and Duly Authorized Agent
IRELAND�` (INDUSTRI/EES, INlC.
II i� ```c` L ✓ `t ` ' L. Y• z
tuart D. Ireland, President and
Duly Authorized Agent
December 20, 1978
Mr, Stuart Ireland
Ireland Industries, Inc.
100 Grove Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Ireland:
As you know, when the security system and private road
network for Meadowood at Spear were approved by the Planning
Commission (see minutes enclosed), a condition of this approval
was that you would return for a review, in 18 months, of the
adequacy of this arrangement. Since this time is at hand, I
would like to schedule you for this review at the Commission
meeting of January 9, 1979, starting at 7:30 p.m. You are
probably already aware that a group of Meadowood homeowners,
represented by Attorney Carl Lisman, has petitioned they City
to take over the ownership and maintenance of the streets.
If you cannot make the meeting of January 9th please give
me a call to reschedule.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen Page,
Planner
SP/mcg
1 Encl
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
JOHN M. DINSE ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FREDERIC W. ALLEN 186 COLLEGE STREET
ICHAEL B. CLA PP H. ERDMANN MBURLINGTON, VERMONT OS402
IC HA
ROBERT C. ROESLER
JAMES H.WICK SPENCER R. KNAPP January 12, 1979
BARBARA E. CORY
ROBERT R. M�KEARIN
Sidney Poger, Chairman
South Burlington Planning Commission
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Meadowood At Spear
Dear Mr. Poger:
TELEPHONE
AREA 802-864-5751
HILTON A.WICK
OF COUNSEL
After our hearing last Tuesday, my client and I had some
discussions concerning the same. We have scheduled a meeting
of the homeowners for 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 1979, at
the Radisson Hotel, and hope to have most of the issues resolved
at that time. We will, as we stated at the Public Hearing,
provide you with a written statement of our position prior to
your next meeting.
The comments by one of the Commission members at the last
public hearing was a matter of great concern to us. James
Draper's comments and apparently biased position, we feel is
prejudicial at this time. Ireland Industries, Inc. as the
applicant and owner of the development has not presented its
case nor firmly established its position before the Commission.
We feel it highly inappropriate for one of the Commission
members to take the stand that Mr. Draper took before hearing
our side and our presentation.
We therefore respectfully request that Mr. Draper withdraw
from any further consideration of the issues before the
Commission concerning Meadowood At Spear. We feel that to allow
him to remain in an active capacity at this time could only be
prejudicial and highly unfair to Ireland Industries, Inc. and
all residents of the development who support its position.
Very truly yours,
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
Robert C. Roesler
cjd
cc: Stephen Page
Stuart D. Ireland
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
11 a a u a r y 12 , I J7.
Sidney roo gar, Loa i rma n
South 3urlington Planning Commission
1175 Willis con � oad
South 6urlingtua, VT J5401
key: Aeadowoud At Spear
Uear Mr. Poger:
After our oearing last Tuesday, any client and 1 had soave
discussions concerning the same. se have Scheduled a meeting
of the homeowners for 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 1979, at
the RadissOn Kotel, and hope to nave most of the issues resolved
at that time. We will, as we stated at the Public Nearing,
provide you with a written statement of our position prior to
your next meeting.
The comments by one of the Commission members at the last
public hearing was a matter of great concern to us. James
Draper's comments and apparently biased position, we feel is
prejudicial at this time. Ireland Industries, Inc. as the
applicant and owner of the development has not presented its
case nor firmly establishei its position before the Commission.
K feel it highly inappropriate for one of the Commission
members to taie the stand that Mr. Oraper took before hearing
our side and our presentation.
We therefore respectfully request that Or. braper withdraw
from any further consideration of the issues before the
Commission concerning MeadowooJ At Spear. An feel that to allow
aim to remain in an active capacity at this time could only be
prejudicial and highly unfair to Ireland Industries, Inc. and
all residents of the development who support its position.
Very truly yours,
UINSL, ALLEN & ERUNAAA
Robert C. Roesler
cid
cc: Stephen Page
Stuart D. Ireland
M, E M 0 R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Stephen Page, Planner
Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items
Date: January 5, 1979
Garcia Preliminary Plat
See the enclosed plot plan. The issues of access, filling, and
storm drainage,,which were raised at sketch plan have been or are be-
ing resolved as follows: (a) there will be one curb cut for the
entire property, to be located opposite Builder's Blv1d. when lot
#1 is developed; (b) fill quality has been confirmed by the City
Engineer and Street Supervisor as very high - any additional fill-
ing of lot 1 or 2 shall be subject to Commission review; (c) Storm
drainage is o.k. at present, unless additional filling is proposed,
which would require review. Negotiations are continuing on an
offer of dedication for road widening, and will be finallized prior
to the next hearing. The fire chief feels an additional hydrant
is warranted in this area by pre-existing conditions; both he and
I agree that this item should be budgeted for, rather than imposing
the burden on such a small subdivision as this one.
Meadowood at Spear - Streets
This 41 single family lot subdivision was granted final approval
in February 1976, with public streets, sewer, and water lines. The
plan was amended in June, 1977, on a conditional basis, to allow
private ownership and maintenance of the streets; the minutes en-
closed show that street ownership and a security, system were the
only changes approved, and that they would be reviewed by the
Commission 18 months hence. This time period has now elasped. A
petition has been submitted by owners of 17 of the lots, requesting
that the streets and utilities by deeded to the City. I concur that
the streets should be publicly owned and maintained; although the
utilities have not yet been deeded to the City, it has been clear
from the outset that they would be municipally owned. See Bill
Szymanski's memo (enclosed).
Commission Budget
Area Planning Commission pay scales are as follows.:
1. South Burlington - $350
2. Colchester - $ 10
3. Shelburne, Essex Town, Essex Village, Williston, and
Burlington - $0
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Stephen Page, Planner
Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items
Date: January 5, 1979
Garcia Preliminary Plat
See the enclosed plot plan. The issues of access, filling, and
storm drainage which were raised at sketch plan have been or are be-
ing resolved as follows: (a) there will be one curb cut for the
entire property, to be located opposite Builder's Blvd. when lot
11 is developed; (b) fill quality has been confirmed by the City
Engineer and Street Supervisor as very high - any additional fill-
ing of lot 1 or 2 shall be subject to Commission review; (c) Storm
drainage is o.k. at present, unless additional filling is proposed,
which would require review. Negotiations are continuing on an
offer of dedication for road widening, and will be finallized prior
to the next hearing. The fire chief feels an additional hydrant
is warranted in this area by pre-existing conditions; both he and
I agree that this item should be budgeted for, rather than imposing
the burden on such a small subdivision as this one.
Meadowood at Spear - Streets
This 41 single family lot subdivision was granted final approval
in February 1976, with public streets, sewer, and water lines. The
plan was amended in June, 1977, on a conditional basis, to allow
private ownership and maintenance of the streets; the minutes en-
closed show that street ownership and a security system were the
only changes approved, and that they would be reviewed by the
Commission 18 months hence. This time period has now elasped. A
petition has been submitted by owners of 17 of the lots, requesting
that the streets and utilities by deeded to the City. I concur that
the streets should be publicly owned and maintained; although the
utilities have not yet been deeded to the City, it has been clear
from the outset that they would be municipally owned. See Bill
Szymanski's memo (enclosed).
Commission Budget
Area Planning Commission pay scales are as follows:
1. South Burlington - $350
2. Colchester - $ 10
3. Shelburne, Essex Town, Essex Village, Williston, and
Burlington - $0
e
City of South Burlington
1175 WILLISTON ROAD
•. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
„., .�• TEL. 863-2891
OFFICE OF
CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI
November 20, 1978
Burlington Savings Bank
148 College Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Attn: Chuck Cobb
Re; Meadowood at Spear Street
Ireland Development
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Chuck;
Please release seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-
three dollars and sixty seven cents ($7,993.67) in the escrow
account for the above referenced project.
This sum is to be released to Frank W. Whitcomb Construction
Company for paving at Meadowood and Spear Streets.
The balanced will be released when work is completed.
Very truly yours,
William J.VSz (�nski
City Manager
WJS/b
September 20, lc`78
Mr. Stuart Ireland
Ireland Construction Company
100 Grove Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Meadowood at Spear, conveyance of streets & utilities to
City
Dear Stu,
I have received a letter from Attorney Carl Lisman, representing
Meadowood at Spear residents, who would like to have the streets and
utilities conveyed to the City. As you know it has been understood
allalong that the utilities (sewer & water) were to be city -owned;
as for the roads, the issue of private ownership is to be reviewed
this December (26th).
If you have any interest in appearing before the Commission
prior to this date, please let me know, as the agendas have been
pretty crowded lately. Call if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Stephen Page,
Planner
SP/mcg
W
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Files of Hurley Condominiums, Glenwood, Larkin Apartments,
Meadowood at Spear, Meadowbrook Condominiums
From: SSP
Re: "Loose ends" to be resolved on water lines with CWD
Date: 9/13/78
Before release of bonds or any further approvals on these
projects, Ed Blake should be contacted.
July 15, 1977
or, Stwrt D. Ireland
jrejwin nsfries, Inc.
DO "o—V Arc-t
W71040-, verw�A MCI
mnr 12. i7el'id:
7— " n - nn.q1tn UnnecVnn conlucted AT- IA.
1-77 V ynu7 �n-Ow & at Wpwr Avolo sent, there irn tm)
KTvp luildim,
r-r its, This iq E v! 1 V n 1 .20 n! the SOnth
Surijn-t n loAno oraininco, w.lcn rr,Arw US issurncr c''
bu;!-Vrn ---�'ts "rior t cc �wnt �' 17C dove lapment.
10 h 1 UA rcniM U Q, tna -�Miw wpree�nnt
mn � r 7 cc. a q� , ' � 1 s muqt A re-
vicwodf an� rOCOIA�d !C:�C n.y L".OhCr 7=MAS All
A RSUN.
y,,, C,jj,,, t, r,,tify t,cso ite.s athin the mxt ten
&7s M! reSU17 in ny 71vC1nj t' is :Ottcr in tno Ms 0--i"
the CM Attorloy for 0-TrupwintO NO! vcti0s-
Yours truly,
Aephcn Voge
Assistcnt zoniq� "doi hArptor
cc: ztvrt Auessler, Esq.
sp/acg
u Tust 3.01 _977
Ireland Industries
P,!r. tuart Ireland, rresident
lon Grove :troet
>urli-ngton, Vermont 05' Cl
Notice of violation city
of" :youth Furlington '.toning
6ubdivision Regulations
Dear ', r. Ireland:
'e ad.vis�-d t iat 3,ou are in direct violttion of the Lci th
.urlini-ton zoning re:-ul., t cns, wh-reby ycu have three stru ;t-
ures under construction, ,jithc:ut :)err its.
sou are also in violation cf the :south Furlington Sub-c i.vision
rot,izl bons-_,heroby you hr:.ve failed to Full fill c,erta' n c �nd-
iti ns set -forte: by t .� outh 'ur_l_in ton '1 r. ing Commission.
The city has requested tlriat you submit a revised plan, for
approval by the city En,-ineer detailing ; cur prcr)osal "^r the
gat -house.
Tn addition y,cur escrow agreement gust be revised and a�nroved
which will )rovide for fu, t .er extension of t -_e rcc ds �;. i.thin
ti:e devel-nMent.
Due to your failure ':o take action on t1hese ccnditi(-.•,,,s we re
unable to issue ,)err -.its.
Ireland industries
."august 309 ;77
a,- I ,e
In accordance with nrovisions set fortrl under the City zoning
regulation you are hereby officially notified of these violations,
and your failure to take corrective action result i--; the
City '--aving to talw.e legal action.
Very truly,
ichard "'Arard
Zoning Administrative "".T.ficer
T, "Ime IF
-1 .
cc 't 4-
orney Eichard Spokes
'ttorney 1,.obert Ho
'� L, esler
IT
ovember 29, 1976
Ireland Industries, Inc.
100 tirrovStreet
'.. u_ ;.ington, ': T
~. Mr. Ir � 1<>.
?ur City _'.ttorney, "icha.rd pokes, has reviewed the escrow
and newer line agreements relating to �`eadowood at Spear
any? has recommended revision to both agreements.
-.,--closed are cepis, of both a.-reements .'i:ic.. include his
a endm-ent-s. :both a`re ments have minor changes, r,owever,
these changes must be approved by you and both documents
Sie%,.*
If ycu have any quest_i.ons, please contact me. The signing
o': both orL-inal documents should occur as soon as :possible.
Thank you _'cr y,, ur cooperation.
Very tru 1y ,
_�,:ichard ',yard
Zoning Administrative ficer
'..W/ j
-
r'&✓ !'r'/r . C' +rio'/s !� s"'iy+-G..�ho►�'C-
���
J
AGREEMENT 9/7/77
REFEREECE - MEADOWOOD AT SPEAR
I hereby authorize the City of Soutl� Burlington to draw upon
the monies due me for water main reinbursement in the amount of
approximately $4500 to cover any remaining work except -aving to
be performed in completing the Meadowood at Spear Development.
I understand building permits will not be issued to any part
of the development where the amount of the work remaining exceeds
the $4500.
'Stuart Ire and
President of Ireland Industries
'i the s s
l
I
JJIF
------ — - —_JC1 . eel
00,
November 16, 1976
Mr. Richard Ward
Zoning Administrator
South Burlington, Vermont
05401
Re: Meadowood at Spear Development
Dear Dick:
I agree to give the City of South Burlington, easements to sewer and water,
providing I receive a contract for future connection as per our previous
conversations several months ago.
This agreement is predicated on the City of South Burlington agreeing to
reimburse Ireland Industries for any and all hook-up charges in connec-
tion with that use. This letter is written to exiDress our intent in
this regard which we fully expect will be formalized in the aDDropriate
agreement or agreements.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
IRELAND INDUSTRIES
Stuart Ireland
r..
DINSE, ALLEN
& ERDM,4NN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
183 COLLEGE STREET
SURLiNGTON. V,RNONT
AGREEMENT AND WAIVER
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That IREL.AND INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Vermont corporation with principal place of business in Burlington, County of
Chittenden and State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant -Owner"),
has applied for approval of an access to a public road by a permanent easement or
right of way over lands owned by Applicant -Owner, as required by Section 11.35\V
of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations; and
That the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission,
is willing to approve the application subject to certain conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the proposed approval of the
right of way by the City of South Burlington, the Applicant -Owner does hereby agree
that it will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have said right of way accepted
as a public street without first complying with all applicable construction require-
ments and specifications set forth in the then existing South Burlington Zoning
Regulations, South Burlington Subdivision Regulations or other applicable municipal
ordinances, which costs thereof shall be borne solely by the Applicant -Owner. The
Applicant -Owner further waives any rights it may have or claim by virtue of the
City's approval of said right of way to request the City to accept the right of way
above described as a public road or street, without first completing at its own
expense all necessary improvements to said right of way as set forth above.
The Applicant -Owner does further agree that it will not in the future change
the location of said right of way nor extend said right of way without the prior
approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission, nor shall it permit any
lf�
right of way to service more than 44 dwelling units without the prior approval of
the South Burlington Planning Commission.
The Applicant -Owner shall not take any action which shall require the City
to maintain or provide any services on the above described roadway, without first
--1
10
D)NSE, ALLEN
& ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I86 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
obtaining the City's written consent and approval. The Applicant -Owner for itself
and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any rights it now has or may
hereafter acquire, to seek maintenance or assistance from the City with regard to
said roadway, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City.
The Applicant -Owner hereby covenants and agrees that it will fully
maintain said roadway and keep the same in good repair. In the event that the
control of said roadway shall be turned over to a homeowners association, it shall
be the duty of the homeowners association as set forth in the Protective Covenants
in connection with the Development Mown as Meadowood at Spear, to fully maintain
said roadway and keep the same in good repair in the stead of the Applicant -Owner.
\" Applicant -Owner's sole responsibility with respect to the private roads
set forth in Meadowood at Spear shall be to construct the same to the then City of
South Burlington standards. The eowners association which shall be established
pursua otective Covenants of Meadowood at Spear, shall be obligated to
pay all expenses of owning, operating, repairing, maintaining and replacing all
private roads at Meadowood at Spear together with any security systems and the
like which may govern the use of the same.
This Agreement and Waiver are binding upon the successors, administra-
tors and assigns of the Applicant -Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and seals this
day of June, 1977.
In the Presence Of:
STATE OF VERMONT )
COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN ) ss.
APPLICANT -OWNER
IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
zz
uart D. Ireland, President
At Burlington in said County this day of June, 1977, personally appeared
Stuart D. Ireland, President and Agent Duly Authorized of Ireland Industries, Inc. and
he acknowledged this instrument by him sealed and subscribed to be his free act and
deed and the free act and deed of Ireland Industries, Inc.
Before me,
- 2 -
Notary Public
LAW OFFICES OF
EWING & SPOKES
86 ST. PAUL STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
May 174 1977
Robert Roesler, Esq.
Dinse, Allen & Erdmann
186 College Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re. Ireland
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find an Agreement and Waiver form which you
might use as a guideline. I have the following suggestions
in connection with such an agreement:
1. I suspect in your case the land owner and the
applicant are the same party.
2. I would like to see a paragraph in the agreement
along the following lines:
"The Applicant -Landowner shall not take any action
which shall require the City to maintain or provide any
Q services on the above described roadway, without first
obtaining the City's written consent and approval. The
Applicant -Landowner for itself and its heirs, successors
and assigns, hereby waives any rights it, now has or
may hereafter acquire, to seek maintainence or as-
sistance from the City with regard to said roadway,
unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City.
3. Perhaps another paragraph might be appropriate
which indicates that your client will "fully maintain said
roadway and keep the same in good repair."
4. In addition, I would like W see some l nquage in
your covenants concerning the maintenance of the private
roadways. I ana enclosing a copy of a paragraph entitled
"Municipal Restrictions" which I think ca vrs the situation.
This paragraph was taken from a Condominium Declaration, but
I suspect can be tailored to your needs. I would like the
City to be covered both in your covenants and in the by-laws
of your Homeowners' Association if such is going to be
organized.
Page Two
Please let me know if I can offer anything further.
Very truly yours,
Richard A. Spokes
RAS/tb
Enclosures
cc: Richard Ward
JOHN M. DINSE
FREDERIC W. ALLEN
ROBERTH ERDMANN
MICHAEL B. CLAPP
ROBERT C. ROESLER
KAREN M,ANDREW
JAMES H. WICK
RIC'HARD -!. GREGORY. III
SPENCER R, KNAPP
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
June 3, 1977
Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401.
Re: Meadowood at Spear Development
Dear Dick:
TELEPHONE
AREA 802-864-5751
HILTON A.WICK
OF COUNSEL
Please find enclosed a photocopy of the revised Agreement and Waiver for your
review.
Very truly yours,
DINSE, ALLEN,& ERDMANN
Robert C. Roesler
RCR/nlp
Enclosure
cc: Stuart D. Ireland, President
Ireland Industries, Inc.
DINS, ALL EN
et E:RD,14ANN
ATTOR-4EYS AT LAW
165 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
AGREEMENT AND WAIVER
KNOW ALL MEN BY TI-1ESE PRESENTS, That IRELAND INDCSTRIES, INC.,
a Vermont corporation with principal place of business in Burlington, County of
Chittenden and State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant -Owner"),
has applied for approval of an access to a public road by a permanent easement or
right of way over lands owned by Applicant -Owner, as required by Section 11. 35
of the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations; and
That the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission,
is willing to approve the application subject to certain conditions:
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the proposed amendment to the
approval of the right of way by the City of South Burlington, the Applicant -Owner
does hereby agree that it will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have the
said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable
construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South
Burlington Zoning Regulations, South Burlington Subdivision Regulations or other
applicable municipal ordinances, which costs thereof shall be borne solely by the
Applicant -Owner. The Applicant -Owner further waives any rights it may have or
claim by virtue of the City's approval of said right of way to request the City to
accept the right of way above described as a public road or street, without first
completing at its own expense all necessary improvements to said right of way as
set forth above.
The Applicant -Owner does further agree that it will not in the future change
the location of said right of way nor extend said right of way without the prior approval
of the South Burlington Planning Commission, nor shall it permit any right of way to
service more than 44 dwelling units without the prior approval of the South
Burlington Planning Commission.
The Applicant -Owner shall not take any action which shall require the City
to maintain or provide any services on the above described roadway, without first
..
obtaining the City's written consent and approval. The Applicant -Owner for itself
and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any rights it now has or may here-
after acquire, to seek maintenance or assistance from the City with regard to said
roadway, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City.
The Applicant -Owner hereby covenants and agrees that it will fully maintain
said roadway and keep the same in good repair. In the event that the control of said
roadway shall be turned over to a homeowners association, it shall be the duty of the
homeowners association as set forth in the Protective Covenants in connection with
the Development known as Meadowood at Spear, to fully maintain said roadway and
keep the same in good repair in the stead of the Applicant -Owner.
• I
The Applicant -Owner shall not take any action which shall require the City to
maintain or provide any services on the above described roadway, without first
} obtaining the Cit 's written consent and approval. The Applicant -Owner for itself
I g Y
DINSE, ALLEY
tic ERDMANN
ATTORN?YS AT LAW
(a6 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
and its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby waives any rights it, now has or
may hereafter acquire, to seek maintenance or assistance from the City with regard
to said roadway, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City. The homeowners
association.which shall be established pursuant to the Protective Covenants.of
Meadowood at Spear, shall be obligated to pay all expenses of owning, operating,
repairing, maintaining and replacing all private roads at Meadowood at Spear
together with any security systems and the like which may govern the use of the
same.
This Agreement and Waiver are binding upon the successors, administrators
and assigns of the Applicant -Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and seals this
day of June, 1977.
In the Presence Of: APPLICANT -OWNER
IRELAND LNDUSgRIES, INC.
-2-
By:
President
Stuart D. Ireland
JOHN M. DINSE
FREDERIC W. ALLEN
ROBERT H. ERDMANN
MICHAEL B. CLAPP
ROBERT C. ROESLER
KAREN McANDREW
JAMES H. WICK
RICHARD H. GREGORY, III
SPENCER R. KNAPP
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
June 1, 1977
Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 0540.1
Re: Meadowood at Spear
Dear Dick:
TELEPHONE
AREA 802-864-5751
HILTON A.WICK
OF COUNSEL
I am delivering by hand two copies of the revised Plot Plan of the above
mentioned development. I am also delivering a copy of the proposed Waiver
Agreement between Ireland Industries, Inc, and the City of South Burlington.
You will note that it has several blanks in it which should be filled in after
a conference between Stu and Bill Semanski.
It is my impression that these changes are corrective in nature and merely
supplement and slightly modify the previous approval. I am hoping that we
will not have to have a full blown public hearing on these changes. Please
let me know as soon as we can be scheduled before the Planning Commission.
As you are aware, time is of the essence since Stu is building at a rapid rate
and to delay this matter will certainly be costly to him. I would appreciate
it if you would call me sometime this afternoon.
Very truly yours,
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
Robert C. Roesler
RCR/n 1p
Enclosures
cc: Stuart D. Ireland, President
Richard A. Spokes, Esquire
JOHN M. DINSE
FREDERIC W ALLEN
ROBERT H. ERDMANN
MICHAEL B.CLAPP
ROBERT C. ROESLER
KAREN McANDREW
JAMES H. WICK
RICHARD H. GREGORY, III
SPENCER R. KNAPP
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
June 8, 1977
Mr. Richard Ward
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Ireland - Meadowood at Spear
Dear Dick:
Enclosed please find a photocopy of the corrected Agreement and
Waiver.
Very truly yours,
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
Robert C. Roesler
RCR/nlp
Enclosure
cc with encl: Richard A. Spokes, Esquire
TELEPHONE
AREA 802-864-57S1
HILTON A.WICK
OF COUNSEL
AGREEMENT AND WAIVER
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Vermont corporation with principal place of business in Burlington, County of
Chittenden and State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant -Owner"),
has applied for approval of an access to a public road by a permanent easement or
right of way over lands owned by Applicant -Owner; and
That the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission,
is willing to approve the application subject to certain conditions:
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the proposed amendment to the
approval of the right of way by the City of South Burlington, the Applicant -Owner
does hereby agree that it will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have the
said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable
construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South
Burlington Zoning Regulations, South Burlington Subdivision Regulations or other
applicable municipal ordinances, which costs thereof shall be borne solely by the
Applicant -Owner. The Applicant -Owner further waives any rights it may have or
claim by virtue of the City's approval of said right of way to request the City to
accept the right of way above described as a public road or street without first
completing at its own expense, all necessary improvements to said right of way as
set forth above.
The Applicant -Owner does further agree that it will not in the future change
the location of said right of way nor extend said right of way without the prior approval
of the South Burlington Planning Commission, nor shall it permit any right of way to
service more than 41 dwelling units without the prior approval of the South
Burlington Planning Commission.
The Applicant -Owner shall not take any action which shall require the City
to maintain or provide any services on the above described roadway, without first
DINSE, ALLEN
& ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
obtaining the City's written consent and approval. The Applicant -Owner for itself
and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any rights it now has or may here-
after acquire, to seek maintenance or assistance from the City w ith regard to said
roadway, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City.
The Applicant -Owner hereby covenants and agrees that it will fully maintain
said roadway and keep the same in good repair. In the event that the control of said
roadway shall be turned over to a homeowners association, it shall be the duty of the
homeowners association as set forth in the Protective Covenants in connection with
the Development known as Meadowood at Spear, to fully maintain said roadway and
keep the same in good repair in the stead of the Applicant -Owner.
The Applicant -Owner shall not take any action which shall require the City to
maintain or provide any services on the above described roadway, without first
obtaining the City's written consent and approval. The Applicant -Owner for itself
and its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby waives any rights it, now has or
may hereafter acquire, to seek maintenance or assistance from the City with regard
to said roadway, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City. The homeowners
association which shall be established pursuant to the Protective Covenants. of
Meadowood at Speax, shall be obligated to pay all expenses of owning, operating,
repairing, maintaining and replacing all private roads at Meadowood at Spear
together with any security systems and the like which may govern the use of the
same.
This Agreement and Waiver are binding upon the successors, administrators
and assigns of the Applicant -Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and seals this
day of June, 1977.
In the Presence Of:
DINSE, ALLEN
& ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t66 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
- 2 -
APPLICANT -OWNER
IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
President
Stuart D. Ireland
PLANNING COMMISSION
r4 C'j�
4.
FEBRUARY 6, 1979
the need to clarify that line if they were not planning to subdivide.
Consider draft of stipulations for making Pieadowood at Spear streets public
Mr. Page said that he, the City Engineer and the City Attorney had
reviewed the situation last week for the best way to deal with the implementation
for making those.streets public and that the result had been a draft
resolution.
Mr. Jacob said.that:
'ifTEREAS, the Applicant received final subdivision approval on February
10, 1976 for its development entitled "IMeadowood at Spear"; and
WHEREAS, upon application of the Applicant, the subdivision final approval
was amended by the Planning Commission on June 28. 1977: and
WIEREAS, the amended approval provided that the streets in the develop-
ment would remain private for an 18-month period; and
'7 WHEREAS, the amended approval provided that the Planning Commission
"retain jurisdiction to review the situation at the end of said 18-month
period: -and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the public private street
situation in the Meadowood at Spear development and determined that the
streets should become public streets,
NOW TIFEREFORE, be it resolved that the subdivision final approval for
Meadowood at Spear dated February 10, 1976, as amended June 28, 1977, is
iurzner amenaea as rollows:
1. All improvements within the street right of way shall be public, and
not private.
2. The A
3. The Offer of Dedication and Warranty Deed shall include the offer
and conveyance of the water and sewer lines within the street rights of way.
4. Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall also submit to the
City Attorney for his approval, an appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement
Deed and Transfer return for a combined pedestrian and utility easement
between Lots 10 and 11 in the development.
5• Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall also submit to the
City Attorney for his approval, an appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement
Deed, Transfer Return and Bill of Sale for a sewer line which crosses the
Yark land situated at the westerly end of the development and a combined
pedestrian and sewer easement across said park land.
6. The Applicant shall within 30 days of this date present to the City
Attorney for his ap-roval, a Title Certificate directed to the City of
South Burlington covering all streets, sewer and water lines, and easements
to be dedicated to the City.
7. The Applicant shall remove the gate house and straighten curbs at
the entrance to the development within 90 days of this date.
8. The Applicant shall apply final surface cover on the streets in the
J 5.
PLA,'iNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 1979
development no later than September 1, 1979, and shall complete all other
required public improvements before said date to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
9. The conditions of original approval, dated .February 10, 1976 are
hereby ratified, and any of said conditions which have not been satisfied
shall be fulfilled by the Applicant within 30 days of this date
Mr. Ewing seconded the resolution but voiced some concerns about how it would
be enforced.
Neither the applicant nor his attorney were present but Mr. Page said
the attorney had been at the last meeting when it had been said that the
meeting tonight would be held. Mr. -Page said he would send copies of the
resolution to Iir. Ireland, his attorney, the City Manager and the City
Attorney.
The resolution passed unanimously.
Pir. Page noted that the City Attorney feels that temporary approvals
are not usually a good idea.
Formulate position on Southern Connector, to be forwarded to Vermont
Agency of Transportation
Iir. Page gave the Commission a letter from Art Goss cf the Vermont
Agency of Transportation asking for written confirmation of where they
would like to have the Connector placed. The Commission questioned why
the letter had come to them rather than the City Ccuncil-but were told it
would probably be sent to them also. ;dr. Page noted that the Commission
had already taken a position favoring the east alternate. Mr. Mlona asked
that Mr. Page provide the Council with a copy of the letter.
Mr. Draper moved that the Planning Commission recommend the east alternate
and recommend a study of a possible connection for a Laurel Hill Extension
Mr. Jacob seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Xr. Page was
directed to draw up such an item.
Mr. Page noted that the Commission would soon be considering a site
plan for development within the scuthern interchange area on the west side
of the road and was told that the Commission would be reluctant to approve
such a plan while it was unsure of exactly where the interchange would be.
The applicant could be referred to the Highway Department. Ir. Page said he
would talk to the City Attorney about it.
Review draft of Plan Chapter on Natural Eesources
Mr. Page gave the Commission a draft of the new Natural Resources
Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, saying that it was a condensation of the
old chapter but that the philosophy of the old one had been retained.
The Natural Resources Committee, meeting tonight also, came to discuss
the draft with the Commission.
Mr. rage said he had tried to reference a lot of the material that had
been printed in the old chapter.
h`r. Kona favored changing the emphasis of the first paragraph in the
chapter so that it read that the natural resource base would be used in the
best way 'ossible for the citizens of the city.
I:r. Schuele, Chairman of the Committee, liked the present paragraph and
also felt that it was better to include =any of the things Ms. Page was
proposing to reference, such as the soils of the city and the amount of
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final subdivision
approval on February 10, 1976 for its development entitled
"Meadowwood at Spear"; and
WHEREAS, upon application of the Applicant, the sub-
division final approval was amended by the Planning Commission
on June 28, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the amended approval provided that the streets
in the development would remain private for an 18-month
period; and
WHEREAS, the amended approval provided that the
Planning Commission retain jurisdiction to review the
situation at the end of said 18-month period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
public/private street situation in the Meadowwood at Spear
development and determined that the streets should become
public streets.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the subdivision
final approval for Meadowwood at Spear dated February 10,
1976, as amended June 28, 1977, is further amended as
follows: �✓tiP J/ 4�w%I� E�(, F CFVb"T
1. All s*ree+�in the development shall be public,
and not private streets.
-1-
2. The Applicant, within 30 days of this date, shall
submit an appropriate Offer of Dedication, Warranty Deed
and Vermont Property Transfer Return for said streets to
the City Attorney for his approval.
3. The Offer of Dedication and Warranty Deed shall
include the offer and conveyance of the water and sewer
lines within the street rights of way.
4. Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall
also submit to the City Attorney for his approval, an
appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement Deed and Transfer
Return for a combined pedestrian and utility easement be-
tween Lots 10 and 11 in the development.
5. Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall
also submit to the City Attorney for his approval, an
appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement Deed, Transfer
Return and Bill of Sale for a sewer line which crosses the
park land situated at the westerly end of the development and
a combined pedestrian and sewer easement across said park land.
6. The Applicant shall within 30 days of this date
present to the City Attorney for his approval, a Title
Certificate directed to the City of South Burlington
covering all streets, sewer and water lines, and easements
to be dedicated to the City.
7. The Applicant shall remove the gate house at the
entrance to the development within 7 0 days of this date.
-2-
8. The Applicant shall apply final surface cover on
J A
the streets in the development no later than Jere 1, 1979,
and shall complete all other required public improvements
before said date to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. The conditions of original approval, dated February
10, 1976 are hereby ratified, and any of said conditions
which have not been satisfied shall be fulfilled by the
Applicant within 30 days of this date.
-3-
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JAMES D. FOLEY
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
STEVEN F. STITZEL
SPOKES,FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 986
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
November 4, 1981
Mr. David Spitz
City Planner
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Appeal of Ireland Industries, Inc.
Dear David:
(802) 862-6451
(802)863-2857
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
COUNSEL
This is to confirm our telephone conversation on November 3,
1981. The Chittenden Superior Court has granted our motion
to advance the above referenced action on its Trial Docket.
We must, therefore, be prepared to try this matter on short
notice. I would propose to call you as a witness to testify
regarding the affect of this appeal on proper planning of streets
and public road access in the City of South Burlington. I will
contact you on Monday, November 9th to review this case.
Very truly yours,
Steven F. Stitzel
SFS:mil
M
-r+w facer
/n aY 7 SITE I N-bPrC Cf4 G 4 P/A . IN �K �F �►+�o c�l�(I A�Q
CST I t4 u+EV;> -M 5I
�Vl✓ D 'R�I�I3�1,/ `3CdG�� DQdlt�1��'c c�cFt►wY
P44ILVAI R!6w%-v-5 C.e wrm VATS 14Wr 04 Cs O R� Ill c.{w & lk
p.c. µES 1 01.4 P�ZdC�L�nrncc
-ems 151FOKW-2- C hH tzAJY-'> s t.-TnucTlt�--S 'SCTL "Ib*4
T}He
sty ��d� �. 'ZK��t — Rg111E1Y
1'Ka6tl — dv'� ihatis'r�ta�C.� � �'K�
-qO
�.
i yam_ .a• ` �r y s �'•-
t7�WL4 51 03E
too VoctLT) e0ab tOSPTVA�p
STATE OF VERMONT ,
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS
SUPERIOR COURT
IN RE: APPEAL OF IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE is hereby given that IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
hereby appeals to the Chi ttenden Superior Court from an Order
and Findings of Fact of the City of South Burlington Planning
Commission dated February 6, 1979. Ireland Industries, Inc.
appeals the Board's ruling that the roadways and utilities
in the development known as Meadowood at Spear be declared
public. Ireland Industries, Inc. contends that these roadways
and utilities were approved as private and that if declared
public, such declaration constitutes a taking for which
Ireland Industries, Inc. must be compensated.
Ireland Industries, Inc. requests a de novo hearing on all
issues.
1979.
DINSE, ALLEN
& ERDMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
186 COLLEGE STREET
EURLINGTON. VERMONT
Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 5th day of March,
IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
By: Dinse, Allen & Erdmann
By.
Robert C. Roesler
ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME/FILE REFERENCE �I \E�/�J.j� l✓_-
1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER
2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS
LANDSCAPING
SEWER
WATER
STORM DRAINAGE C"60S
ROADS
CURBS
S IDEWALKS - CZ&/
(NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS)
3.
LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES,
INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.:
AND PERMITS GRANTER & SITE
�I1�01�k A Iv (7,6"
EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE
Tv APFV0,JN"
UTILITY
Ldgr.4jtt(,
Z1T�SEJ��
R CORD ID_
ACCEPTED
5.
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x
F1v4t*- plmr v (7429
6.
ROADWAYS
DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED
PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x
7.
FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAMP_ EEr:o
SIGNED, FILED OR RECORDED- ',fF--�
8.
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS���
ACCEPTED & RECORDED
(��Q
FILED
Vo-,&WI
9.
MISCELLANEOUS AGRE'•-;MENTS
LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICAT ION
FUTURE ACCESS POINTS
SHARED ACCESS POINTS
OTHER
1.
COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES)
11.
FEES - PAID/DATE
HEARING
BUILDING PERMIT
ENGINEERING INSP.
S EWER
RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND
DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT) N4*
12.
IMPACT FOLLOW UP
i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL
KIDS CAR COUNTS
�tXP Pepartment 'rabquartrrs
DORSET STREET
OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER
863-6455
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. June 14, 1977
Mr. William B. Wessel
Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Wessel,
An inspection was made at Mr. Irelands development on Spear Street
today. To my suprise I found a 10 Foot X 10 Foot building in the middle
of the road which is to be used as a guard house. I was also told by
Mr. Ireland that there will be electric gates on each side of the housc
to stop traffic. At this time there is only 10 feet from the building
to the curb on either side. The fire trucks are 9 feet 6 inches wide.
The fire department has no objections of the building being there but
we must have a minmum of 15 feet between the building and the curb.
During the winter months with snow there will be no way to get the fire
equipment by the guard house so there is no way this department could
protect the property and lives there. Mr. Ireland told me that there
will be electric gates installed. First of all how will we get our
equipment in the development for a emergency and what tir+ln if
the power is out or the gates freeze during th. win Pr_ The above is
A. very portant matter which because of the result of property and
life must meet some kind of standards for this department.
If you have any questions on the above please feel free to call
me at 863-6455•
Sincerer'
d
wes W. Goddette Sr. Chief
Steve; The following concerns come to my mind when considering
the private entrance, with gate, at I•;eadowood. at Spear:
1. How will routine police patrol be continued.
2. Iccess for service, repair, and delivery vehicles will
be a problem; for example,
a) Oil trucks must have access even if nobody is
at home. Stii talks about 1000 Tal. tanks and he
rroviding oil, but I have 275 gal- and get it
from Steady.
b) If my phone is out of order how does the repairman
get in? He can't call from the gate if my phone
doesn't work.
c) How about delivery* trucks such as Ui-S, trash pick-up,
milkman, etc.
3. The school bus presently stops at the top of the hill on
Spear. As more people move to the area there will be more
children, unsupervised, at a fairly busy traffic area.
In cold weather it is also undesirerable to have the kids
waitint; very long; (as school bus times get later due to
road conditions) in such an exposed area. The fact that
they are not visible fron the homes bothers me. I expect
them to behave but they don't always do what I expect!
4. Mail and newspaper service will not be available a"t our
homes. Going to the gatehouse in bad weather is not ideal.
5. None of the houses have provisions for opening a gate
from the hou,,-e.
6. I an personnally embarrased to have a guest have to phone
me form the gate to ,let in.
7. If a resident rides somei�fhere ifith a friend, hota do they
get back in? -
I realize that some of these concerns are subjective, but they do
need to be considered. I arq also convinced if somebody wanted to
burglarize one of the homes that the ;ate will mot be an effective
prevention. In addition, the extra time it takes an emergency
vehicle to get in may mean a life. I appreciate your sensitivity
to this matter very much. please call me if I can be of any
assistance.
0020Az� -
vt
016 - yysr
Mrs. Aurora Nowland
1560 Spear Street
So. Burlington, Vt.
June 27, 1977
Mr. William Wessel
Chairman
South Burlington Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Wessel:
As an adjoining property owner I object to Pheasant :gay
Road in the Ireland Sub -Division off Spear Street from
becoming a private road, for the following reasons.
As a private road it would not benefit anyone.
There would be no access to the open space land at the
foot of the Ireland Sub -Division, forcing pedestrians
and cars to cross over my property to gain access to it.
If our land was developed it would be necessary to put in
a street parallel to this street, causing more curb cuts
off Spear Street.
'there is also the possibility of six building, lots that have
water and sewer laterals already installed. It would be a
waste to have six homes on only one side of the street.
I would hope this matter would be brought up at a y)ublic
hearing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. Aurora Nowland
st-� L—
-7 ;t/
V/1
The City Council _su_g _est that the Plan-inq �Iommission seriously
consider rejecting the request --Irelari-d—tD--mak,--th-e--str-eetr,
private. The reason
1. Inability to provide city services in the e
failure.
2. 1:: t';;e event that _t'Fe Plar,r�ing Commission does grant the
reauest vie ask that he maintain the right of public accarze, to that
ure t�iat all the streets- &-sidewalks are
*7 brick wall
4.51
NOWL4,ND
I It 4 40'
60' ROW
ndrq�h.....o
w.-,k✓�,� Cl
ri
PROPOSED ENTRANCE
MEADOWOOD at SPEAR
TRUDELL
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS,Inc.
�?� F-.C5� ��q
w
�
°
|
�
\
\
. \
[ - ~~ /(-- - -~ "---
^\
| /l
/ uv
|
� o )W., c� 4 � 4 pi
Gcry
►� /f ,�. ram. wv. ►� ��. ►ter., ^�i�
I/ ►� `�� ram:OW' AW ►�- .AW
//"� I Y,-
�aAO&rf;�
6 ar a Pue- Oi�.
3) Meadowood .at Spear, amended subdivision Rroposal
Mr. Ireland is proposing privately owned streets with a
security system at the main entrance to the project, w,—,ich is
a deviation from the approved plan.
Legal documents have been prepared, in concert with
Dick Spokes, to protect the City from taking over substandard
or inadequately maintained streets (the proposed streets are
to be built to City standards).
b',r. Ireland's proposal has als- been reviewed,by the
Fire Chief, who has two concerns: First that there be adequate
room for entering fire equipment, and second, that the Fire
Department be able to open the gate if the unlocking mech-
anisms fail (does not want to be forced to run expensive equip_
meet through the gate).
I have only two concerns: one, that public pedestrian
access be maintained, in order to get to the Cit«s park end
to the rear of the development, and two, that the City's right
of access for utility easements within the development remain
unaffected.
� ' 6/��7 �
4�
�� i � � ��
r�°�� u 2
�,�,�- 1�
u,�, „�„a�-d l ei � �° �i� ?
�` c�.��wr�� ��. � ro�ei z
w�-w� 6� {�� deco � a �7�.,�� .�� ? c�c�(>_ , . , 67z
P��"�ti`
4
MEMORANDUM
To: South Burlington Development Review Board
From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer
Re: March 7, 2000 Agenda Items
Date: February 22, 2000
NOWLAND FARM ROAD - GOLF COURSE SECTION
This section of road was mistakenly built 30 feet in traveled width instead of 32 feet as plans call for.
The contractor has been cooperative and good to work with. The road is well built and I would
accept it.
CEDAR COMMONS - HINESBURG ROAD
1. The status of East Birch Lane must be resolved. It has been maintained by the City.
The previous owner sold land for the three houses (Watson, Stockwell & Racine) and then left the
area. The Watson residence access is from Birch Court and may cut across this parcel. If it does
an easement shall be given to Watson. Stockwell and Racine access from East Birch Lane, which
the City has maintained completely. I believe the City is obligated to contin,� his service. The
street should be improved beyond the Stockwell entrance drive and deeded to the City.
2. The two street light standards appear to be on top of the water main. They should be outside
of the easement.
3. Each site plan should have a scale noted.
4. There should be a pedestrian sidewalk serving the eleven units and tying into the Hinesburg
Road sidewalk.
5. The sewer main shall be bedded in 2/3 inch crushed stone.
6. It is the owner and his Engineer's responsibility to furnish the City complete as -built plans not
the contractor as plans noted. These as -built plans must include complete information on all
underground utilities including ties and dimensions so they can be quickly located especially in an
emergency.
7. City Water Department shall receive a set of plans for their review and comments and a
complete set of as -built plans.
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South
Burlington City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on
Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following:
1) Final plat application of L&M Partnership to amend a previously approved planned
residential development consisting of 80 lots, Pinnacle at Spear, Spear Street. The
amendment consists of reducing the pavement width of 385 feet of Nowland Farm Road
from 32 feet to 30 feet.
2) Final plat application of Highlands Development Company, LLC to amend a previously
approved planned residential development consisting of 297 residential units and an 18 hole
golf course, Dorset Street. The amendment consists of reducing the pavement width of 2,170
feet of Nowland Farm Road from 32 feet to 30 feet.
3) Final plat application of Brad Gardner to amend a previously approved planned residential
development consisting of 11 residential units on 2.91 acres, 311 - 315 Hinesburg Road. The
amendment consists of: 1) reducing the size of the units, and 2) increasing the distance
between buildings and setbacks from property lines.
4) Application of National Gardening Association seeking conditional use approval from Section
26.05 Conditional Uses, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for
permission to use 2900 additional square feet of a 4500 square foot structure for a not -for -
profit organization whose primary purpose is the provision of educational or research services,
related to agriculture, ►ortici dt-lire, forQc}r!� naf �r31 rC--,a€.'rC� N eservation, the a O3'
recreation, 1100 Dorset Street.
Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South 6urlington City Hall.
John Dinklage, Chairman
South Burlington Development Review Board
February 19, 2000
t
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
February 17, 2000
Beth Danon
P.O. Box 406
Burlington, SIT 05402-0406
Re: Boundary Line Adjustments Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Amended Final Plat for
Meadowwood at Spear
Dear Ms. Danon:
Enclosed are preliminary staff comments on the above reference project. If you wish to
respond, please do so by February 25, 2000. The project is currently scheduled to go for
the Development Review Board. on March 7, 2000. Please be sure someone is present at
7:30PM to represent your request.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Sarah MacCallum
Planning & Zoning Assistant
Encls
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1) Name, address, and phone number of:
a. Owner of record , -C li
2)
CJ-A�) e6 -11--1z1
b. Applicant. ,� C &t
a< _
c . Contact
Purpose, location, and nature of subdivisi ngor�development,
including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed
use(s).
_ n /%/�
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple,
option, etc.
4) Names
of owners of record of all contiguous properties
5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such
as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.
0
1
6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of
municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply,
streets, storm drainage, etc.
/ L
7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission
which affects the proposed subdivision, and include the
dat$s of such actions:
a
Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8f x 1q, 8J x 14 or
11 x 17) of a Sketch plan showing the following information:
a) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant.
b) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties.
c) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and
graphic).
d) Boundaries and area of: 1) all contiguous land
belonging to owner of record, and 2) proposed
subdivision.
e) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type
and location of existing and proposed restrictions on
land, such as easements and covenants.
f) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed
streets, structures, utilities, and open space.
g) Existing zoning boundaries.
h) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded
areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features.
i) Location of existing septic systems and wells.
j) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision
to adjacent property and surrounding area.
k) All applicable information required for a site plan, as
provided in the South Burlington Zoning Regulations,
shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a
commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project,
planned unit development, or planned residential
development.
i
(Signature) applicant or contact person Date
41VO j J
Steven Lidofsky 1 802-864-4985
NCO
20/99 3:1 O PM 2/4
Lot addresses
Lot 1 Skip Farrell (862-0506)
2 Pheasant Way
Lot 2 Patrick and Mary Mahoney (862-3402)
4 Pheasant Way
Lot 3 Sandra Smith (864-5074)
6 Pheasant Way
Lot 4 Joseph and Joanne Abate (862-9581)
8 Pheasant Way
Lot 5 Steve Lidofsky and Lis Barfod (864-4985)
10 Pheasant Way
Lot 6 Bruce and Dianne Chattman (863-5325)
15 Pheasant Way
( '-tom -A-6 Q C �c.�"�
Terry and E?Offeen No, e (862-4969)
3 Harbor Ridge Road - 0. : /
Ralph and Lenore Budd (862-6672)
5 Harbor Ridge Road
Richard and Eleanor Jacobsen (660-8581
7 Harbor Ridge Road
Mark and Eleanor Capeless (864-4530)
11 Harbor Ridge Road
John Bergeron (863-4061)
13 Harbor Ridge Road
Jas P. Chaplin (864-9269)
1741 Spear St.
05/20/99 15:21 TX/RX N0.5456 P.002
m
v-
S
,S' 8 30 16' 00" E
- • - -
PHEASA NT
S 93° 16, 00" E
178.21 l46.19` —� 150.00,
0
`I'
0
n
3
150.00`
1 a g.00
192- 91'
6 890 4817„ E
CHAPLIN 8 L ONG
VOL. 34 P 187
617
IS
50. oo;
,
1003.24'
WA Y
150.00 ` LQ I - 359, 74' co
2 m / ,a
05 d
`--15' Drainage h p
I
Easement
ti
29 p
(/�9 Ad
L A N G 0
O 0 �0 VOL . 85 P. 176
Op
ti
CHA PLI N
VO L .9/ P182
EiE `.', s E2 E v I S 15 PJ .....--,�_�._. .., .. _._......-..--- -.---_._..4......s-....z.._..-
tv::�
P'ri OJ E CT
State of Vermont
LAND USE PERMIT
ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO. 4CO202-1
APPLICANT: David & Letitia Richardson
Samuel & Kathleen Margulies
c/o Lisman & Lisman
PO Box 728
Burlington, VT 05402-0 7 28
LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED
10 V.S.A. (Chapter 151)
(Act 250)
District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit Amendment
#4CO202-1 pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit
amendment applies to the lands identified in the land records of the City of South Burlington,
Vermont, as the subject of deeds to the "Permittees" as "Grantees". This permit specifically
incorporates Subdivision Permit #EC-4-2142 consisting of a boundary line adjustment between
Lots 4 & 5 of the subdivision previously approved in Certification of Compliance #4CO202. This
project is located at Meadowood at Spear, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont.
The Permittees, and their assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to
complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance
with the following conditions:
1. All conditions of Land Use Permit 44CO202 remain in full force and effect as
amended herein.
2. This permit specifically incorporates Subdivision Permit #EC-4-2142 issued March 13, 1998
by the Regional Engineer, Wastewater Management Division, Agency of Natural Resources.
3. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Sec. 6090(b) (effective June 21, 1994), this permit
amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term, as long as there is compliance
with the conditions herein.
4. Failure to comply with all of the above conditions may be grounds for permit
revocation pursuant to 10 V. S.A., Section 6090(b).
Dated at Essex Junction, VT this day of March, 1.998.
By
_ �� -�4
James l4yd, DistriA Coordinator
4CO202-1.aa/eb District 44 Environmental Commission
LISMAN & LISMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. BOX 728
CARL H. LISMAN
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
OFFICES IN FINANCIAL PLAZA
ALLEN D. WEBSTER, CPA
------
AT 84 PINE STREET
MARY G. KIRKPATRICK
Telephone 802-864-5756
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
E. WILLIAMLECKERLING
DOUGLAS K. RILEY
Telecopier 802-864-3629
LOUIS LISMAN
MARK D. OETTINGER
BERNARD LISMAN
RICHARD W. KOZLOWSKI
COUNSEL
JUDITH L. DILLON
CHRISTINA A. JENSEN
E-Mail Address:
driley@lisman.com
April 3, 1998
Mr. Raymond Belair
City of South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Boundary Line Adjustment between 8 and 10 Pheasant Way
Richardson and Margulies
Dear Ray:
Your letter to my clients dated April 1, 1998 arrived at my office this morning. Contrary to
the statements in your letter, subdivision approval is not required for this transaction. The State
permit adjustments were necessary to correct a developer's oversight at the state permitting level
ONLY. No deeds were exchanged. The map filed with the City at the time of the original
subdivision correctly shows the lines as they now exist. The maps filed with the State, however,
represent an earlier version of the lot line. The State files needed to be updated, hence the permit
amendments.
I would appreciate your contacting me for the facts before alarming clients with the type of
letter that you wrote on April 1, 1998. There are countless "Bianchi" permit amendments
necessitated by the Supreme Court's decision. Most of them are not lot line adjustments or re -
subdivisions, and therefore demanding a reapplication every time one of these applications comes
through simply irritates and upsets property owners who already are facing unexpected costs.
Thank you.
V ry truly yours,
Douglas K. Riley
DKR:k
S:\19235\002\LETTERS\BELAIRI.RKB
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
FAX 658-4748
April 1, 1998
David & Letitia Richardson
111 Thomas Pasture Road
Stowe, Vermont 05672
W
Samuel & Kathleen Margulies
8 Pheasant Way
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Boundary Line Adjustment Between 8 & 10 Pheasant Way
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Richardson & Mr. & Mrs. Margulies:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
It has come to our attention that you have obtained a State subdivision permit to adjust the boundary
line between your two (2) properties. Please be aware that subdivision approval will also be
necessary from the City of South Burlington. The adjustment of this boundary without approval is
a violation of the City's subdivision regulations.
Please contact me as soon as possible so you may begin the subdivision amendment process.
Sincer�,
Raymond J. Belair,
Zoning and Planning Assistant
RJB/mcp
cc: Douglas Riley, Esquire
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
FAX 658-4748
PLANNER
658-7955
April 9, 1998
Douglas K. Riley
Lisman & Lisman
P.O. Box 728
Burlington, Vermont 05402
Re: Boundary Line Adjustment Between 8 & 10 Pheasant Way
Dear Mr. Riley :
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Awc�
/' qVAK
ce
bd 'e gY14
My letter to your clients was based on my comparison of the subdivision plat approved by the City
in Volume 105, page 72 of the land records and the subdivision plat approved by the State under
Subdivision Permit #EC-4-2142. The plat in Volume 275, page 12 which depicts the revised lots #1-
6 and is the same plat as approved by the State was never approved by the Planning Commission.
Therefore, as I stated in my letter to your clients dated April 1, 1998, approval from the Planning
Commission will be necessary for this boundary line adjustment.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Ray and J. Belair,
Zoning and Planning Assistant
RJB/mcp
MICKENBERG, DUNN, KOCHMAN, DANON & SMITH, PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
29 PINE STREET P. 0. BOX 406 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0406
BETH A. DANON
TEL (802) 658-6951
JAMES J. DUNN
FAX (802) 660-0503
F. L. KOCHMAN, INC.
OF COUNSEL:
AILEEN L. LACHS
WILLIAM M DORSCH
NEIL H. MICKENBERG
ADAM R. NECRASON
O. WHITMAN SMITH
MICHAEL D. SIROTKIN
January 10, 2000
Joseph Weith
South Burlington Planning Office
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Site Plan Discrepancies at Meadowood at Spear
Steven Lidofsky and Elisabeth Barfod
10 Pheasant Way, South Burlington
Dear Joe:
I enclose for the Planning Commission's consideration an Application for Site Plan
Review with five copies and one reduced copy of the site plan. I also enclose the application fee
of $35.00. The project in question received site plan approval on June 21, 1977 (see copy of
original 6/77 approved site plan enclosed). However, in later stages of development of the
property surveyors discovered an error in the survey measurements of the property line between
the Bartletts and then owners, Nowland. This error was discovered when the Nowland property
was developed into a subdivision and Trudell Consulting Engineers resurveyed the property
fixing this boundary line. The resurveyed property is the site plan enclosed herein which my
clients are seeking approval and is dated November 27, 1979.
I do not know if South Burlington has an expedited process for site plan discrepancies. If
it does, please submit the enclosed application to this process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should
you have any questions and/or need additional information or documentation.
BAD/bad
Enc.
cc: Steven Lidofsky and Elisabeth Barfod
Douglas K. Riley, Esq.
Very trujjy,yours,
J
Beth A. Danon
Attorney at Law
Li
��
MvMved by resolution of the Plennlnl Oofnmission of
•
the a,
►y of tt 6.:-iiqt:qt Yer=-it on tM "I'll/ i
•
doy of 19 — ", wbjed to the requln -
rtKrlts a corrJitions of aid resokrtim this
ar/v
of r
��rpf�•
Arlsc
rlsc Vol.
!4 aP44 fw,
,19 by
Chairmn or Clem
r •rw1'rr r
7./ IO
ssvAw mow**
06.00 1. or
Ir N' lH.M
/j
I$ U
l
e%
i
at
4W !.
i 8 N rI.M .Ie.1r n.re • �/ / f0
N I •�
•r'., w
c.Tr or to RVRalrsror PN£AVAMr A eQ rr►• •Irt _ �,Sil!re '
VOL It1 aflr �• • �I�•e r.10
l •• lc: , , I' .
0 i•.wae �i 1�°"'� t..00l� Cn-YCLER
.r 1.-/ OFFICE ryry
•` Ir•ely/ ♦ l•lLtr' Z L.tl\M • l.tl)•� p��bwivqt,,4 V
i t r0 /LOri •mlw*0L ad Joso*0 for T1YQd
dl
•i tt to : /1
1 • ♦ t = mow_ _nlAw_-Ile1r- - 12600' $so or— _ - -;_ a nr u VdJD 5
IIf II
ki. to : • : CY so s t aw i :r ! t ` ' A:ta
x' r....H...,.r n.r.�r. I.. +' f
+
,.•..•.. ! •traotie. a. . Lom . r/ao:_Ll_Ho.r�11'P.••S..
f MY l�r
_ /•►r r/Ir' �• .•% ISe
lw I /RCN /Rr 10 , r rI.M
04
it
PHEASANT rA r
MN' ! Mf.r'f Nt I.T `Yf.1f' I)O •I/N M I •— — ♦ - — I -
! Ir N'1I•I .w:�/+f y-• t r N're• r V
1 Ir FN./. /—, r I`r/:r,� ! ar•ti'arr rri a .«w iios n'Lw wr w•
f rir el R r Lr rr f
t� �: •:t Zi•• �; •wL.w Pelt
wr Left .o,nJt.. • .w .A..r + • + al • t l
-M& nr.r .•.•..I. wr. +_ ti lII I L/R y _ i'•2
t!trr0 a.•. I wf or +.".r. r•1w...1•
• f1rcR! r'•rrr !;'r r0 - I .rh s•'L•LM
O CO rCRr c Irra'rrrr re or wer • rw t . •,,,..•frr
O /ROR I/I! IOYIO TM ar/ If Avow .Ir I f..«'r .r CRA►l rR • L fire`• *•�••'. '
flRl lr/C ICAL! wry .r..r•.r./.... 0-4 J. Ir'Re/ WLN Jr,
:-�. t
too fto
•r Hhrr.h.. N+IrIf
s.w/ R.rrl.trr L«w R....i. wf i 6 3 r't
Me At o fM Ice Lso •Io I pis. 0& AS •Ar...a LH. Iw W.
• •Or!' r0 c01r Yl RT ro r!T!R! r••/h"•r•'•'- PLAT or sm,pirwow Tr h7f
ru[ fl rL I I!!t II AOp • A•+'r1r wrlllr 'a", IArf aa.1 r.R,.a.r
• • N•v1r 11/ r /.rrv.Il r rM I..I .I.r
L..r h•
MEADOwOOD AT SPEAR
• soarw sf/Rcfwcrow, Y1,R(Jowr -
TRUOELL re7f
ENGINEERS . 1.L Wo!:aa.. , V-SSSI
MICKENBERG, DUNN, KOCHMAN, DANON & SMITH, PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
29 PINE STREET P. O. BOX 406 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0406
BETH A. DANON
JAMES J. DUNN
F. L. KOCHMAN, INC.
AILEEN L. LACHS
NEIL H. MICKENBERG
O. WHITMAN SMITH
January 12, 2000
Ray Belair
Planning & Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Subdivision Application - Final Plat
Meadowood at Spear
Steven Lidofsky and Lis Barfod
10 Pheasant Way, South Burlington
Dear Ray:
TEL (802) 658-6951
FAX (802) 660-0503
OF COUNSEL:
WILLIAM M DORSCH
ADAM R. NECRASON
MICHAEL D. SIROTKIN
Thank you for your phone call on January 11. Per our discussion, I understand that to
correct site plan discrepancies I should have filed an application for final plat approval.
Accordingly, I enclose a Subdivision Application - Final Plat for the Commission's
consideration. I also enclose a check for $50 which represents the balance owing for the
application fee. Please review the Application for Site Plan Review I filed with Joe Weith and
my letter to him dated January 10 for further details regarding this matter.
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please let me know.
As I understand it, this matter might be able to be put on the agenda for the February 15 meeting.
Very truly y.Qurs,
'�
Beth A. Danon
Attorney at Law
BAD:kah
enclosures
cc: Steven Lidofsky & Elizabeth Barfod (w/enc.)
Douglas K. Riley, Esq. (w/enc.)
beth\niscreaRbelair.sub app
%j
A—
•. f. Ilrt
�L/AJ
cr+.
f—. •- s�
UN/vERs/rY
of VERMONT
AlieL,
�' �S.UR+4"i.11c�a
r/sc VOL a. tt.f
1y
II
S fa• 4, ' sr- f
-
.
JIp.70'
I50.00 /10. 00'
//l00
a •w
IN.Oa
/Y. 00' J17.3O'
y /
�—
y o. 2J -
; :/ a 19
��
Is Qa
IJ
L
•
• r.rl.r'
.
L -
A.sf' o t
. � Py
/saoo' /road
naod
0000'
CITY OF so IURL/NrTON • 7../..r
w./000d
PHEASANT
ru• r'f.'r
WAY
A•fs-'
r•f�t'
w.l or
VOL. its /tsz L-7J-�1+• [��� 16 .pv /io.oD �/inoo /iaoo,io
trs•Of-J.-L wNa00 O `pf G r•.0100'
.L I(t rt g L•fLLT' O O 8�•d % l siii 5 - .I'-`
•o► o P2 PO /8 ' • o K /2 8 Noru ND
/30.0o'— — /3a0d9 /JO Do—
ItI-
Iss'OJ-L O — — v I( Oiw•rn� G Y
low., irzer
26 : e s; !D Y JZ .S[ e i 36 I u B I o 40 ♦ arris.'[ `
.
30' r.l.., s—' w P,.b,N/.. P7 e•trao'od ♦ /00'
�.. 4 r.0 rr' s /fS •
. s
E.,...wr s r< w•tfiod >r g
rJ•r lfl00, w T-SZN' ' L--
wtT .r'Oer /:o.00' lip.od Isuad /io.od q_000' rsu.00' R 7
OUA/L
R U N
s 00.o a �� SOY—. trf
A •7/'N'tr A C^ /iO-O'a /lrioo -M /30.00 /ia Do /aa-oo " Ir•s
of
rnr.P" E
•x /•' w•rafoo' a P9 n 3/ e o JS J3 o C J7
_a ♦ a .•fsaTzd
Q, 59 1/ +Y - ; r..7r `
Sfr Is" fS•L /002.78'
S r. r E wf rrrwr rfs.0' I.r�d IfcsJ• /rrrJ' 13.00'--/J00d— 'Jaoo'--/aon0'--'30W'- Mae C /w!•.r•.rIPHEASANT _ o�
s(a-r.'s1•r sf!•u'(r•L W A Y
a.., r......r 1907' 'c rr f.w��7
! I j P
eARrLErr ti
e �w r
♦: sl + + - �� L A N E r r C
..
- L : sl : ♦ L ♦ L o c♦ VOL. fJ I /7f
j 8 ��
1 4,,
N.w L.fr /O• /r,/J•/! ..I fM hr. ♦ , 4k
L£C£ND + CNAIL/N /
p..,..r•
• CONCRFTf YONUY EN) FOUND VOL.fr I/ft [r.r...f. �/... .�/ .r./..1. rs
• CONCRETE MONUMENT Sty ..f ,h.. �$Do0'
I.100'
• IRON III£ FOUND - lor..l'
f •r
C RA PN/C SCALE T/.. I.I /r a...0 CNAPLIN f LONC
fi. f..I) f.P• s •.l. ..re.nc. N.wf /. In. /. /c VOL. a♦ I /87
S.H. f.r/r.f lan L../ w.c.r.. M ( MP(Ar! NDNYN lNTArNfN IARILIT L/wr L/-P7t rf
/00 00 O /00 lW 300 400 -pp.. •n I/IN!-hb//sw./ LrN /w. Ca-, s wrVr p J, {'
I-r3-76• sr
NOTE TO CONVERT TO METERS w1b.Nr-r.rh.. r • I rN f-Tr
mvLr/ILr FEET er .aD.r /w'•ar""'/r rN.r IN I.w r.P.av PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
• ..Trey If /, c.rr.cI ti IA• ...r .+.. JOT f-Tr
rn D.N.f•
MEADOWOOD AT SPEAR
- SOUTN BURLI/ AV, VERMONT / /00'
I i ti •.. �
a
ie.DELL woJ1
JD �Or CONSULTING ..
"L Is# of"
t 'c
Ir .9
DOW dlV'.;O'
•
• cd�c' r , "car, v111orrr ravA
st,
• coffcarre w"v car wer
• foe* P'pr P.I:l
L
� .1 i1I' i
Crry
A-b-m�
wo, 0. oft for sawd
mad
A—ft
SIA 14 Ale'# @C@ p ,,, .. I .
4 ore
Ia
JS is ff of
It
—W tm—.- —mr
tNtASANT
VA Ir
for.
4.1
R..w
elp OARTCC"
rA
6 4b
wee
e- wet
Aft a m toje,
out. of v mr
mea. . . . . . . .
more ry cgmv&pr Tv &rr,ps 6,
Av4r#P,r o-Err or poor
17 OF
MEA-DOWOOD AT SPEAR
kvmw by rMwim d Im pbwft &=W, d
to MY of 1.10. L.ILVx ywmwg an ft 91
dlyel tm tow*#.
ma* Z =am d aw MWWWL
�xs d-yd " ."71;61
Carrm or Cbmt
In r 4. 7J2
of Is I
IM.
PNZASANr WAr
ALX
wor-orwe
MWI
UJLI
Use 4-dlkW
At 00
abow—
IF
V"
ao
&sz
so
lw
L�w
— ft
State of Vermont
SUBDIVISION PERMIT
Case Number: EC-4-2142
Pin Number: EJ98-0065
Landowner: David & Letitia Richard on
Address: c/o Lisman & Lisman
P.O. Box 728
Burlington, VT 05402
LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED
Environmental Protection Rules
Effective August 8, 1996
F, /' � 44y
& Samuel & Kathleen Margulies
This project, consisting of a boundary line adjustment between Lots 4 and 5 of the subdivision
previously approved in Certification of Compliance 4CO202 located off Pheasant Way in the city of
South Burlington , Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named
above, subject to the following conditions.
This Permit does not constitute Act 250 approval under Case Number 4CO202.
GENERAL
The project shall be completed as shown on the plans 5031 "Plat of Subdivision Meadowood
at Spear" dated 6-77 last revised 11-27-79 prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc.
and which have been stamped "approved" by the Wastewater Management Division. The
project shall not deviate from the approved plans without prior written approval from the
Wastewater Management Division.
2. Each prospective purchaser of each lot shall be shown a copy of the approved plot plan and
this Subdivision Permit prior to conveyance of the lot.
The conditions of this permit shall run with the land and will be binding upon and enforceable
against the permittee and all assigns and successors in interest. The permittee shall be
responsible for the recording of this permit and the "Notice of Permit Recording" in the city
of South Burlington Land Records within 30 days of issuance of this permit and prior to the
conveyance of any lot subject to the jurisdiction of this permit.
4. All conditions set forth in Certificate of Compliance #4CO202 shall remain in effect except
as modified or amended herein.
Subdivision Permit
EC-4-2142
Page 2
5. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees to allow representatives of the State of
Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose
of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental/health statutes and regulations, with
this permit.
Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont on March 13, 1998.
Canute E. Dalmasse, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
By
—�
Ernest P. Christianson
Regional Engineer
c For the Record
South Burlington Planning Commission & Select Board
Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Act 250 District Coordinator - 4CO202
State of Vermont
¢ o
x -
LAND USE PERMIT
ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENT
CASE NO. 4CO202-1
APPLICANT: David & Letitia Richardson
Samuel & Kathleen Margulies
c/o Lisman & Lisman
PO Box 728
Burlington, VT 05402-0728
LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED
10 V.S.A. (Chapter 151)
(Act 250)
District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit Amendment
#4CO202-1 pursuant to the authority vested in it by 1.0 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit
amendment applies to the lands identified in the land records of the City of South Burlington,
Vermont, as the subject of deeds to the "Permittees" as "Grantees". This permit specifically
incorporates Subdivision Permit #EC-4-2142 consisting of a boundary line adjustment between
Lots 4 & 5 of the subdivision previously approved in Certification of Compliance 94CO202. This
project is located at Meadowood at Spear, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont.
The Permittees, and their assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to
complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance
with the following conditions:
1. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4CO202 remain in full. force and effect as
amended herein.
2. This permit specifically incorporates Subdivision Permit #EC-4-2142 issued March 13, 1998
by the Regional Engineer, Wastewater Management Division, Agency of Natural Resources.
3. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Sec. 6090(b) (effective June 21, 1994), this permit
amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term, as long as there is compliance
with the conditions herein.
4. Failure to comply with all of the above conditions may be grounds for permit
revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Section 6090(b).
Dated at Essex Junction, VT this 1000k
day of March, 1998.
By _
James yd, DistriA Coordinator
4CO202-l.aa/eb District #4 Environmental Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day of March, 1998 a copy of the foregoing Land Use
Permit #4CO202-1 was sent, first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
PARTIES:
David & Letitia Richardson/Samuel & Kathleen Margulies by
Douglas K. Riley, Esq./Lisman & Lisman
PO Box 728
Burlington, VT 05402-0728
Margaret Picard, City Clerk
Chair, City Council/Chair, Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Arthur Hogan, Jr., Executive Director
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
PO Box 108
Essex Junction, VT 05453
Andrew Raubvogel, Associate General Counsel
Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main St. - 2 Center
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0301
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
District #4 Environmental Commission
Helen Toor, Chair/Thomas Visser/Patricia Tivnan
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Ernie Christianson, Regional Engineer
ANR/I I I West Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Dated at Essex Junction, Ver1kenVirifsf-rative
t, thisON day March, 1998.
Edie, Secretary
cs4c0202. aa/eb 879-5660
83" 49'54 of
/8/.36' \�
89.26166" O
24.75'
.39 02'
155. 71 '
S 83" 16 O E
end
1d
/ 78.2/'
0
OV-
S 83" /6' 00"E /003.24'
PHEASA NT WA _Y __
S 8,3" 16, ' E
/46./9' / 00' -T---
/50.00' 74 - -
M
3
w
1� h o°i'
•QOd c ate: N kj
15 0.00' 50. 00,
192.91 l 48.00'
S 99. 48 / 7" E
CHAPLIN 8 L ONG
VOL. 34 P. 18 7
2
o 3 . 7 '
ad
v
15' Dro/noge
� Easement
s
o,
66" Ill?.,
oo.�
� L A N G Q.
�0 VOL. 85 P. 176
o° ' Q'
ti
CHA PL1 N CO
VOL.9/ P.182
.---- r--- ----
State of Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
Department of Environmental Conservation
March 19, 1998
John Thrasher, Esquire
Ward, Kelley & Babb Attorneys at Law
3069 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear John:
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Wastewater Management Division
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Telephone #(802) 879-5656
Subject: Case number # 4CO202, Meadowood at Spear located off Spear Street, South
Burlington, Vermont.
I reviewed the letter from Mr. Tyler Hart, P.E., with Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. and would only
comment that the information we are seeking is to state that the sewer line extension was constructed
in general conformance with the stamped approved plans. The information submitted regarding the
sanitary sewer is the results of the leakage testing and does not address the general location of the
sewer pipes and manholes relative to their location on the approved plans. We are not asking that the
sewer be shown to comply with today's standards, only those standards which was the basis of the
approval.
Please contact me at 1-802-879-5675 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ernest P. Christianson
Regional Engineer
copies: City of South Burlington
Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc.
i
IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
100 Grove Street
P. 0. Box 2286
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05401
November 29, 1976
Mr. Richard Ward
Zoning Administrator
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have just received your letter on the authorization of
changing the street names at our Spear Street development.
We would like to confirm this change as follows: Lakewood
Drive is to be changed to Pheasant Way, and Quail Run replaces
Pinewood bane as noted on the site plan by Willis Engineering
Associates dated January, 1976.
SDI/bjn
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
ktewar
' ly,
w13 t
D. Irel d
President
(802) 863-6222
City of South Burlington
Zoning permit for land development
Pursuant to provisions set forth in Title 24, Chapter
117 Section 4443 subsection (1) and Section 14.35 of
the South Burlington Zoning Regulations this permit is
hereby issued on this 2_ day of September , 1926 to
Stuart Trpland.100 Groye Street_Bur1inP_,ton.Vt,
for sivemPn off SoPar treet
in accordance with a subdivision application approved
by the South Burlington Planning Commission on 1
rLary 1976 , Meadowwood at S ear Street �lots
This permit is subject to appeal within i teen 15 days
from the date of issuance in accordance with Section 4443
subsection (3), Title 24 Chapter 117.
Administrative Officer
City of South Burlington
This permit -allows --for site improvements only it does not
permit tM- Construction or alteration of any structures. Permit -Is subject to conditions -and bond requirements set
forth --by the -Ci-ty of South Burlington.
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUA RY 10, 1976
SEWERS Regarding the manholes. Mr. Trudell two of these could be relocated
but one could not be.
Mr. Page said Mr. Szymanski was requesting that the drainage water be passed
to the end of the property line. Mr. Ewing said it would be better to have
it extend to within 10 feet of the property line and have it riprapped.
Yx. Ireland said he would agree to stopping at 20 feet ij4d have some riprap.
Mr. Diggle said the Water Resources board would look at and would have some
suggestions -- something would be done.
Mrs. Krapcho suggested that measures be taken to break up the water rather
than stipulating the exact footage.
Mr. Ewing asked about the recommendation in the letter from the SCS regarding
drainage on lots 6 through 10.
Mr.Trudell replied those lots right now are dry and they are not going to do
anything that isn't necessary. There is already a natural ditch there now.
SI-►9
DRAINAGE Regarding the relocation of inlets. Mr. Trudelllthere is one
which can be turned around.
STREETS There seemed to be no problem with the City Manager's recommenda-
tions regarding Streets.
Mr. Levesque said he was ready to entertain a motion on this site plan review.
Mrs. Krapcho moved that the Planning Commission accept the final subdivision
plan su_bMitted b,,v Mr. Stuart Ireland for the Meadowood at Spear development
with the following stipulationst
1) that sidewalks are to be installed on at least one side of all Pro
Posed streets and that all sidewalks are to be ranp�T =KT1nQ�smTlo►ls ��
2) that an opinion shall be requested from the City Atto ey as to
whether the City should negotiate a contract to permanentlZ secure
the proposed recreational area as open space and that such contract
or other appropriate legal document will be approved by the City
Attorney before building permits can be issuedt
3) trees shall be provided for lots without trees in an amount equivalent
to the requirements in Seetii 7 1 of the South BurlinRton Subdivision
Regulationat
4) that a performance bond shall be posted in accordance with the requirG-
rents of the City of South Burlington in an -amount to be set by the
City Manager
j) that deeds for streets and easements and other convMnces to the
City shall be prepared and submitted priory to the issuance of any
building permits and that deeds for conveMnce to the City shall be
accepted prior to release of performance bonds or portions thereof;
6) that certification by the surveyor, Precise bearings and distances,
error of closure, on the final plan is to be submitted to and approved
the City Manager
7) that the second item under the Comments on the FYnal Plan submitted
by Stephen Page shall be included as a requirement of the developer.
8) that the requirements for sewers, drainage, and street construction
outlined in the memorandum from Mr. William Szymanski dated Fbbruary
10. 1976, shall be followed with the additional stipulation that the
requirements for the drainage pipes outlined for lots 21 and 2 may
big renegot'lated to provide for the installation of riprap to break up
the flow=
S
PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUA RY 10. 1976
9) the question rewarding the extension of the water main across the
frontage of Mr. Stuart Ireland's property on Spear Street shall be
settled by Mr. William Szymanski according to existin- City policy,
Seconded by Mr. Lidral and voted unanimously for approval.
Mr. Trudell said in going to Act 250 the developer will need a statement
from the City that: 1) the City will allow him to hook on to the water
system; and 2) that the City will allow his to hook on to the sewer system.
He said they would receive approval from the Health Department as soon as
they receive this letter from the City.
Mrs. Krapcho moved that the Planning Commission direct Mr. Szvma_nski to
write whatever letter is required to i d cats to the Health De mgnt
that the proposed ddevelopment has met reguiresents for hooking on to the
City sewer and water systems.
Seconded by Mr. Ewing and voted unanimously for approval.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 24th.
The meeting was declared adjourned at 9,45 p.m.
Clerk
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 28, 1977
could go on the lot if they gave it approval. He said that he was not
questioning Mr. Smith's sincerity in telling them that a Red Coach Grill
would be constructed, but he did point out that circumstances change, and
that, to cover themselves, they had to consider the maximum use that could
go on that lot. Mr. Smith asked if a stipulation to the effect that only
a Red Coach be built were acceptable, and Mr. Poger said that he would like
that but that he thought that they should check with the City Attorney about
whether that was legal. Mr. Morency asked if he would be open at noon, and
was told that he would, and that he expected to have 40-50 cars per hour
on the lot. Mr. Ewing said that, according to his numbers, the expected
traffic would congest the intersection at other times of the day to the point
that it is now between 4 and 5:00. Mr. Smith said that the numbers on the
chart were 1975 and would have to be revised. Mr. Woolery asked if the
restaurant would cater to luncheons, and was told that it was not set up
for that. Mr. Ewing said that he was concerned about turning movements in
and out. Mr. Smith said that he had done everything that he could. Mr.
Poger said that he thought that he had done the best job he could, but
that the situation there is so dangerous and congested and likely to become
worse, that he just could not vote for anything more there now. Mr. Levesque
agreed. Mr. Poger moved to conclude the public hearing for Merlin
Corporation —The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed unanimously.
Mr. Wessel recommended that the Commission deliberate on this issue July
5 or the following meeting because of time limitations tonight. Mr. Poger
said that he felt very strongly about the traffic situation, and because
he was not going to be able to attend the following meetings, he would
like to do it tonight. The Commission decided that it did not have the
time or the information.
Request for amended subdivision at Meadowood Spear, for security system
and privately Awned streets
Mr. Roessler said that this was a slight modification to the previous
approval and that the streets had been built to City standards. He said
that they would like to make the streets private and have them maintained
v the developer and eventual---ly a homeowne_is association, and put up
a security gate. He has talked to the Fire and Police Departments s ut
this, and felt it would be a benefit to the community. He will make the
normal waivers, and the utility and pedestrian easements will not
ee c ted. Mr. age said that t e City ATorney said that he should
talk to property owners nearby, and that he had a list of their concerns.
One of the concerned owners was Mrs. Aurora Nowland, who abuts to the north.
She said that 1) private streets benefit no one, 2) there would be no
access to the open land beyond the development, and people would be going
over hers, and 3) if her land is developed, there will have to be a parallel
street to it, and another curb cut. Mr. Ireland replied that Mrs. Nowland
had not carried through on a bargain that they had had, and that she was not
going to use his streets or laterals. He added that he is going to construct
a brick wall on his property. Mr. Donough, who lives in the development,
said that he did not want to see adjoining houses put up which would
cheapen his lard, and agreed with Mr. Ireland, that if Mrs. Nowland wanted
access to the land, he would like it walled up. He said that he wanted a
private street and that that was one of the reasons that he had bought
there. Mr. Page said that other concerns had been the arrangement of
5.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1
typical pick up and delivery such as garbage, mail, repairmen, UPS, etc.
through the security gate. He also read a motion made by the City Council
expressing concern about providing city services in the event of a power
failure. School busses also, he said, would not travel over private roads,
so they would stop and pick kids up on Spear St. If the roads were maintained
by the homeowner's association, who would be liable if an accident occurred,
and how would they deal with unregistered vehicles travelling on the road?
The police department will respond, of course, to a call in a private
neighborhood, but will not patrol routinely. Mr. Ireland felt that the Police
had done a poor job and that the security system was necessary. Mr. Goddette,
Fire Chief, said that as long as the proper distance was maintained between
the buildings and the curbing at the gate, he saw no problems, and said that
Mr. Ireland had been very cooperative. If he could get his equipment in,
he thought it was fine. Mr. Ireland said that the system had a safety
device so that you could enter if the power failed. Mr. Poger saidthat the
Planning Commission had been asking for public streets for the safety of
the residents and for providing services, and that he was unhappy with the
security system because he did not like to see private bastions against the
rest of the world. lr'.r. Ewing said that this is a new idea and that he would
like to see if it works and the residents are happy with it. He moved
to accept the private streets with gatehouse proposed by Ireland Industries
or its successor for a period of 18 months. Mr. Ireland shall come back
before the Planning Commission to review the case at which time the
Commission will have the right to change the streets from private to public
and remove the gatehouse. The private gate will have to meet the conditions
of the Fire and Police Departments and other emergency vehicles.
Mr. Woolery seconded the motion.
Mr. Page pointed out that when Twin Oaks had asked for private streets, they
had been proposing to build below City standards, and Mr. Ireland was not.
Mr. Poger said that he did not like the precedent of private developments
with private streets and security systems scattered through South Burlington,
so that the community could become a collection of expensive private and
less expensive public developments. He did not think that this was in the
best interests of the City, and said that he would vote against it.
Messrs. Poger and Wessel voted nay, the others voted aye, and the motion
carried.
Sketch Plan Review of Smart Associates Subdivision proposal for 7 lots
on 105 acres. near Van Sicklen Road and Hinesburg Road.
Mr. Poger left, and Messrs. Wessel and Ewing excused themselves because of
conflicts of interest. Peter Collins outlined the plan and showed where it
was located. He said that there would be 5 10-acre lots and 1 25-acre, and
1 at 30+ acres. He said that originally they had planned rj lots of 3 112
acres apiece with a deed giving the land to the City as long as it was
kept open. The Zoning Board, however, told them that they had a self-imposed
hardship, and denied a variance. They then came up with this plan. He
said that the property to the east was not suitable for family homes because
it is very wet. He said that the people who built in the area would make
a restrictive covenant making the open land remain so forever and be used
in common. He said the entrance would be off Hinesburg road, right beside
Mr. Wessel's house, and would be a 60' right of way. It woult be a private,
tar and gravel road, maintained by the landowners, and having drainage
ditches on both sides. He said that the natural flow of water is to the north.
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
.TUNE 28, 1977
could go on the lot if they gave it approval. He said that he was not
questioning Mr. Smith's sincerity in telling them that a Red Coach Grill
would be constructed, but he did point out that circumstances change, and
that, to cover themselves, they had to consider the maximum use that could
go on that lot. Mr. Smith asked if a stipulation to the effect that only
a Red Coach Jpe built were acceptable, and Mr. Poger said that he would like
that but that he thought that they should check with the City Attorney about
whether that was legal. Mr. Morency asked if he would be open at noon, and
was told that he would, and that he -expected to have 40-50 care per hour
on the lot. Mr. Ewing said that, according to his numbers, the expected
traffic would congest the intersection at other times of the day to the point
that it is now between 4 and 5:00. Mr. Smith said that the numbers on the
chart were 1975 and would have to be revised. Mr. Woolery asked if the
restaurant would cater to luncheons, and was told that it was not set up
for that. Mr. Ewing said that he was concerned about turning movements in
and out. Mr. Smith said that he had done everything that he could. Mr.
Poger said that he thought that he had done the ,best job he could, but
that the situation there is so dangerous and congested and likely to become
worse, that he just could not vote for anything more there now. Mr. Levesque
agreed. Mr. Poger moved to conclude the public hearing for Merlin
Corporation —The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed unanimously.
Mr. Wessel .{recommended that the Commission deliberate on this issue July
5 or the following meeting because of time limitations tonight. Mr. Poger
said that he felt very strongly about the traffic situation, and because.
he was not going to be able to attend the following meetings, he would
like to do it tonight. The Commission decided that it did not have the
time or the information. �~
Request for amended subdivision at Meadowood Spear, for security system
and privet4ly-Qwned street8:
Mr. Roessler said that this was a slight modification to the previous
approval and that the streets had been built to City standards. He said
that they would like to make the streets private and have them maintained
by the developer and eventually the homeowner's association, and put up
a security gate. He has talked to the Fire and Police Departments about
this, and felt it would be a benefit to the community. He will make the
normal waivers, and the utility and pedestrian easements will not be
effected. 14r. Page said that the City -Attorney had said that he should
talk to property owners nearby, and that he had a list of their concerns.
One of the concerned owners was Mrs. Aurora Nowland, who abuts to the north.
She said that 1) private streets benefit no one, 2) there would be no
access to the open land beyond the development. and people would be going
over hers, and 3) if her land is developed,.t)iere will have to be a parallel
street to it, and another curb cut. Mr. Ireland replied that Mrs. Nowlend
had not carried through on a bargain that -they had had, and that she was not
going to use his streets or laterals. He added that he.is going to construct
a brick wall on his property. Mr. Donough, who lives is the development,
said that he did not want to see adjoining houses put up whfOh would
cheapen his land, and agreed with Mr. Ireland, that if Mrs. Lowland wanted
access to the land, he would like it walled up. He said that he wanted a
r private street and that that was one of the reasons that he had bought
there. Mr. Page said that other concerns had been the arrangement of
5.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1977
typical pick up and delivery such as garbage, mail, repairmen, UPS, etc.
through the security gate. He also read a motion made by the City .Council
expressing concern about providing city services in the event of a power
failure. School busses also, he said, would not travel over private roads,
so they would stop and pick kids up on Spear St. If the roads were maintained
by the homeowner's association, who would be liable if an accident occurred,
and how would they deal with unregistered vehicles travelling on the road?
The police department will respond, of course, to a call in a private
neighborhood, but Will not patrol routinely. Mr. Ireland felt that the Police
had done a poor job and that the security system was necessary. Mr. Goddette,
Fire Chief, said that -as long as the proper distance was maintained between
the buildings and the curbing at the gate, he saw no problems, and said that
Mr. Ireland had been very cooperative. If he could get his equipment in,
he thought it was fine. Mr. Ireland said that the system had a safety
device so that you could enter if the power failed. Mr. Poger saidthat the
Planning Commission had been asking for public streets for the safety of
the residents and for providing services, and that he was unhappy with the
security system because he did not like to see private bastions against the
rest of the world. Mr. Ewing said that this is a new idea and that he would
like to see if it works and the residents are happy with it. He moved
to accept the private streets with gatehouse proposed by Ireland Industries
or its successor for a period of 18 months Mr. Ireland shall come back
before the Planning Commission to review the case at which time the
Commission will have the right to change the streets from private to public
and remove the gatehouse. The private Rate will have to meet the conditions
of the Fire and Police Departments and other emergency vehicles
` Mr. Woolery seconded the motion.
Mr. Page pointed out that when Twin Oaks had asked for private streets, they
had been proposing to build below City standards, and Mr. Ireland was not.
Mr. Poger said that he did not like the precedent of private developments
with private streets and security systems scattered through South Burlington,
so that the community could become a collection of expensive private and
less expensive public developments. He did not think that this was in the
best interests of the City, and said that he would vote against it.
Messrs. Poger and Wessel voted nay, the others voted aye, and the motion
carried.
Sketch Plan Review of Smart Associates Subdivision proposal for 7 lots
on 105 acres, near Van Sicklen Road and Hinesburg Road,
Mr. Poger left, and Messrs. Wessel and Ewing excused themselves because of
conflicts of interest. Peter Collins outlined the plan and showed where it
was located. He said that there would be 5 10-acre lots and 1 25-acre, and
1 at 30+ acres. He said that originally they had planned rj lots of 3 112
acres apiece with a deed giving the land to the City as long as it was
kept open. The Zoning Board, however, told them that they had a self-imposed
hardship, and denied a variance. They then came up with this plan. He
said that the property to the east was not suitable for family homes because
it is very wet. He said that the people who built in the area would make
a restrictive covenant making the open land remain so forever and be used
in common. He said the entrance would be off Hinesburg road, right beside
Mr. Wessel's house, and would be a 60' right of way. It moulA be a private,
tar and gravel road, maintained by the landowners, and having drainage
ditches on both sides. He said that the natural flow of water is to the north.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlinngton
November 25, 1975, in
Williston Road.
MEMBERS PRESENT
NCVEMBER 25,_lM
Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 11?5
William Wessel, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, James Erring, Arlene Krapcho,
Ernest Levesque, Frank Lidral, Mary Barbara Maher
CTHERS PRESENT
Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Jack VanSleet, Robert L. Doane, Stuart
D. Ireland, Charles Diggle, Richard Underwood, L. Aline. Demers, J. P.
Chaplin, Sheri Larsen, Gail Lang, William R. Lang, E. J. Paquett, Kevin Bardier,
Walt Levering, Kathy Lang, Richard Trudell, Dick Myette, Doris Bailey,
Richard Ward, Sidney Poger, Martin Paulsen, R. Foley, J. Leddy, J. Dwyer,
G. Duna Alling, D. Anderson
The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes of November 18, 1975
It was moved by Mr. Lidral, seconded by Mrs. Maher, and voted unanimously
to accept the Minutes of November 18, 1975, as presented.
Site plan review -- Avicon, 1205 Airport Parkway
The Chairman stated that Mr. Peter Judge, Agent for I.C.V. Construction,
had requested that the site plan review be deferred for two weeks.
Subdivision hearing, Meadowood at Spear, Mr. Stuart Ireland
Mr. Page said he had recently walked the site accompanied by Mr. Armstrong,
Mrs. Krapcho, Mr. Diggle, and someone from Willis Engineering.
Mr. Trudell,representing Mr. Ireland, explained the changes made since the
work session a week ago. The roadway had been moved adjacent to the Nowland
property, creating another lot, and lot #42 is now designated as a recreation
area. Moving the road, he said, actually makes a little worse alignment
and a little less site distance but is still in the 30 degree angle and
the site distance still meets the still meets the criteria applied to it.
There would be sufficient area dedicat for future road_ expansion,._ __
. Krapcho recommen giving the basic information on the proposal for the
benefit of the people who were not present at the work session last week.
Mr. Diggle outlined the history of the National Life Insurance Company sub-
division of 102 acres, indicating the location on the map, and explained this
particular section of it had been on the market for some time. Mr. Ireland
has been building houses in Colchester, primarily single family houses, and
has been very successful and is looking for new opportunities. There are
very few single family lots available with access to sewer and water and Mr.
Ireland has studied this property and has come up with a plan for 41 lots.
All the lots have the required frontage on this proposed street. The land
was originally in two segments, an upper piece and a lower piece, and a
40 foot jog between the two, but it was felt when this was developed it
' I
2.
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25.E
(the jog) wouldn't cause anyproblems. Mrs. Nowland has been approached and
has agreed to deed a sliver of land to have this road 60 feet in width. It
has the advantage to her to bring water and sewer up to her property. The
zone from Spear Street down is R-1; the lower portion is zoned R-4. The
average sized lot is over 1/2 acre. The land slopes down from Spear Street
to a green belt area which was deeded to the City of South Burlington by
National Life for a natural area and a walkway. There is a 30-foot easement
for utilities across this property to connect to sewer and water by Nordic
Ford. A pumping station will be required because of the depth of the ravine.
Something over an acre and a quarter is to be deeded as a recreation area to
be held by the homeowners association. Houses will be in a price range of
over $60,000. Lots will be available for quality homes to be built by Mr.
Ireland but will not be generally available to the public; he will control
the homes. On the upper portion homes in the $100,000 range are envisioned.
Sewer and water will be extended 1200 feet to this property. Sewer will be
brought up from Green Mountain Drive. Sidewalks will be provided on the inner
perimeter of the roadway and then along and up to Spear Street. The intent
is to develop at most 15 lots per year, to phase development. The area is
quite heavily treed and the intent is to save all the trees possible, as
one of the largest determinants of value on these lots is the large number of
trees.
Chairman Wessel referred to Mr. Page's memo on the review of the proposal
and asked about the deed. Mr. Page replied it will be recorded prior to the
plat.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if approval of this study plan depends on getting the
City Engineer's final approval of the road, and suggested getting a definite
report within two weeks.
Mr. Diggle waid they also have to go through Act 250 and the State Water
Resources Department.
Mr. Page said the only conflict was with the existin sewer easem the
City open space land. Mr. Spokes is still re43ew ng hat deed. It `was
that there be some kind of access for pedestrians to move into the
development, that the easement have a dual function.
Mr. Diggle indicated the 30 foot ease, ment in the recreation area and said
there would be no conflict there.
Mr. Page said Mr. Szymanski suggested a 15 foot easement between lot10 and lot
11 in the northeast corner to serve the anticipated development on the
Nowland property.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if this would reduce the frontage of those two lots, and
was told that if it was an easement, it would not.
Mrs. Krapcho then asked if it is a sewer easement and they were iw* request-
ing the right of pedestrian access, if that would complicate things in any way.
She also asked about the easement coming right across the drainage way, and
asked if they had checked to see if that is the place to cross over into
the Nowland property.
Mr. Page said it had not been checked, they were simply suggesting a dual
function instead of a single function.
Mr. Armstrong asked how they could assure that this trail wouldn't end up
as a bike trail.
Mr. Diggle said it would be for pedestrian access only.
Mr. Ewing asked why there would be a 15 foot easeement between lot 9 and lot
10 but in the other area 30 feet was recommended. Mr. Trudell explained
the 30 foot easement would be for both sewer and water and they have to be
s epa ra t
i
I �
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25,E
Regarding street names, Mr. Diggle said they had picked some tentative
names and apparently they are not names being used now. Chairman Wessel
said it was also necessary to check with Burlington street names, and also
referred to the list of names previously prepared, a copy of which could be
obtained from the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Ireland said he would like engraved wood signs for street names. A sketch
of the proposed entrance sign was shown.
Mr. Wessel asked about curbs and was told it would all be curbed.
Mr. Page referred to the Planning Commission's proposal to establish a side-
walk policy for the criteria of design and layout of sidewalks, and displayed
a drawing of the proposed sidewalk layout for the property, having it on the
north side for southern exposure and a continuous length which would hook
up with a pedestrian access, it would go through half the frontage of one
lot into the cul-de-sac. An effort was made to minimize the number of times
one would have to cross the street.
Mr. Ireland said the sidewalks should be on the south side and Mr. Diggle
explained there will be exposure to the sun no matter which side they are on.
He said he would be willing to relocate some of the sidewalks after further
discussion with Mr. Page.
Chairman Wessel asked about street lights, and Mr. Ireland said they would
be the colonial lantern type issued by Green Mountain Power.
Mrs. Krapcho asked about consideration of what would be required for sewer
and water hookups not just for the proposal now before the Commission but
what would be required to fit into the future development of the area.
There should be sufficient capacity of the pipes installed to handle the
additional flow that may eventually go through those pipes from some develop-j
ment outside this particular subdivision. This should be discussed with Mr. f
Szymanski, she suggested.
Mr. Trudell said there is presently a 12" water main coming about to the
and of the Nowland property. This will be extended down to their property
but at that point they only need an 8" main for their own development. He
indicated the location of the hookups on the map, also the location of the
several hydrants. The sewer is 8" and that is the smallest they would con-
sider putting in.
Asked by Mrs. Krapcho about drainage systems, Mr. Trudell said there were
actually two types of drainage systems. One is the road drainage system,
storm system, based on the imperviousness of the road, soil, house area,
driveway area, etc. The second system is the one which picks up the cellar
drains for the homes so there will be no damp cellars. He indicated the
location of the systems and the points of discharge. There will be some
piping to avoid erosion.
Mr. Armstrong suggested a right-of-way on Spear Street along lot #1 now
for a future pedestrian way.
Mrs. Maher reminded that the Commission can ask but it cannot force.
Mr. Wessel asked if the road right-of-way was sufficient for a walkway and
Mr. Page said it was 66 feet.
Mrs. Larsen asked about development taking place on the drainage ways.
Mrs. Maher said the major drainage way is being deeded to the City, and
Mr. Diggle said there are no other streams.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if putting a home on lot #27 would impinge on the drainage
way, and Mr. Trudell said there is enough room to put a home on the flat
area. He said they actually did an additional topographic survey on the
area so they could locate their lots.
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBE� 19M
Asked about lots #25 and #19, Mr. Trudell explained 25 has sufficient area
and on 19 the width of the lot was increased in order to honor a 50 foot
setback along the drainage area.
Mr. Ewing asked if they expected any erosion where they would be dumping
the storm water.
Mr. Trudell said they would put in a pipe and some additional riprap to
break up the energy of the stream. The stream bed is an erroded channel
now and they don't anticipate a great deal more erosion. They will do the
best they know how to do to disperse the energy coming out of the system.
Mr. Ewing said he would hate to see this major stream having an erosion
problem in the future.
Mrs. Maher said that is one reason they have the City Engineer to approve
it all, and Mr. Trudell said it would all be submitted to Mr. Szymanski.
Mrs. Krapcho asked at what point would they take their plans to the Soil
Conservation Service.
Mr. Trudell said they would get into under the Act 250 process; there will
be a review by the county forester and his engineering crew and they
normally go to the SCS.
Mrs. Krapcho suggested that getting a report from the SCS would be helpful,
to get an evaluation of the system being proposed to handle the lot drainage,
and asked how far into the future would they anticipate going to the SCS,
Mr. Trudell said he was not ready to present a proposal yet, he has not
done enough detail work yet. As part of the final plans he would probably
go to them and ask for their suggestions.
Mrs. Krapcho said she personally would like to talk abit with the SCS people
after they have looked at the land to see what their general reaction is
to the solution proposed. The lot drainage is a question and something of
a problem. How far down is the water table, she asked.
Mr. Trudell said when they took their soil borings they went down 8 or 9
feet with no water, then started encountering it at 3 to 4 feet. That is
why they want to put in additional drainage to drain that area. The ground
water flow would be generally following the contour lines, he said, and
indicated on the map where it would be picked up.
Mr. Ewing agreed there is a drainage problem, but it is not insurmountable.
Mr. Wessel asked about lot #41 and Mr. Page =M-is it to be deeded to the
City or to the property owners. asked
Mr. Diggle said the only question is that the City be given access over it to
the adjoining 13 acres for pedestrian access and for maintenance vehicles
as necessary by the Parks Department, but other than that it will be a
neighborhood common area.
Mr. Ewing asked if there would be underground wiring and Mr. Trudel said
it would be.
Mr. Wessel asked if they had talked with the Forest Service yet. Mr. Trudell
said he had walked the site with Russell Reay and his comments would be in
the Act 250 process. Mr. Reay had said he didn't see any problem from his
point of view.
Doris Bailey expressed concern that the trees would die because of the
construction process, that the Natural Resources Committee was concerned.
Mr. Page said that insisting that all mature trees be left might be unreason-
able, citing another development where -it had been insisted that the trees
be left, and these trees are in the process of dying because of the con-
structions process.
n
r
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 1M
It is in the interest of the people buying the property to save the trees,
hesaid, and he would suggest this as a discussion topic for the Commission.
Mr. Armstrong said essentially the trees there should last for another
hundred years or more if they didn't put anybody in there. He felt the
developer would protect the trees because they are his greatest asset, but
a number of trees will be lost in the process. Some of them are perhaps
18 years old but many of then are well over 100; sugar maples will last over
200 years. He suggested such measures as tree wells, keeping away from the
root systems. As the trees grow in the forest they crowd each other out
and the crowns are narrower; the roots are all interlocked but in the same
diameter of the crown. Mr. Lang said he differed with Mr. Armstrong.
Asked by Mr. Wessel about his memo regarding the pedestrian trail layout,
Mr. Wessel having read the memo aloud for the benefit of the audience, Mr.
Page said the point brought to his attention was that the plan calls for a
non -paved trail to go from Allen Road to Swift Street, paralleling Spear
Street and Shelburne Road. It was felt that it would be desirable to have
the City's 13 acres connected with this, expecting that the trail will
develop in the sometime future and keeping in mind that there is a stream
or drainage way along the northerly property line. It might enhance the
designing of the lots and not detract from them. It would not be a
thoroughfare and some connection might be made with the Horticultural Farm.
Mrs. Maher asked if there was any commitment from the Nowland property and
Mr. Page said there was not. It would lead to nowhere now. A pedestrian
easement is suggested to connect with the area which the City will own.
A comment was made that the Horticultural Farm might not be interested;
they have already had problems with trail bikes, but Mr. Diggle felt that
would be the best place to locate it and it would also come close to the
Nowland property.
Mrs. Maher said her personal feeling would be not to ask for 10 feet off from
each of these lots.
Mr.Ireland said he would see more problems for the Horticultural Farm by
having the area more accessible, having paid money to have some of the paths
blocked up during the past few months.
Mr. Ewing said there was a natural path through the development right now;
by putting in another pathway it would be complicating things unnecessarily.
Chairman Wessel asked if the Commission wished to ask the Natural Resources
Committee once again for their opinion.
Mrs. Maher suggested they could come in to the next meeting and be a little
more specific; it was her personal feeling that not quite as such was needed
as in the preliminary request.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the Natural Resources Committee could consider the
possibility of utilizing land that is exclusively part of the Horticultural
Fhrm for this purpose as opposed to land coming from this particular proposal.
Looking at it on paper there would seem to be a considerable distance which
could accommodate some sort of pedestrian trail. She would like to see the
Natural Resources Committee look at it with that idea in mind; if this is a
necessity to look at where it should be located.
Mr. Lang questioned whether an 8" line would handle any more houses if
e "Id it would handle alaost all of Spear Street
Lan asked if wou n e more houses.
n
i
6
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25. 1975
Mr. Trudell explained the sas wer_p an layout done by Metcalf and Eddy for
e City of South Burlington and u ated Webster
8" sewer ru up en Road, so the calculations and the -flow qualities
ve airemay aeierminea tinaz an o- uld handle all of this area. —
There s a a r y good slope down through the area and capacity increases
as slope increases. They will be over -sized but nobody would put in any-
thing smaller than an 8" pipe.
Mr. Lang asked if the present houses on Spear Street Would have the privilege
.gooTcing on even fth--turlington
IIr. �I`ru3�2I said-yodoes have that in their planning stages.
Mr. �Ta3 F�ic.- among couYci pro�a�ly tap on ai Fiis own cost. He was not
that familiar with the Master Plan for that area but Mr. Lang is close enough
so.he could probsbly hook on.
Mr. Lang mentioned the heavy soil and the poor leaching quality of the soil.
Mrs. Maher suggested Mr. Lang discuss this with the developer and the City
Engineer.
Mrs. Larsen asked how the development would be phased.
Mr. Trudell said Mr. Ireland plans to put in all the improvements before he
starts building any hones for the main reason that it means a er selling.
Mr. Ireland sey would v hae roads, sidewalks, etc. before they star_
_.ply constxup
_ aid thon,
Mr. Diggle said they are trying to dispose of this as promptly as possible;
it looks like there is a basic agreement;. and asked if there was some way
the Commission could give them some sort of action. They have to first know
how they are proceeding with the City and then find out how they will pro-
ceed with the Environmental Commission. He said they were willing to
accept stipulations from the City Engineer and to review the question with
the Natural Resources Committee.
Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval
for tbk dejelopment of 41 house lots within the subdivision to be construct
by Mr MIand with access off Spear Street conditioned upon the following
requirements: 1 the drainage way to the west of the subdivision will be
deeded by National Life to the City -of South Burlin ton 2 emission is
,granted pending final re ort from the CityEngineer on the location of roads
and drainage facilities the developer aees to relocate some of the
sidewalks after further deliberation with our Planning Assistant 4 she
further moved that as soon as the Soil Conservation Service has studied the
proposed drainage for this subdivision that said information be forwarded
to the City Manager for his consideration; S it is understood that the lot
located at the southwest corner immediately adjacent to the end of the cul-
de-sac will be a park area and forever remain undeve-lo-p-e-di-97 she moved
further that Mr. Pages memo of November 25th become part of these Minutes
so that the conditions referred to above are clear anda permanent part of
the record;7 she moved further that it is understood that any request
from the Natural Resources Committee regarding a pedestrian trail will be
seriously considered.
Seconded by Mr. Armstrong.
Mrs. Krapcho asked to have the following words added to 2) regarding the
location and specifications for the development of roads, san ry sewvrs,
s ora sewers, and sub -surface ra nage ac es. This i-s to replace the
e words on the locationof-roads and drai-n-a-g-e-Ta-cilities.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 1975
ment
Amend accepted by Mrs. Maher and Mr. Armstrong.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the right-of-way for Lakewood Drive and the cul-de-
sac actually both coincided with the property line.
Mr. Trudell said they did.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Williston Road Task Force
After a brief recess the meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. to a discussion
of the Williston Road traffic problem which had resulted.in the decision to
establish a sub -committee, the Williston Road Task Force.
Chairman Wessel gave those present a brief resume of the events which led
up to this decision, the consideration of future development in the area,
the fact that Williston Road serves local businesses and residents, and also
the fact that it is used as a throughway. The membership of the Task Force
Would consist of a member of the City Council to be appointed; a member
from the Planning Commission, Jim Ewing; and"at least two members from the
community, one a general citizen, a member -at -large; and another to be a
person who has specific business interests- in the outcome of the traffic
situation. The committee could be larger than four members.
Mr. Page said several other people who are much interested in being con-
sidered for membership were unable to be present at this meeting.
Chairman Wessel said it would be on the agenda again in two weeks.
Before the candidates for membership present at this meeting were inter-
viewed, Mrs. Maher read aloud her motion from page 8 of the Minutes of
October 28, 1975, expressing the concern the Planning Commission had about
Williston Road and asked if anyone present disagreed with that.
The following candidates introduced themselves and expressed their own
thoughts, concerns, and possible recommendations. They weres
1) Jim Leddy who lives on Williston Road at the corner of Victoria Drive
and is Director of Alcoholic Beverages for Vermont;
2) Jack Dwyer of Gilbert Street who works for Vermont Transit;
3 Sidney Poger, UVM professor who lives on Victoria Drive and has served
on the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission;
4) Doris Anderson who lives on Williston Road and formerly owned the Log
Cabin gift shop;
5 Dana Alling who has lived on Williston Road for 38 years and is a businessman;
6 Martin Paulsen of East Terrace, an engineer.
Walt Levering stated he is not a resident of South Burlington and doesn't
mean to apply for membership on the Task Force but is extremely interested
in Williston Road problems and wanted to express his ideas.
Mr. Paul sen suggested a larger group of members and Mr. Poger said he would
recommend a small group. Mrs. Krapcho suggested a maximum of about seven.
Mr. Page is to work with the group and do research for then.
Mrs. Maher recommended that the committee meet once a week as they could
have a report in three months for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Page recommended that the members of the committee solicit information
from those who were not chosen, saying he was extremely pleased with the
response received. Mrs. Maher suggested a public hearing also.
The number of members is to be finalized later.
The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:05 p.t.
Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final subdivision
approval on February 10, 1976 for its development entitled
"Meadowwood at Spear"; and
WHEREAS, upon application of the Applicant, the sub-
division final approval was amended by the Planning Commission
on June 28, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the amended approval provided that the streets
in the development would remain private for an 18-month
period; and
WHEREAS, the amended approval provided that the
Planning Commission retain jurisdiction to review the
situation at the end of said 18-month period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
public/private street situation in the Meadowwood at Spear
development and determined that the streets should become
public streets.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the subdivision
final approval for Meadowwood at Spear dated February 10,
1976, as amended June 28, 1977, is further amended as
follows:
1.. All streets in the development shall be public,
and not private streets.
-1-
2. The Applicant, within 30 days of this date, shall
submit an appropriate Offer of Dedication, Warranty Deed
and Vermont Property Transfer Return for said streets to
the City Attorney for his approval.
3. The Offer of Dedication and Warranty Deed shall
include the offer and conveyance of the water and sewer
lines within the street rights of way.
4. Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall
also submit to the City Attorney for his approval, an
appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement Deed and Transfer
Return for a combined pedestrian and utility easement be-
tween Lots 10 and 11 in the development.
5. Within 30 days of this date, the Applicant shall
also submit to the City Attorney for his approval, an
appropriate Offer of Dedication, Easement Deed, Transfer
Return and Bill of Sale for a sewer line which crosses the
park land situated at the westerly end of the development and
a combined pedestrian and sewer easement across said park land.
6. The Applicant shall within 30 days of this date
present to the City Attorney for his approval, a Title
Certificate directed to the City of South Burlington
covering all streets, sewer and water lines, and easements
to be dedicated to the City. - «� C0
7. The Applicant shall remove the gate house NYat the
entrance to the development within 30 days of this date.
-2-
8. The Applicant shall apply final surface cover on
the streets in the development no later than June 1, 1979,
and shall complete all other required public improvements
before said date to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. The conditions of original approval, dated February
10, 1976 are hereby ratified, and any of said conditions
which have not been satisfied shall be fulfilled by the
Applicant within 30 days of this date.
-3-
City of South Burlington
1175 WILLISTON ROAD
- SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
•``••• TEL. 863-2891
May 2, 1977
Mr. Stuart Ireland
Ireland Industries
100 Grove Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Mr. Ireland:
This letter will relate to our discussion on Thursday,
April 28, 1977 regarding your proposed security system for
i,:eadowood at Spear and having private roads within the
development.
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter granting you final
subdivision approval dated February 17, 1976, please note
condition rr5. This condition requires that the streets be
deeded and thereby becoming public streets.
Having discussed the matter of the security system with
the City Attorney, his opinion is, that should condition
;#5 change in any way you would be required to file a
revised subdivision application. He feels that the
installation of a security system is also considered a
change and requires Planning Commission approval.
Attorney Spokes
Robert Roesler,
free to contact
plans on discussing this with Attorney
however, if you have any questions, feel
me.
Very truly,
Richard Ward
Zoning Administrative Officer
R riT/.1
Enclosure
cc Attorney Richard Spokes
William Wessel
Stephen Page
SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
P. O. BOX 986
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0986
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JAMES D. FOLEY
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
STEVEN F. STITZEL
March 17, 1953
Mr. David Spitz
City Planner
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Meadowood at Spear
Dear David:
Enclosed please find the following:
(BO2) SS2-6451
(S02) 863-2657
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
COUNSEL
1. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication.
2. Utility Easement
3. Warranty Deed pertaining to streets along with Vermont Property
Transfer Return.
4. Pedestrian Easement Deed along with Vermont Property Transfer Return.
Please take appropriate action.
Very truly. -yours,
Richard A. Spokes",.....
RAS:mil
Enclosures
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUI QED
POST OFFICE BOX 986 (J
R IC HARD A. SPOKES BVRLIN GTON. VE RM ONT 0540:'n1q)/7� t���
I H ' j (802) 862-6451
DAMES D. FOLEV CprY AG�/��S (802) 863-2857
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI Ste. OFF
STEVEN F. STITZEL RVRk/N . 1z ISAAC N. P. STOKES
�'o/v COUNSEL
March 7, 1983
Messrs. William Szymanski
and David Spitz__
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05401 ,
Re: Appeal of Ireland Industries, Inc.
Dear Bill and David:
Do either of you have any problems with the enclosed Judgment Order?
Very, yours,
Richa d A. Spokes
RAS:mil
Enclosure
0
SPOKES. FOLEY
& 013UCHOWSK1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BURLINGTON. VERMONT
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
In re:
CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT
APPEAL OF IRELAND Docket No. S15-79CnM
INDUSTRIES, INC.
JUDGMENT ORDER
This action came before the Court on the Appeal of Ireland Industries,
Inc. from a decision of the Planning Commission of the City of South
Burlington. On January 8, 1982 a de novo hearing was conducted and on
February 17, 1983 this Court entered its decision. On the basis of the
findings of fact and conclusions of the Court, as set forth in its
decision dated February 17, 1983, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED
as follows:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Judgment Order,
Ireland Industries, Inc. shall deliver to the City of South Burlington a
suitable warranty deed, free and clear of all encumbrances conveying all
streets in the Meadowood at Spear Development as depicted on the final sub-
division plan originally approved by the City Planning Commission on
February 10, 1976.
2. The warranty deed referred to in paragraph 1 of this Judgment
Order shall contain a provision conveying to the City of South Burlington
all water and sewerlines within the street rights -of -way.
3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Judgment Order,
Ireland Industries, Inc. shall deliver to the City of South Burlington
suitable easement deeds, free and clear of all encumbrances, conveying all
utility and pedestrian easements depicted on the Meadowood at Spear final
a
SPOKES, FOLEY
& OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BURLINGTON, V[RMONT
division plan originally approved by the City Planning Commission on
February 10, 1976.
4. The easement deeds referred to in paragraph 3 of this Judgment
Order shall contain a provision conveying all water and sewerlines located
(within the easements.
5. Should Ireland Industries, Inc. fail to comply with paragraphs 1
through 4 of this Judgment Order, appellee, City of South Burlington, may
record a certified copy of this Judgment Order, and upon such recording the
City of South Burlington shall be deemed the owner of said streets, utility
lines and easements and Ireland Industries, Inc., and its successors and
assigns, shall be divested of any and all interests in such streets, ease-
Iments and utilities.
6. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Judgment Order,
Ireland Industries, Inc. shall remove the gatehouse at the entrance to the
Meadowood at Spear Development.
Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this day of March, 1983.
John P. Morrissey
Superior Judge
John D. Donoghue
Assistant Judge
- 2 -
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JAMES D. FOLEY
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
STEVEN F. STITZEL
SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
P. O. BOX SS6
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0986
February 22, 1983
Messrs. William Szymanski
and David Spitz
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Meadowood at Spear
Dear Bill and David:
RECEIVED
FEB 2 41983
MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY SO. BURLINGTON
Enclosed please find a copy of the Court's decision.
Ireland has thirty (30) days from February 17th in
which to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Very truly yours,
Richard A. Spokes
RAS:mil
Enclosure
(602) S02-6451
(802) 863-2857
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
COUNSEL
,ICHtiiENDEN COUNTY COURT
FILED IN CLERKS OFFICE
STATE OF VFPVONT FEB I71�63
CIIITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
MNCIS G. EM
In Re: APPEAL OF IRELAND ) CNTTTENDEN , UPEKRIOR COLOR
INDUSTRIES, INC. ) Docket No. S15-79 CnM `
On January 8, 1982, this cause, an appeal from a decision
of the Planning Commission for the City of South Burlington,
Chittenden County, was heard de novo. John P. Maley, Esquire;
and Richard Spokes, Esquire, appeared for Appellant, Ireland
Industries, Inc.; and Appellee, City of South Burlington,
respectively.
After consideration of the record and the evidence
presented, the Court Finds aE follows:
1. On February 10, 1976, the Planning Commission for
Appellee City gave subdivision approval for a development knDwn
as Meadoc.N ood at Spear along Spear Street, South Burlington,
which included a dedication of the streets and utilities
to the City. (Exhibit A)
2. Appellant, a development company, subdivided these land
forty-one (41) lots, upon which it subsequently constructed
homes, each with a value of $100,000 or more, and all of which
have been sold, but one.
3. On June 28, 1977, at Appellant's request, the
Commission amended its approval to:
...accept the private streets with
gatehouse proposed by Ireland
Industries.... for a period of eighteen
months. Mr. Ireland shall come back
r
before the Planning Commission to
review the case, at which time the
Commission will have the right to
change the streets from private to
public and remove the gatehouse.
The private gate will have to meet
the conditions of the Fire and Police
Departments and other emergency
vehicles. (Exhibit C)
4. Appellant did not appeal the foregoing decisions by
the Planning Commission.
5. Subsequently, Appellant constructed a gatehouse and
maintained utility lines, pipes, roads, hydrants and other
common areas at a cost in excess of $20,000.
6. On February 6, 1979, the Planning Commission
determined that the streets be designated as public and the
gatehouse removed, which resulted in this appeal.
7. It is the desire of Appellant to maintain the private
nature of the development thereby increasing property values;
j it is prepared to upgrade and maintain the streets at its
own expense; it is prepared to provide Messrs. Davis and
Pecor with access to their development; and to date there
have been no problems with access by emergency and service
vehicles.
8. In the event that the streets are dedicated a; public
Appellant seeks just compensation, maintaining that otherwise
the taking is unlawful.
-2-
n
9. Appellant still owns the streets, utility lines
and gatehouse at Meadowwood.
10. The gatehouse security system never has been
activated.
CONCLUSION'S
1. 24 V.S.A. 4475 et seq. provides the exclusive remedy
for a party aggrieved by the decision of a planning commission,
i.e., by appeal to the Superior Court; and if there is a,
failure to do so, said party is thereafter barred from
contesting the decision of the commission. (See Shortle v. Board,
[1978] 136 Vt.)
2. Not having contested or appealed the Commission's
prior decision, which specifically was conditional and
reserved the right to designate the streets in Meadowwood at
Spear as public and which the Commission later did, Appellant
cannot now question the on o-inal deterT i-na�ion by *hi� 2r^e�'
of the latter decision. (See Reehart v. Carroll [1979],
4-09 A. 2d 1167 [Pa.]).
3. The eventual dedication of the streets being
contemplated in the prior decision by the Commission and no
appeal being taken therefrom; Appellee did not exercise its
power of eminent domain in dedicating the streets; therefore
such is not an unlawful taking without just compensation
and Appellant is not entitled to be paid for its expenditures.
(See Ayers v. City Council [1949] 207 2d 1)
-3-
r
4
0
Pursuant to the foregoing, Appellee's attorney shall
prepare a Judgment Order for signature by the Court.
Dated at urlln Vt . , this
61
day of ?-Qdz ;/ar1983.
Lj
BY THE COURT:
/ 71h
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JAMES D. FOLEY
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
STEVEN F. STITZEL
William Szymanski
City Manager
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,
Dear Bill:
SPOKES,FOLEY & OBUGHOW SKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 986e
BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402
VT 05401
C"A�NGT'O"1802) 863-2857NAGER-S OFFICE 1802) 862-6451
•
February 3, 1982
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
COUNSEL
Enclosed please find a copy of Ireland's memorandum and request
for findings, along with a copy of our reply memorandum.
Very truly yours,
Richard A. r s
RAS:mil
Enclosures
LAW OFFICES
.VESTER k MALEY
70 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
RLINGTON, VERMONT
05402
I
RED IVED
FEB - 51982
MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY SO. RURLINGTON
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. DOCKET #S1S-79CnM
IN RE: APPEAL OF IRELAND APPELLANT'S REQUESTS FOR
INDUSTRIES, INC. FIdDINGS OF FACT
)
)
NOW COMES the Appellant, by and through its attorney of
record, John P. Maley, and requests the Court to find as follows
1. The �iubdivision contains forty-one (41) lots and
houses constructed on those lots. All have been sold with the
exception of one house and the houses in the development run in
value from over $100,000 to $200,000.
2. Subsequent to the City Planning Commission's
amendment of June 23, 1977 that the streets could remain private
for 18 months, Appellant expended the following sums of money:
(a) The entrance to the Development was
widened to allow access by emergency
and fire vehicles at a cost of $3,200;
(b) The Gatehouse was constructed at a
cost of $12,000;
(c) The areas retained by the Developer
under which the utility lines ran were
sodded and maintained at a. cost of
approximately $4, 500 per year;
(d) The water lines were maintained and
necessary repairs made thereon at a
cost of $4,800 to 55,000;
(e) It was necessary to sweep, clean and
maintain the roads throughout the
development;
LAW OFFICES
NESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
?LINGTON, VERMONT
05402
(f) For the first two years the Appellant
plowed and salted the -roads at a cost
of approximately $2,000 per year;
(g) Mail box banks were installed at the
request of the Post Office Department
at a cost of $1,800;
(h) The gatehouse and land on which the
roads existed were separately taxed to
the Appellant and those taxes have been
paid each year by the Appellant;
(i) Maintenance of the bydrazits within the
development cost approximately $800
per year.
3. That If dedication of the streets and improvements
is required at this time, those monies expended by Appellant
would be unrecoverable by him.
4. Appellant desired that the Development be maintained
as private as it was his feeling that the value of the properties
in the Development would increase. fie desired to have it as an
exclusive Development and thought that maintaining it as private
would not only increase property values, but would decrease
traffic flow through the Development and reduce vandalism etc.
5. The Developer is prepared to complete at his expense
the necessary things to be done to bring the roads to City
standards.
6. The Developpr-Appellant is prepared to undertake the
responsibility for plowing, paving and otherwise maintaining the
roads, the water and the sewer lines, all at his expense.
7. in the event that the Town should be allowed to take
the roads the Developer desires to be compensated for those
LAW OFFICES
-VESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
UINGTON, VERMONT
05402
monies expended for things done while the roads were private
which things were above and beyond what would be necessary if
the roads were public. Additionally, the Appellant desires to
be compensated for the loss of the benefit of the bargain of the
contract presently in effect with Messrs. Davis and Pecor which
has a value in excess of $100,000 (see Appellant's Exhibit 2).
S. The Appellant is prepared pursuant to his contract
with Messrs. Pecor and Davis to provide them with an access
through Pheasant Way to their proposed Development. This would
eliminate the need for an additional entrance to the proposed
Development from Spear Street. (See Appellant's Exhibit 2).
9. During tke period of time the Development has
existed as privat6, there have been do difficulties with fire or
police protection, the delivery, of mail, the pick up and deliver)
of rubbish or other services that would be normally provided in
a residential area. Also school buses go down into the
Development.
10. There was no evidence produced by Appellee that
individual property rights or the public health, safety or
welfare have been adversely affected, or would they be adversely
affected in the future.
Dated this-- day of February, 1982.
IRELAND"INDUSTRIES, INC.
BY: John P. Maley
SF1TAl ts-At-tiorney
LAW OFFICES
NESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
ILINGTON, VERMONT
05402
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. DOCKET OS15-79CnM
IN RE.: APPEAL OF IRELAND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
INDUSTRIES, INC.
NOW COMES the Appellant, by and through its attorney of
record, John P. Maley, and in support of its position in this
matter hereby submits the following Memorandum of Law:
T. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL OF IRELAND
INDUSTRIES, INC. IS FORECLOSED BY 24
V.S.A., SECTIONS 4472 & 4475.
The issue presented is whether or not the appeal taken by
Appellant from the decision of the City of South Burlington
Planning Commission dated February 6, 1979 was done in a timely
fashion.
Title 24, Section 4475 provides that an appeal from a
decision of a Planning Commission shall be taken in the same
manner as an appeal from a decision of a Board of Adjustment.
An appeal from a Planning Commission to the Superior Court is
therefore governed by 24 V.S.A., Section 4471. Section 4471
provides "an interested person may appeal a decision . . . to the
Superior Court of a County in which is located the property at
issue in tho decision".
It is undisputed that under the Statute decisions are
appealable. The word "decision" is not defined in Title 214.
LAW OFFICES
NESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
RLINGTON, VERMONT
05402
However, the Vermont Supreme Court in Bennington v Hanson -
Walbridge Funeral Home, Inc., 139 VT 288, 293 (1981) defifie&',
"decision" for purposes of Title 24 as being "a determination
or result arrived at after a consideration".
The central inquiry, therefore, must be directed to
determining whether the Planning Commission considered the
matter and arrived at a determinatidwi3Oon February 6, 1979. Page
5 of the June 28, 1977 Minutes provided:
"...That Mr. Ireland shall come back before the
Planning Commissiou to review the case at which
time the Commission wit l-T-ave--t e r g t to change
the streets from private to public and remove
the gatehouse ... ". (emphasis added)
The fact that the defendant was to appear before the
Planning Commission to "review the case" at the end of the
eighteen (18) month period necessarily implies that there was to
be further consideration of the issue and that a decision was to
be made at that time. The Minutes of the February 6, 1979
meeting (Appellee's Exhibit E) provide
"Whereas, the amended approval provided that the
Planning Commission retain jurisdiction to review
the.situation at the end of said eighteen
month aan
Whereas the Planning Commission has reviewed the
public/private street situation 3-ii-tote -T-eavow wood
at "'pear Development and determined that the streets
should become public streFt-!F,—'—
Now therefore, be it resolved that the subdivision
final approval . . . I'-. -
IP40
14
LAW OFFICES
VESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
ZLINGTON, VERMONT
05402
The foregoing Minutes of the Felirunry 6 meeting acknow-
ledge that the amended approval of June 28, 1977 provided for
a review, that a review of the situation had occurred, and that
a determination had been reached and a resolution passed. The
elements of cortideration and determination or result specified
by Hanson-Wlbri,,&e are therefore present. Appellants would
therefore submit that by their ovin word-ing, the Appellees have
admitted that a decision took place on February 6, 1979 and,
therefore, the Appellants were entitled to appeal.
The crux of Appellee's argument is that the Planning
Commission did not make a decision on February 6, 1979, but
merely exercised a non -qualified right. Appellee confuses what
it perceives to be the merits of its claim, the exercise of a
"unqualified right", with a jurisdictional issuet'raised by its
motion. The critical inquiry for the jurisdictional issue is
not whether the riglit was qualified or unqualified, but whether
any further thought had to be given 'to this matter and whether
any determination had to occur. The ".decision of June 28, 1,977
clearly made necessary a further decision on Febum;rry 6, 1979.
Even if the June 1977 resolution had not provided for a review
of the matter it would seem that a decision was necessary on
February 6, 1979 even if that decision wa:; only to determine
whether the right should be asserted. The situation envisioned
by the Appellee would have occurred had the June 28, 1977
decision provided that after 18 months the Appellant would have
LAW OFFICES
NESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
RLINGTON, VERMONT
05402
to undertake actions to rev,;�st title in the City. A provision
of that nature would have had the effect of requiring no decision
at the end of the 18 month period. Such a self-executing
provision would have eliminated any need for further considera?,,�,.
tion and would therefore have terminated the time for filing the
Notice of Appeal thirty (30) days after June 28, 1977.
The situation presented here is somewhat analogous to an
appeal from an amended judgment, or to an appeal from a vacated
judgment in which a new judgment had been entered. In such a
case a party is entitled to appeal the amendment to the judgment
or the no,:w judgment even if the time to appeal. the original
judgment Itself has elapsed. See 9 Moore's Federal Practice,
Paragraph 204.12 [;] n.2. In County of Imperial v The United
Staters, 34-0 F.2d 904 (9 Cir. 1965) the Court stated:
"The mere fact that a Judgment previously entered
has been re-entered or revised in an irunateriil
way does not toll the time within which review must
be sought. Only when the lower Co,,rt changes matters
of substance, or resolves the genuine ambiguity in
a Judgment previously rendered, should the period
within which an appeal must be taken or a petition
for certiorari filed begin to run anew. The test
is a practical one. The question is whether the
lower court, in its second order, has disturbed or
revised legal rights and obligations which, by its
prior judgment, had been plainly and properly
settled with finality"_ F.T.C. v Minneapolis -
Hon well Regulator Co. fl I 7-
It is clear that the February 6, 1979 amendment to the sub-
division final approval changod matters of substance. The legal
r4hts and obligations of the parties have been seriously
1
LAW OFFICES
_VESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
.4LINGTON, VERMONT
05402
effected by the amendment of February 6, 1979 and therefore
the Appellant is entit&,od to appeal the amendment.
The situation here presented is also similar to that
which exists in a divorce action. In a divorce action the Court
retains power to revise the alimony decree. See 15 V.S.A.,
Section 758. In a like manner the Planning Commission here
reserved the power to alter the subdivision final approval. See
February 6, 1979 Minutes. In amdivorce action a right to appeal
arises from any such revision. Jensen v Jensen_, Doc.No. 305-80
(VT, Opinion filed June 2, 1981). Surely a similar right to
appeal must arise from a revision or amendment of a decision of
the Planning Commission.
Accordingly, Appellant's appeal is not foreclosed by
the provisions of Title 24, Sections 4472 & 4475.
II. WHETHER OR NOT APPELLEE'S ORDER THAT
APPELLANT DEDICATE THE STREETS WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL TAKING,
AND IF SO, IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR SUCH TAKING.
The Appellant herein does not dispute that the
municipality -Appellee has the power and right to mandate
compulsary street dedication as a part of its subdivision
approval. Appellant does maintain, however, that in this
instance Appellant has acquired certain "vested rights" that may
now now be taken from Appellant without adequate compensation.
As testified to by both Messrs. Spitz and Szymanski, the
usual procedure is for the developer to dedicate the streets and
-5-
LAW OFFICES
-VESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
1LINGTON, VERMONT
05402
utilities to the municipality upon completion of the streets and
utilities to the acceptance of the municipality. Here, however,
the City agreed that the streets within Meadow Wood at Spear
would remain pilvate for an eighteen (18) month period. During
that eighteen (18) month period, which in fact ultimately turned
out to be twenty (20) months, Appellant incurred substantial
expenses. (See Appellant's Request for Findings of Fact No. 2).
These expenses and expenditures on behalf of Appellant were
above and beyond those monies necessary to have the streets
accepted to the specifications required by the municipality.
Additionally, Appellant has agreed, at his own expense, to
complete the necessary work to be done to have the streets meet
municipal requirements. All of the expenseaW,referred to that
were incurred by Appellant were incurred as a direct result of
the decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission of June
26, 1977. In other words, the expenditures referred to in
Appellant's Request for Findings of Fact No. 2 were made in
total reliance upon t;,e amended subdivision approval of June 28,
1977.
The issue of vested rights has been discussed by the
Vermont Supreme Court in the case of Presault v Wheel, 132 VT 241
That case had to do with the issuance of a building permit and a,
subsequent amendment to the zoning ordinances that made the
project nonconforming. The Court said pages 41.52-253". . . a
-6-
9
LAW OFFICES
NESTER & MALEY
78 FINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
tLINGTON, VERMONT
05402
permittee who has done various acts after obtaining the permit
should not see his efforts automatically deemed worthless when
the municipality ends its zoning ordinances so that his project
is nonconforming. The issue thus, as is so often the case,
becomes one of lino drawing; what acts are essential in order
for a right in a building permit to vest?" See also Town —of
Freedom v Gillespie, 419 A.2d 1090; DeKalb County v Chapel Hill.
Inc. , 205 S.E. 2d 864; Dato v Village of Vernon Hills 233 N.E.
2d 48.
bikdisputedly, the just compensation clause of the Fifth
Amendment, which has been made applicable to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment provides that if Orivate property is
taken for public use there must be just compensation. It is the
position of the Appellant here that required dedication at
this time, after the substantial expenditures made by Appellant,
would amount to a taking without compensation.
Further, Appellant has entered into an agreement with
Dudley Davis and Ray Pecor, Jr. providing that Appellant will
receive four (4) lots in Messrs. Pecor and Davis' planned
subdivison, these lots are to be given in consideration for
conveying to Pecor and Davis road access to their development
from Pheasant Way, as well as hook-ups to the present water and
sewer mains as they exist on Pheasant Way. (Plaintiff's
Exhibit 2). There has been undisputed testimony by Appellant
that the value of those four (4) lots is approximately
-7-
120,000.00. A required dedication at this time would take
from Appellant without compensation the benefit of that bargain
which Appellant has acquired. Such a taking without compensati
would be in violation of Appellant's Fifth Amendment rights.
1lae vested rights doctrine rest on the theory that when
a property owner obtains a lawful building permit (in this
instance subdivisioTA approval) and then commences to build in
good faith and completes substantial construction of the propert
his right to complete and use that structure can not be effected
by any subsequent change of the applicable building or zoning
regulations. See Prince Geese's County v Equitable Trust
Co!!pan_y__,_, Inc. , 408 Atl. 2d 735.
The burden is on the City to show that the individual
property rights or the public health, safety or welfare would
be adversely affected if the streets remained private. Where
was no such evidence produced by the municipality here. To the
contrary, all the ovidence indicated that fire, police or other
emergency vehicles have serviced the development and that all
normal services provided in a residential area are being
provided to Meadow good at Spear.
In conclusion, the conduct between the parties here has
given rise to certain vested rights on behalf of Appellant which
are not now subject to being withdrawn without adequate
compensation.
LAW OFFICES
/ESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
_INGTON, VERMONT
05402
ZZ
Dated this day of February, 1982.
IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
BY: John P. Maley
3O'HN 157- is Attorney --
LAW OFFICES
"JESTER & MALEY
78 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1053
LINGTON, VERMONT
05402
$POKE$, FOLEY
k OBUCHOWSKI
TORNEYS AT LAW
RLINGTON, VERMONT
RECEIVED
FEB - 8 1982
STATE OF VERMONT MAN"ER'$ ®FFIC9
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SSalw 00• BLONJMTQN
In Re: APPEAL OF IRELAND CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT
INDUSTRIES, INC. Docket No. S15-79CnM
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
The appellant in its memorandum of law concedes that the
City of South Burlington may require the dedication of streets
and utilities as a condition of subdivision approval. It now
contends, however, that it acquired vested rights by virtue of
the City Planning Commission's action of June 28, 1977. The
Planning Commission's resolution of that date states as follows:
[It was] moved to accept the private streets with
gatehouse proposed by Ireland Industries or its
successor for a period of eighteen months.
Mr. Ireland shall come back before the Planning
Commission to review the case, at which time the
Commission will have the right to change the
streets from private to public and remove the
gatehouse. The private gate will have to meet
the conditions of the Fire and Police Departments
and other emergency vehicles.
The appellant agrues that it incurred certain expenses in
reliance on the Planning Commission's determination, most of
which were related to the establishment of a gatehouse security
system. During the course of the hearing in this case, the
appellant through its president admitted the gatehouse security
(system had never been activated, and even with Court approval it
is doubtful it ever would be.
The vested rights theory of the appellant is based upon a
temporary approval. The Planning Commission's resolution of
June 28, 1977 clearly stated that it was retaining the right
to review and change its decision at the expiration of a
trial period of eighteen (18) months. In fact, the Planning
Commission exercised its right to change its determination,
and on February 6, 1979 opted to require that the streets be
dedicated to the City and the gatehouse removed.
It cannot be reasonably suggested that the decision of
June 28, 1977 was a final decision. The Planning Commission's
resolution is not ambiguous, and there is nothing contained in
its decision suggesting that the appellant's private streets
would receive final approval. To the contrary, the resolution
offered Ireland Industries, Inc. an eighteen month trial period,
and the developer proceeded at its own risk. With no
assurance of ultimate approval no rights can vest. Washington
Suburban Sanitary Com. v. TKU Associates, 281 Pad. 1, 376 A.2d
505, 516 (1977).
In summary, the appellant had no assurance that it would
receive ultimate approval; to the contrary it merely received
trial approval. Lacking the necessary ingredients of a
vested right, the appellant's theory must fail.
Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 3rd day of February, 1982.
SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI
Attorneys f=--rAppellee
By:AS/ C
Richar A. Spokes
SPOKES. FOLEY
k OSUCHOWSKI
TORNEYS AT LAW
RLINGTON, VERMONT
-2-
� l �
Zre,/67# / Co troth `j a Qr /aq le
/
I Margaret Picard, City Clerk for the City of South Burlington, hereby
certify that the minutes attached hereto are a true copy of the minutes
of the South Burlington Planning Commission's meeting held on July 5,
1977.
Margar t 'icard, City Clerk
i
I "`,nine L. Gadhue, Assistant City Clerk for the City of South Burlington,
here'�)y �-er tif.y that the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, _-zttacht_x:
hereto were lawfully adopted pursuant to the relevant provision of 24 V.S.A.,
Chapter 117, in that the Planning Commission considered said Regulations, that
subsequent to said consideration, the Planning Commission properly warned a public
hearing, which hearing was held on December 23, 1975; thereafter and in a timely
manner the Planning Commission endorsed said Regulations to the City Council 3f
the City of South Burlington, which Council properly warned a public hearing and
held said hearing on May 3, 1976. Said Regulations were finally adopted by
the City Council on May 3rd, 1976 and became effective on May 24, 1976.
Diane L. Gadhue
Assistant City Clerk
I Diane L. Gadhue, Assistant City Clerk for the City of South Burlington,
hereby certify that the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, attached
hereto was lawfully adopted pursuant to the relevant provision of 24 V.S.A.,
Chapter 117, in that the Planning Commission considered said Comprehensive Plan,
that subsequent to said consideration, the Planning Commission properly warned a
public hearing, which hearing was held on June 17, 1980; thereafter and in a
timely manner the Planning Commission endorsed said Comprehensive Plan to the
City Council of the City of South Burlington, which Council properly warned a public
hearing and held said hearing on September 15, 1980. Said Comprehensive Plan
was finally adopted by the City Council on November 17, 1980 'and became effective
upon adoption.
C-11 n_j�lz kz"
Diane L. Gadhue
Assistant City Clerk
SPOKES, FOLEY & 013UCHOWSKIE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE
P. 0. BOX 986
BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402
RICHARD A. SPOKES
(802) 862-6451
JAMES D. FOLEY
(802) 863-2857
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
ISAAC N. P. STOKES
STEVEN F. STITZEL
COUNSEL
January 220 1982
Mr. William Szymanski
City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Ireland Industries, Inc,
Dear Bill:
Enclosed please find the Request for Findings and Memo-
randum of Law we prepared and submitted to the Court.
Very. truly -you S"
Rich 4A. sp_ "_,
RAS/gMt
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Spitz, City Planner
POKES. FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI
ORNEYS AT LAW
-INGTON. VERMONT
STATE OF VER120NT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, ss.
In re:
CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT
APPEAL OF IRELAND
INDUSTRIES, INC. Docket No. S15-79CnM
REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT
OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
NOW COMES the City of South Burlington by and through
its attorneys of record, Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski, and request
the Court to include in its findings of fact and conclusions of
aw the following:
1. The appellant, Ireland Industries, Inc., received
inal subdivision approval from the South Burlington Planning
ommission on February 10, 1976 to develop a residential sub-
ivision on the westerly side of Spear Street to be known as
eadowwood at Spear.
2. Stipulation 5 of the Planning Commission's approval
equired a dedication to the City of the streets in the develop-
t.
3. Subsequently the appellant sought an amendment to the
Planning Commission's subdivision approval which would permit
the streets in the development to remain private and would
further allow the installation of a security gate at the entrance
to the development on Spear Street.
4. On June 23, 1977 the South Burlington Planning
Commission amended its prior subdivision approval by permitting
iPOKEB. FOLEY
. OBUCHOWSKI
'ORNEYS AT LAW
.LINGTON. VERMONT
the streets to remain private for eighteen (18) months and allow-
ing the installation of a gatehouse security system for eighteen
(18) months.
5. The Planning Commission in its amended approval re-
tained the absolute right to change the streets from private to
public and remove the gatehouse after the expiration of eighteen
(18) months.
6. On February 6, 1979 the City Planning Commission
determined that the streets should become public streets, and
further amended the original subdivision approval by requiring
the streets to be dedicated to the City and the gatehouse re-
moved.
7. The appellant partially constructed the gatehouse, but
never implemented the gatehouse security system.
8, Neither the Planning Commission's decision of February
10, 1976 nor its decision of June 28, 1977 were appealed to this
Court pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4475 and §4472.
9. The appellant did appeal the Planning Commission's
decision of February 6, 1979 by filing a notice of appeal and
(requesting a de novo hearing.
10. The original Planning Commission's subdivision
approval also contemplated that the appellant would dedicate the
water and sewer lines within the street rights of way to the
City of South Burlington.
11. The streets within the Meadowwood at Spear development
and the utility systems are still owned by the appellant, and
-2-
SPOKES. FOLEY
is OBUCHOWSK!
TORNEYS AT LAW
4LINGTON, VERMONT
the City has no responsibility to maintain and repair the
streets and utilities.
12. The streets within the development were plowed by
the appellant for two years, but thereafter the City assumed
the plowing responsibilities.
13. It is the City's practice to assume the plowing re-
sponsibilities for new streets which are to be dedicated to it.
14. If the streets in the Meadowwood at Spear develop-
ment remain private, the City will cease plowing the streets,
and the school buses will cease service on the streets.
15. David Spitz, the City's professional Planner, holds
an M.S. Degree in Urban and Regional Planning and an M.A.
Degree in Public Policy Administration from the University of
Wisconsin. He has been the City Planner from November, 1979,
and previously served as the Planner and Zoning Administrator
for the Town of Essex. Mr. Spitz is a member of the American
Planning Society and has attended several courses in regard
to traffic planning.
16. It is the expert opinion of the City Planner, and
this Court finds that if the streets in the Meadowwood at
Spear development remain private, the orderly growth and
coordinated development in that area of South Burlington would
not be assured nor would the comfort, convenience, safety,
health and welfare of the citizens of the City. Thus, the
purposes of the City's subdivision regulations (pg. 1 of
- 3 -
:;POKES, FOLEY
1 OBUCHOWSKI
fORNEYS AT LAW
4LINGTON, VERMONT
defendant's Exhibit G) would be defeated including sub-
sections 4 and 7 of Section 102 of those regulations.
17. If the streets in the meadowwood at Spear develop-
ment remain private, the City does not have the ability to
adequately control the general circulation of traffic in the
area.
18. If the streets in the Meadowwood at Separ develop-
ment remain private, the City's objective of having through
streets in that area will be extremely difficult to imple-
ment.
19. If the streets in the Meadowwood at Separ develop-
ment remain private, more curbcuts or access points along
Spear Street will be needed as further lands are developed.
20. It is the opinion of William Szymanski, the City
Manager and City Engineer, and this Court finds that the
dedication of the streets is necessary to protect the resi-
dents of the development in emergency situations such as
fires, medical emergencies, sewer line blockages and water
line breaks.
21. There is no assurance that the appellant would have
the necessary personnel or equipment to respond to emergency
situations, whereas the City could respond to such situations
on a 24-hour basis. In addition, the City owns, maintains,
and operates sewer cleaners, large snow plows, salters,
sidewalk plowers and street sweepers and such equipment is
- 4 -
9
not ordinarily owned by private individuals or companies.
22. Although the appellant repaired two watermain
breaks in 1978 and 1979, it was necessary for it to hire
qualified assistance from the Shelburne Water Department
to make the necessary connections.
23. If the streets in the Meadowwood at Spear develop-
ment remain private the City would be unable to regulate
traffic, and the customary speed limit ordinances and other
traffic regulations would be inapplicable to the streets.
24. If the streets in the Meadowwood at Spear develop-
ment remain private, the appellant would have the ability to
control development of surrounding properties, and utilize
his ownership of the streets and utilities to exact renumer-
ation from developers of surrounding properties.
25. The appellant would be willing to dedicate the street:
and utilities to the City once Stuart Ireland, its president,
moves from the neighborhood. Thus, this Court finds that one
of the motivating factors of the appellant's desire to retain
ownership of the streets and utility systems is related to mr.
Ireland's residency.
26. The appellant through its present, Stuart Ireland,
conceded the streets and utilities should be dedicated to the
City in the event Ireland Industries, Inc. becomes insolvent
or is dissolved.
POKES, FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI
ORNEYS AT LAW
LINGTON, VERMONT
- 5 -
27. The South Burlington Planning Commission has re-
cently approved a residential development for adjoining pro-
perty to the north of Meadowwood at Spear.
28. The appellant has entered into an agreement with the
developers of this proposed development whereby access to
Pheasant Way will be provided for the development in exchange
for the conveyance of four lots or $100,000.00.
29. The appellant is in a position to gain an additional
amount of money in excess of $100,000.00 when property to the
southwest is developed.
30. The appellant would not have been able to extract
these sums of money from adjoining land owners but for the
fact that it never conveyed the streets and the utilities
in its development to the City pursuant to the original
subdivision approval.
31. The appellant has received a greater return already
from the development of its property as the result of it being
able to subdivide said property into 41 residential lots.
32. The appellant, pursuant to City policy, will be
reimbursed some of its utility construction costs as ad-
joining properties are connected to the water and/or sewer
line systems.
Dated at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and
State of Vermont, this 22nd day of January, 1982.
POKES, FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI
ORNEYS AT LAW
.INGTON, VERMONT r
- G -
SPOKES, FOLEY
& OBUCHOWSKI
rTORNEYS AT LAW
IRLINGTON, VERMONT
SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI
Attorneys for City of
South Burlington
By
Richard A. Spokeb-
7 _
4
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
In Re: APPEAL OF IRELAND CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT
INDUSTRIES, INC. Docket No.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission of the City of South Burlington
granted the appellant in this case, Ireland Industries,
Inc., final subdivision approval for a development known as
Meadowwood at Spear on February 10, 1976. This final ap-
proval required, among other things, dedication of the
streets and utilities in the development to the City of
South Burlington.
Appellant later requested an amendment to allow the
streets to remain private. The amendment was granted with
specific limitions, and the Planning Commission's resolution
of June 28, 1977 read as follows:
[It was] moved to accept the private streets with
gatehouse proposed by Ireland Industries or its
successor for a period of eighteen months.
Mr. Ireland shall come back before the Planning
Commission to review the case, at which time the
Commission will have the right to change the
streets .from private to public and remove the
gatehouse. The private gate will have to meet
the conditions of the Fire and Police Departments
and other emergency vehicles. (emphasis added)
The appellant neither appealed the Planning Commis -
SPOKES, FOLEY sion's original decision of February 10, 1976, nor its
OBUCHOWSKI
'ORNEYS AT LAW
LINOTON, VERMONT
POKES, FOLEY
OHUCHOWSKI
'ORNEYS AT LAW
ANGTON, VERMONT
amended decision of June 28, 1977. Pursuant to its amend-
ment resolution, the Planning Commission determined on
February 6, 1979 that the streets should be dedicated to the
City and the gatehouse removed. The appellant has appealed
this action.
The City's legal position is twofold. First, it con-
tends that Ireland Industries, Inc. is barred from con-
testing the Planning Commission's decision of February 6,
1979. Secondly, the City challenges the appellant's belief
that a required street dedication as a condition of sub-
division approval is constitutionally impermissible.
I. THE APPEAL OF IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC. IS
FORECLOSED BY 24 V.S.A. §S4472 and 4475.
The exclusive remedy for a person aggrieved by the
decision of a Planning Commission is an appeal to Superior
Court. 24 V.S.A. §§4475 and 4472; and Shortel v. Board of
Zoning Adjustment of Rutland, 136 Vt. 202, 203 (1978).
where a person fails to take such an appeal, the statute is
clear that he "... shall not thereafter contest, either
directly or indirectly, such decision or act...". 24 V.S.A.
§4472(d).
The appellant in the instant case did not appeal the
Planning Commission's actions of February 10, 1976 and June
28, 1977. Instead it claims to appeal the Planning Com-
mission's decision of February 6, 1979. That action,
- 2 -
F
SPOKES. FOLEY
k OBUCHOWSKI
TORNEYS AT LAW
tLINGTON. VERMONT
however, was merely the exercise of an unqualified right
which the Planning Commission established as a condition of
its earlier decision. The developer has already consented
to the required dedications by not choosing to appeal the
original subdivision approval and the subsequent amendment.
It is now barred from challenging the Planning Commission's
enforcement of those previous decisions. Gary D. Reihart,
Inc. vs. Township of Carroll, 409 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Pa. 1979).
II. THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL CONDITION OF STREET
DEDICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL
TAKING.
Although not electing to contest earlier determinations
of the City's Planning Commission, the appellant now con-
tends that the street dedication requirement constitutes an
unlawful taking for which it should be compensated. The
appellant's position fails to recognize the objectives and
purposes of municipal subdivision review. The "unlawful
taking" issue raised by the appellant is recognized by most
leading land use law commentators as a nonissue.
"The required dedication of streets, utility facil-
ities and related easements by subdivision developers
has been a traditional part of the subdivision con-
trol process." 7 Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls
45-98.
"It has long been accepted practice to require a sub-
division to dedicate land for streets, without cost
to the municipality, and there is no serious legal
question involved here. As far as streets are con-
cerned, it also widespread practice to require the
subdivider not only to dedicate the land, but also
- 3 -
11
to pave the street, as a prerequisite to approval of
a subdivision." 5 Williams, American Land Planning
Law, Section 156.07
"One of the most frequently applied requirements as a
condition to the approval of subdivisions relates to
the furnishing of rights of way for streets, and to
the grading and paving of streets that are designated
on the subdivision plan... It cannot be said that
the dedication of such land as is necessary to main-
tain uniformity in streets, service and access streets
is an unreasonable prerequisite to the approval of a
plat in a congested area." Yokley, The Law of Sub-
divisions, Section 58(c)
Contrary to what the appellant would like the Court
to believe, the subdivision review process is not a con-
demnation proceeding nor are there similar considerations.
A leading California land use decision disposed of the
eminent domain theory in this fashion:
"The petitioner may not prevail in his contention that,
since the use of the land for the purposes stated was
contemplated in any event, the dedication and use re-
servation requirements in this proceeding are uncon-
stitutional as an exercise of the power of eminent do-
main. A sufficient answer is that the proceeding
here involved is not one in eminent domain nor is the
city seeking to exercise that power. It is the peti-
tioner who is seeking to acquire the advantages of lot
subdivision and upon him rests the duty of compliance
with reasonable conditions for design, dedication, im-
provement and restrictive use of the land so as to con-
form to the safety and general welfare of the lot owners
in the subdivision and of the public." Ayres vs. City
Council of City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207
P.2d 1 (1949).
The commonly accepted rationale for upholding com-
pulsorary subdivision dedications was stated in another
often quoted land use case:
POKES. FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI
ORNEYS AT LAW
LINQTON, VERMONT
- 4 -
"The municipality by approval of a proposed subdivi-
sion plat enables the subdivider to profit financially
by selling the subdivision lots as home building sites
and thus realizing a greater price than could have been
obtained if he had sold his property as unplatted lands.
In return for this benefit the municipality may require
him to dedicate part of his platted land to meet a de-
mand to which the municipality would not have been put
but for the influx of people into the community to
occupy the subdivision lots." Jordan vs. Village of
Menomenee Falls, 137 N.W. 2d 442 Wis. 1966).
More recently, courts have sustained requirements for off
site dedications and exactions as conditions of subdivision
approval. Divan Builders, Inc. vs. Planning Board of
Township of Wayne, 66 N.J. 582, 334 A.2d 30 (1975), Lionel's
Appliance Center Inc. vs. Citta, 156 N.J. Super. 257, 383 A.2d
773 (1978), Arrowhead Development Company vs. Livingston
City Road Commission, 92 Mich. App. 31, 283 N.W.2d 865 (1979),
and Land/Vest properties, Inc. vs. Town of Plainfield, 117
N.H. 817, 379 A.2d 200 (1977). In all of these cases, the
respective courts determined that the dedications and exact-
ions were reasonably necessary to protect the public safety
and welfare.
In the instant case, it would likewise be unreasonable
to argue that the purposes of Vermont's Enabling Act,
Chapter 117 of Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated, would
be promoted if street and utility dedications were not per-
mitted.
POKES, FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI - 5 -
'ORNEYS AT LAW
<LINGTON, VERMONT
i
POKES, FOLEY
OBUCHOWSKI
rORNEYS AT LAW
'LINGTON, VERMONT
24 V.S.A. §4413(a)(2) requires municipal subdivision
regulations to contain design standards for all necessary
public improvements. Section 4417 of the Vermont Planning
and Development Act (24 V.S.A. §4417) permits a Planning
Commission to require streets to be located to facilitate
fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a conven-
ient system properly related to the municipal plan. 24
V.S.A. §4421 states that platted streets shall not be deemed
public until accepted by the legislative body of the muni-
cipality. The sections of the Vermont Planning and Develop-
ment Act cannot be properly implemented without requiring
street and utility dedications.
South Burlington's subdivision regulations would also
be rendered meaningless if dedication requirements were not
permitted. Section 102 of those regulations requires that
the Planning Commission must assure orderly growth and co-
ordinated development within the City. The Commission must
further promote the comfort, convenience, safety, health and
welfare of the City's citizens. Those sections of the sub-
division regulations dealing with the arrangement of streets
and adequate access (Section 401.1(1) and (8) ) would also
be impossible to implement without appropriate dedications.
The desires of the appellant in the instant case are
opposite those of most Vermont developers. In order to
- 6 -
3POKEB, FOLEY
e OBUCHOWSKI
rORNEY6 AT LAW
rLiNGTON, VERMONT
exact monies from subdividers of adjoining properties, Ireland
Industries, Inc. is willing to carry the maintenance, repair
and plowing burdens of street ownership. Apparently it is
also willing to pay taxes on the streets and assume all lia-
bility risks. "The common practice is for the subdivider
to dedicate to the municipality the land which will be used
for street and highway purposes. This has the dual advantage,
assuming acceptance by the municipality, of giving the public
the land without cost and relieving the subdivider of tax
and other liabilities relating to the land." 4 Anderson,
American Law of Zoning 2d, Section 23.32.
The condemnation theory of the appellant has already
been thoroughly reviewed and rejected by many courts. In
the context of local subdivision review, required street and
utility dedications are necessary to promote the public
safety and welfare. It is not legally necessary for a
municipality to undertake eminent domain proceedings in
order to assume its responsibilities in regard to public
improvements installed in new subdivision and developments.
Dated at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and
State of Vermont, this 22nd day of January, 1982.
SPOKES, FOLEY & OUBUCHOWSKI
Attorneys for City of
South Burlington
j
By:
Ri and A. Spokes
- 7 -
i
June 30, 177
:.x. Stuart Ireland
Ireland Industries, ±nc.
100 Grove Street
3ur1_ngton, Vermont 05401
Re: Security System and Private Roads for i.:eadowood at Spear
Deer :.r. irelz�nd:
This is to f, rmally confirm the action of tine South
purlinnt:;n Plana=n� Com.-Assion at its meeting of June 2E,
1977, in a,-.rroving your amended access plan for i.:eado-v:oA
at Spear as originally approved.
Prior to issuing any :lore building perr:its in this
dev:=lorment� the revised layout plan for the entrance,
including details of a manual override for the gate latch-
ing system, must be approved•b,/ the City Manager, Gnce the
layout has been approved, it must be recorded with the City
Clerk as an amendment to the recently recorded plat for the
entire project.
The plan you have submitted does not reflect agreements
reached at or prior to the Planning Commission meeting; hovr-
ever, it should be a simple matter to resolve - I will be in
touc:: w1th Dick Trudell on this.
Phase call if you have any questions.
�P/ncg
Yours truly,
Stephen Page
planning Assistant
If
February 17, 10,76
Mr. Stuart D. Ireland
Ireland Industries
100 Grove Street
rurlington, VT 05401
Dear Mr. Ireland:
Please consi--3er this a formal notification that the
"Y-adowood at Spear" final subdivision olan has been
approved by the South rurlington Planning Commission,
subject to the following conditions:
1) that sidewalks are to be installed on at least
one side of all proposed str=ets and that all
sidewalks are to be ramped at intersections;
2) that an opinion shall be requested from the
City Attorney as to Vnether the City should
negotiate a contract to permanently secure the
proposed recreational area as open space and
that such contract or other Appropriate legal
document will be approved by the City Attorney
before bulldin^ permits can be issued;
3) trees shall be provided 'or lots without trees
in an amount equivalent to the requirements
in 6ection 701 0" the South Burlington Sub-
division Regulations;
4) that a performance bond stall be posted in
accordance with the requirements of the Cit.,
South ?'urlinrgton in an amcunt to be set by the
City Mana Ter;
5) that deeds for streets anc' easements and other
conveyances to the :'ity shall be vrapared and
submitted prior to the issuance o' any building;
permits and that deeds for conveyance to the
City shall be accepted prior to release of
performance bonds or portions thereof;
Mr. Stuart D. Ireland
Page 2
February 17, 1976
�) that certification by the surveyor, precise bearings
and distances, error of closure, on the final
plan is to to submitted to and approved by the
City Manager;
7) that the second item under the Comments on the
Final Plan submitted by Stephen Page shall be
included as a requirement of the developer;
F) that the requirements for sewers, drainage, and
street construction outlined in the memorandum
from "r . William Szymanski slated February 10, 1976,
shall be followed with the additional stipulation
that the requirements for the drainage pipes out-
lined for lots 21 and 25 may be renegotiated to
provide for the installation of riprap to break
up the flow; and
9) the qu,stion regarding the extension o' the
water nair_ across the `'rontage of ?:r. Stuart
Ireland's property- on Spear Street shall he
settles? ',-.y 14r . *i!illiam Szymanski according to
existing City policy.
Also, please keep in mind that we will need certain
documents prior to the issuance of any building permits,
i.e., executed Howland deed, a final plat reflecting the
stipulations o`.' the approval, deeds for streets and
easements, etc.
Yours truly,
Stephen Page
Planning- Assistant
City of South Durlington
SP/j
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
Re: Meadowood, Stuart D. Ireland
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Date: February 10, 1976
WATER:
1. Spear Street water main must be extended across frontage
of developer's land.
2. Plastic service on Spear Street should be located and
shown on plans.
3. Water main extension agreement must be signed before
construction.
SEWERS: '
1. Manholes at bends should be relocated so that they are
within street where possible.
2. Sewer intersecting National Life Road must have a manhole.
3. The sewer easement profile must be graded so that manholes
are accessible to maintenance equipment.
DRAINAGE:
1. The question as to who will maintain under -drain system
must be resolved. It should not be the city.
2. Inlets should be relocated so that they are not in the
path of sidewalks.
3. Drainage pipes outletting on lots (21 & 25) should be
extended to at least the rear lot lines. Easements for these drainage
pipes should be provided.
4. 'Additional drainage inlets should be provided'in cul-da-sac. .
5. Concrete pipe shall conform to applicable A.S.T.M. specifi-
cations with certified test results furnished the city.
F r
Page 2
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1976
RE: MEADOWOOD, STUART D. IRELAND
STREETS:
1. Roadway base shall include a 6 inch sand cushion
conforming to state specifications.
2. Sidewalks must be ramped at intersections.
3. Streets shall be named.
4. Project construction shall be constructed under the
supervision of a registered engineer and certified by him as to
compliance with plans.
w
William J. Szymanski, City Manager
�J J
waC,c, 2 L ,4,vj 1� "71i/P-
7`f'¢--
17
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
JOHN M. DINSE ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FREDERIC W. ALLEN 186 COLLEGE STREET
ROBERT H. ERDMANN
MICHAEL B. CLAPP BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
ROBERT C. ROESLER
JAMES H.WICK January 19, 1979
SPENCER R. KNAPP
BARBARA E. CORY
South Burlington Planning Commission
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Meadowood At Spear
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE
AREA 802-864-5751
HILTON A.WICK
OF COUNSEL
On behalf of Ireland Industries, we wish to express our
appreciation for your granting to us an opportunity to offer
a response to the statements made by some of the residents
of Meadowood At Spear at your last meeting and present our
position in writing concerning the roads in that subdivision.
It is the hope of Ireland Industries that the roads in the
subdivision can remain private. At a minimum, we would wish
to continue what has been referred to as an eighteen month
experiment for another five years. Hopefully, you will see
fit to declare the roads private indefinitely.
Across the country, it has been shown repeatedly that
homes located in private areas or areas on private streets
maintain their property values and/or increase their property
values much better than homes in more open areas. The more
exclusive the development is, the higher the value of the
property. Ireland Industries and/or the Homeowners Association
is committed to the maintenance of the roads in Meadowood At
Spear. Further, the corporation or the Homeowners hope to reach
agreement with the City and the School Board concerning plowing
and school bus pick-up. Plowing will be done, if necessary, by
Ireland Industries.
The Homeowners met with Mr. Ireland on Monday, the 15th
of January. The discussion was fruitful and many concerns were
answered. A straw vote at the end of the meeting revealed that
24 Homeowners were in favor of keeping the streets private and
10 were opposed.
Ireland Industries, therefore, requests that the Planning
LAW OFFICES OF
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
Commission declare the streets in Meadowood At Spear private.
I will attend your meeting on Tuesday to answer any questions
that may arise at that time. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
DINSE, ALLEN & ERDMANN
I r"t'4-- C" . ,
Robert C. Roesler
cjd
SPOKES F6 OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O.BOX 2325
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
RICHARD A. SPOKES 1775 WILLISTON ROAD
IOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI January 23, 1979 TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857
South Burlington Planning Commission
Municipal Offices
1175 Williston Road
So. Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Private Streets
Gentlemen:
It seems timely for me to express my reservations concerning
the City's practice of plowing certain private roads and
streets. I was alarmed to learn that South Burlington is
plowing the streets in the Meadowwood at Spear Development.
There are two compelling reasons why the City should not under-
take to voluntarily plow or maintain private streets. First,
from a legal standpoint, South Burlington has no right to per-
form this work without a specific written easement from the
owner of the streets. Secondly, I am concerned with the City's
liability exposure if this practice continues. Without a legal
easement, there is a question whether South Burlington's in-
surance coverages would be applicable. Even if coverage were
available, the City would be encouraging potential law suits.
In most instances private streets and roads are not con-
structed or maintained to City standards and thus the repair
and maintenance work is more difficult to perform. If the City
occasionally participates with the private street owners in plow
and maintenance work, the entire responsibility for such work
could be imputed to the City. Obviously if the City has the
entire legal responsibility for maintenance, its liability
exposure increases.
I would strongly recommend that we discontinue the practice
of plowing private streets. I am aware of the inconveniences
this may cause some South Burlington residents, but on the
other hand it may save South Burlington considerable aggrevation
and expense in the future. I should also advise you that my
South Burlington Planning Commission Page 2
office represents some of the residents in Meadowwood at Spear
in their personal legal work, but we have not been consulted, nor
could we, on the private versus public street issue.
Very truly yours,
Richard A. Spokes
RAS/ccb
cc: William Szymanski
LJ/ 31
iz¢, 39v
ZZ
_g
7401
l ��
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS402
LOUIS LISMAN
BERNARD LISMAN
ROBERT E. MANCHESTER
CARL H. LISMAN
ALLEN D. WEBSTER
Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
City Hall
Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont
Gentlemen:
September 27, 1978
MEADOWWOOD AT SPEAR
602-064-07E6
We have been retained by substantially all of the residents
at Meadowwood at Spear to request that the Commission, pursuant
to the powers reserved by it in its June 28, 1977 meeting, to
require the developer to assure that the streets in the
subdivision satisfy City standards and to require that the
developer convey those streets,together with appurtenant
easements, to the City, as well as to remove the gatehouse.
We are enclosing, for the records of the Commission, a
petition, signed by 16 of the landowners in support of
termination of the private status of the roads.
Of course, conveyance of the roads to the City, without
conveyance at the same time of the water and sewer lines, would
be most counter productive and, on behalf of the residents, we
request that the Commission require conveyances of those
properties as well as the roads.
I am prepared to appear before tijo Commission, at such
time as it may direct, in suppoX:of this application, as are
substantially all of the resident,�,of the subdivision.
Ve y tr l yo rs,
r
Carl H. Lisman
CHL:ces
cc: Mr. Stuart Ireland
Ireland Construction Company
100 Grove Street
Burlington, Vermont
Page -2-
Planning Commission
September 26, 1978
cc: Robert Roesler, Esq.
Dinse, Allen & Erdmann
186 College Street
Burlington, Vermont
Mr. Stephen Page
Planner
City Hall
South Burlington, Vermont
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Sid
From: Steve
Re: Petition of Meadowood at Spear homeowners to dedicate private
streets to the City
Date: 10/13/78
I have received a petition signed by the majority of the
homeowner"Os in this development, who are apparently dissatisfied
with Ireland's maintainence of the roads and utilities, and would
like the City to assume these responsibilities.
Since the granting of this request involves the voluntary
participation of Mr. Ireland, the City is basically powerless to
compel him to do anything, until this December 26 (by stipulation
of a previous P.C. approval).
In the interim, I have checked with Dick Spokes, Ino agrees
there is nothing we can force him to do at the moment, although
I have asked Ireland if he would come in to discuss this, of his
own accord (no response to date, and I expect none).
The reason for the memo is that I promised one of the home-
owners I would inform you of the situation. The only alternative
I can conjure up is for the Commission to meet with the homeowners,
nod sympathetically, and hope that another letter or adverse publicity
might convigf'nce Ireland to come in sooner than 12/26 (sooner is better
than later in this case because in December, the asphalt plants will
have closed for the winter, and it will be impossible for the streets
to be accepted until another season has passed),