The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSD-83-0000 - Supplemental - 0911 Dorset Streetfence corner 06 LD old stone pi le �0 N - 50,, ti s r1°zo', ° 16A0'58" I I I XI I X 1 X , '1 9 1 �o 1'1 O O ° — PARCEL 28 AREA=3.252 Ai 1 AUGUST 1978 9, ��3os S 56023'29 W 009 Q 0 0 r� 81055'07" E4 161 ..,......,.,...... ZO%66' 22 Ci( .. 32s po fl 3 13 PARCEL 2A�= AREA=2.034 Acres c JUNE 1978 N6, o p2423°102� SE o x C b 2351313" Tennis 1 courts I Pool Area Recreation Building- rkl 1q N '116 ° 33 54 111001641' 0 It �N 100 31'; .03 N 8°35'30" 85.00 45,' Phase 1 AREA 13.289 Acres Q 26014 12CZ - 104°02'10" 635.00 i — — -- --- N 81024'3 "ll: swift stree 120 60 0 120 240 360 1i METHODIST CHURCH VOL- 66 PG. 415 W-V a 0 N (D j 60t R i�0O 188.1 O co N 8035'30' p 0�ti o S I I°42'46 W N M 150.00 0 :res rL 00 21.10 �I M oOIM OBI �rO �v\ Z 167 02'40" R=170' R=401 0� 0-94° A=220 M y T=183.92 7=77.9 24 � It O� �/ 67 ° °�rl.�� 5611 00j,�7 248050'04' PARCEL 2C o AREA 3.459 Acres / o M Sr• R=207� t 1978 `� u� R=147' P / �N A=90° A=1000 — / O a` 'i (T=14698 T=246.68 ca ^ 0. 410_ p D' ' I certify that the boundary line information for this parcel has been calculated from an accurate ground control Survey, and is wholly within land owned by Ridgewood Estates Development Inc. to the hest of my knowledge and !nter- prr;tf t ion. Fred C. Koerner C.E. Road Information from Site Plan �g . "f S� 1 270000' �102013'51" 77046'09 O- ~ i S 40o20 W 360.00' m. m Y S9031'00"E UTILITIES - KEY 1013 32"1 34.00 4 SANITARY SEWER— --x-- - x-- -- STORM SEWER ----------------------- WATER 0 0`,�� 010 c'7; M °' � PHASE I LIMIT ------------------ 2 SEWER EASEMENT t owm 61 ° t 480 0 �0 I certify,to tr,e test of my knowledge, that the pro.ect has been constructed and installed entirely on the land iden- tified as Phase 0r,e, Ridgewood Estates, plus sewer eas- ments, and covered by the FHA Insured mortgage,and within the building restriction lines if any on said land,and does not overhang or encroach upon any easement or right of way of others. March 29,1978 Registered Surveyor Dote Boundary line information for Phase I calculated by Fred C. Koerner, C. E. November 1976 RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER SURVEY, PHASE I LIMITS, AND CITY UTILITIES SOUTH BURLI NGTON. VT R 3' P ase 2 Boundaries May 1978 perimeter survey — — — N (, phase I limits 8' city utilities - — NOV State of Vermont SUBDIVISION PERMIT Case #: EC-4-2028 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED PIN : EJ96-0707 Environmental Protection Rules Applicant: Indian Creek Condominium Effective August 8, 1996 Association Address: 911 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 This project, consisting of a one lot subdivision identified as Phase V, a 2.77 acre lot, on which is situated condominium units 51 through 60 previously approved in Certification of Compliance 4CO161-8 located off Dorset Street 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 4C0161. GENERAL 1. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans Project Number 8246, Sheet 1 of 1 "Phase V - Lot Plan" dated Sept. 1986 prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Associates 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. 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 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. 3. Each prospective purchaser of the lot shall be shown a copy of the approved plot plan and this Subdivision Permit prior to conveyance of the lot. 4. All conditions set forth in Certification of Compliances #4C0161 and 4C0161-8 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. Subdivision Permit EC-4-2028 Page 2 5. This project has been reviewed and is approved with the existing condominium units 51 through 60. No other buildings are allowed without prior review and approval by the Agency, and such approval will not be granted unless the proposal conforms to the applicable laws and regulations. No alterations to the buildings that would change or affect the exterior water supply or sewage disposal, or the approved use of the building shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Natural Resources. 6. 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 this 2nd day of December, 1996. William C. Brierley, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By • rnest P. Christianson Regional Engineer c For the Record South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington Selectboard Act 250 Coordinator -Louis Borie Water Supply Division FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. Wick & Maddocks, Attorney at Law l State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist November 7, 1996 Indian Creek Condominium Association 911 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 AGENCY OF NA' Department of Environmental Consen-ation Wastewater Management Division Essex Junction Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 0?452 (802) 879-6563 Subject: EC-4-2028, Indian Creek Condos -- Permit 2.77A parcel developed under Phase V mun w/s located on Dorset Street in South Burlington, Vermont Dear Applicant: We have received your application and fee paid by check # 1610 on October 25, 1996, which begins the 30 day in-house performance standards for our review. If we require further information from you to make a decision, the time until we receive it is not included in the in-house performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within thz 30 in-house days, please contact this office at (802) 879-6563. We have forwarded your application to the Information Specialist, who will send you a Project Review Sheet indicating other state departments you should contact about additional permits you may need. If you have not already done so, you should also check with town officials about any necessary town permits. PLEASE SUBMIT A SECOND PLAN FOR THE ABOVE APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS REQUIRE 2 SETS OF ALL PLANS BEFORE REVIEW CAN PROCEED. Sincerely, Ir ne L. Roberge Administrative Secretary City of South Burlington Planning Commission Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115, ROUTE 100 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496.3277 September 28, 1982 David H. Spitz, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Letter of 8/17/82 to John Osgood Dear David: The paving can not occur until the connection of the utilities is accomplished. The connection of the utilities can not be accomplished until economic factors allow for the cluster of buildings to which the connection is made is commenced. The thru-connection is correct and will be accomplished in the near future. Please contact me directly if this letter is not sufficient or if we need to modify our approach. Congratulations, I hope you find your new status enjoyable. Very truly yours, P t i r S. S del PSS/bds MCNEIL, MURRAY & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 111 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 JOSEPH C.McNE1L (1919.1978) JOSEPH E. MCNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY WILLIAM H. SORRELL MARSHA J. SMITH ROBERT E. FLETCHER, JR. RICHARD C. WHITTLESEY JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN October 6, 1982 David Spitz, Planner So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Connecting Road Between Ridgewood and Indian Creek Dear Mr. Spitz: TELEPHONES 863.4531 862-8989 AREA CODE 802 Please be advised that I represent Ridgewood in this matter. It is the position of my clients that any connecting road between the two developments will be for "emergency only" vehicles. They understand through prior discussions with you that the Planning Commission is of the view that this road must remain open to "all through traffic". My clients' position is that the Ridgewood road is their private property; and that since the original Planning Commission approval which created the road now in existence, circumstances have substantially changed. The third phase of the Ridgewood development never occurred and the position of the second phase which would have created this connecting road never occurred. Instead, the developer transferred the remaining undeveloped second phase portion of the Ridgewood development to the Ridgewood property owners. My clients feel that there is no longer any legal basis for the City to demand the existence of a through road between Indian Creek and Ridgewood. Nor is there any good public policy reason to warrant it. During the brief period that the present partially con- structed connecting road was open, residents witnessed an increase in both the volume and speed of local traffic using their road as a short cut to avoid the corner of Swift and Dorset Streets. Since many of Ridgewood's elderly and young residents use this road to walk upon; and since the City never required the developer to construct sidewalks and allowed it to construct narrow, poorly David Spitz, Planner October 6, 1982 Page 2 surfaced roads, my client feels that their exists a heavier public policy reason to keep the through road closed to public traffic. They are also aware that the residents at Tree Top have been permitted to do this. As I mentioned above, they have no objection to its use for emergency vehicles. I understand that the fire chief also has no such objections, and that you have a copy of his letter to that effect. I am interested in resolving this matter as quickly as possible. Please inform me of the City's position concerning this matter. If you feel it is necessary for me to appear before the Planning Commission on my clients' behalf to explain their position, I would be glad to do so. Please be advised, however, that my client does not intend to open this temporary road. And further, if necessary, my client is prepared to litigate this issue. I believe that our legal position is sound; and I am con- fident that your employer and the City's attorney will also concur once you have explained our position to them. My clients are not personally involved in this matter; but are intent on taking whatever necessary reasonable steps to protect their safety and welfare. It is their sincere hope that this matter can be resolved without further difficulty. If the City, after receiving, its attorney, determines that our has no objection to it, could you position in a letter to me. FXM/ jhm cc: Sidney Poger, Chairman William Szymanski, Manager Richard A. Spokes, Esq. I would hope, the advice of position is acceptable and it or your attorney formalize this Respectfully yours, Francis X. Murray on another portion of the property. A lesser option would be reduced building envelopes on these 2 lots and a buffer area in which trees could not be removed. Storm drainage also will have to be reviewed carefully. 4) Village Green Apartments Proposal is for 30 carports to serve 30 existing apartment units. There will be almost no change in current circulation patterns and surfaced areas, and all carports will be on the opposite side of the driveway from the units. The Zoning Board recently granted 2 dimensional variances, 1 for a side - yard and 1 from a minor stream. This is a fairly straightforward application, and I see no problems. 5) Ridgew d` In response to the attached letter from Attorney Francis Murray, the status of the Ridgewood street connection is being scheduled for your review. The history of this issue will be explained more fully at the meeting. However, it should be noted that the road was a definite part of the Commission's thinking in both the original and revised approvals. The issue has been compounded by the complete separation of the Ridgewood and "Indian Creek" developments. One of the concerns, road maintenance, can be more fully explored in a forthcoming subdivision application for Indian Creek. One comment on Attorney Murray's statement: "And further, if necessary my client is prepared to litigate this issue." The Commission should consider arguments of reason and not be swayed by threats of suit. The City, also, is prepared to litigate this issue, if necessary. 6) Other Business See attached letter from Doug Schner. This matter will require extension of site plan approval. You must decide whether to grant an extension on your own or whether he should re -present the application. M E M O R A N D U M To: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Indian Creek Date: 10/13/82 The Planning Commission has requested that a formal letter be sent to you indicating that no additional permits should be issued to Indian Creek until the subdivision matter is resolved. October 13, 1982 Peter Sigel P.O. Box 115, Route 100 Waitsfield, Vermont 05673 Dear Peter, The South Burlington Planning Commission is concerned with issues related to the separation of the Indian Creek development from Ridgewood Estates. They feel it is imperative to resolve these road -maintenance and other issues in the context of a subdivision hearing. They also have a:' -iced Richard Ward that no additional permits should be issued until the subdivision action takes place. A hearing will be schedules? for Tuesday, November 23, 1982. Prior to November 3, you must submit a subdivision application along with survey maps showing the new boundary line. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David ii. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg cc: John Osgood M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 12/30/82 2) Indian Creek There has apparently been no change in the various parties' position concerning the through -road between Indian Creek and Ridgewood Estates (see enclosed). Also, there have been no changes in the proposed boundary line between the two developments. The Indian Creek developers would like to make one minor change by adding extra living space to the end units of some of the buildings. This should be no problem as long as all required setbacks and distances -between buildings are maintained. 3) Brady The Zoning Board has granted a multiple use variance to allow erection of two buildings on a site already occupied by a small office building and several storage/light industrial buildings. The two new buildings were relocated from the Barnes property (residential) next to the airport terminal. The applicant's intention is. to use the buildings for small offices, but he has also asked for and received approval to allow limited residential use if the office space can not be rented. The applicant has requested two access points because of topography and landscaping reasons. However, the site has some definite site distance limit- ations, and I cannot support the request for two entrances. It would be better to close the existing entrance and move it part way up the hill. Proposed number of parking spaces is adequate. However, parking areas must not interfere with location of septic systems. Proposed landscaping in the front of the property is adequate. The existing storage/industrial uses are to the rear of the property and should be screened. A fence is indicated but may have to be extended to the other side of the driveway. 4) Budget See enclosure. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering & Planning Services The Kiln - Brickyard Road ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 Phone 878.3000 TO WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints &-- lans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ LEETTEEQ OF `l�G°3 US U�"71 779L DATE JOB NO. ATTENTIOPJ RE: the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ff-for your use s requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARK SS ' .• ii�� COPY TO -AA -It VAN 601 G N' SIGNED: P. v, &o�jC 11 °� �Nf�iT�=1,r•1d� aSG�'7 3 PRODUCT240.2 s Inc, smtm. Ws mail. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. DHS 11/23/82 MOT10N OF APPROVAL For the application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan for final plat approval of the subdivision of the Indian Creek development from the balance of Ridgewood Estates as indicated on a plan entitled "Ridgewood Estates," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, stamped November 15, 1982: Stipulations: 1) A revised final plat showing the surveyed boundaries of the Indian Creek and Ridgewood parcels shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner. Buildings, utilities, and roads do not need to appear on the final plat for recording. 2) Legal documents, pertaining to within Indian Creek and connecting mitted to and approved by the City plat. use and maintenance of all private streets Indian Creek to Ridgewood, shall be sub - Attorney prior to recording of the final 3) The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law November3, 1982 David Spitz South Burlington Planner South Burlington, Vermont Re: Indian Creek Subdivision Dear David: I have enclosed an application on behalf Savings & Loan Association. I have also map which accurately depicts the boundary Creek and Ridgewood. P.O. BOX 115, ROUTE 100 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496-3277 of Vermont Federal enclosed the only line between Indian Relative to the so-called "connector road" I have a meeting with Ed Smith in the very near future to discuss the mutual concerns of the City of South Burlington and the property owners. It is my understanding that with respect to maintaince, there will be an agreement which will make clear the mutual responsbilities and place obligations respectively. As to the concerns of through traffic, we propose to construct speed bumps. I cannot say that this will be acceptable, but it appears as though Ed Smith and myself will be able to approach the City with a reasonable solution. As soon as I meet with Ed Smith, I will contact you to indicate the direction we are taking. Thank you for your help. ery truly 2. PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1983 Public hearing, preliminary plat application, 57 lot subdivision of Mr. Homer Dubois, Hinesburg Road Mr. Trudell said the existing 12" main at the edge of the Mitel property would be extended to provide water for this development off Hinesburg Road. Sewer lines will be put in to the pump station on the Mitel site. The portion of the site nearest Hinesburg Road will be the housing development under discussion now. Behind that is a wooded area, which is lower and wet. Behind that area is land left for an agricultural area and a corridor to tie various areas together to facilitate agricultural use. The plan also shows an area being considered for future multi -family use. There are no plans for that area right now. Mr. Trudell said one cul-de-sac had been left in the road layout - the access for the future multi -family area will be through that point. There will be a pump station on a small lot near the cul-de-sac. Some of the lots will have gravity flow north to south, where the pump station will pick up the flow and pump it back south to north toward the Mitel pump station. Water lines inside the development will be 10", to serve any future development of the area. Drainage will go toward the low area behind the housing lots. Mr. Arthur Toutant said he lived on Hinesburg Road adjacent to this area. He owns 7 112 acres and runs a bird farm there. He said that there is almost no percolation in the area, and that for 3 to 4 weeks in the spring the runoff is very heavy. Mr. Trudell said that they would take another look at that. Mr. Toutant said he also wanted to go on record as stating that he had a lot of birds and that at certain times of the year they were very noisy. His 30-40 peacocks make a lot of noise early in the morning during mating season. He said he was planning to raise 5,000 turkeys as well, and that having so many birds produces a lot of manure. It was noted that the agricultural use was grandfathered, but if Mr. Toutant sells any of his land, he will be in violation of the zoning requiring a minimum acreage for this type of use. Mr. Trudell said all the engineering items had been cleared up, but that they would update the plans and bring them back in. It was noted that it might be in the developer's best interests to create a buffer between the house lots and Mr. Toutant's farm. Mrs. Maher moved to continue consideration of the preliminary plat application of Mr Homer Dubois to the next regularly scheduled meeting, on December 27, 1983 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye. Consider request of Attorney Peter Sidel to close off the access road between Indian Creek and Ridgewood Estates Mr. 'oger noted that when Ridgewood was approved originally, the Commission had wanted a road to run from Dorset St. to Swift St. When Ridgewood was _split into two developments, the Commission was asked to have the access road closed, but they refused-_. 0W they are being asked a sin. 'Ir. Sidel said that in e early 1970's the Commission minutes note a concern (� f\ about a through road in this development. --Ier sRid it was designed with curves to _low traffic and make it safer. Mr. Sidel said the Indian Creek homeowners had met recently and had agreed with the Ridgewood owners that they would like the access between the two closed. This would promote harmony between the two areas. The residents feel that there is quite a bit of traffic during the day over the road and that the speed of cars has increased, perhaps because there are no homes near a portion of the road. Children are also using this open area for a play area. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1983 Mr. Sidel said the access road, once improved, could be blocked off in a couple of ways - with a break -away lock, or with plastic pipe across the road. Both of these suggestions are contained in Mr. Sidel's 12/6/83 letter to the Commission. He also stated that he felt one of the two associations should be responsible for maintaining the through road, that there be an agreement on that with the city, and that there be a bond posted. Mr. Sidel said the Fire Chief had told him he had no concerns about blocking the road, except for how it would be maintained. Mr. Poger read the letter from the Chief regarding this proposal, which he felt said that the Chief did not want the road blocked. Mr. Sidel said that if the plan he had put forth did not work, it could be dismantled and that would be an end to it. Mr. Poger noted that conditional approvals by the Planning Commission had riot worked out well in the past. Mr. Poger asked if anyone on the Commission wished to make a motion on this request. Hearing no one, he assumed that no one wanted to have the road closed, and was told that was correct. Continued hearing on Bourdeau-Rye property, 28 unit planned unit developplent, Mr. Gerald Milot and Mr. Daniel O'Brien Mr. Milot said they had met with the City Manager -Engineer and had incorporated the changes he wanted to the plans. Mr. Milot said they would put in a length of sidewalk equal to the frontage of the lot. They can start it at the corner of Kennedy Drive, if the Commission wants, but Mr. Milot asked who would build the walk to the far side of their lot if they do start at the corner. The person who builds to the south of this lot will have to start his sidewalk on the lot in question here. He also pointed out that the area near the corner needed some more fill before a sidewalk could be built on it. It was decided that the sidewalk should be in front of this lot. Mr. Milot said when he got the bid for the walk, he could take it to the City Manager, because it might make sense for the city to build the walk to the corner at the same time. Mr. Milot said Mr. O'Brien had met with the Georgetown people, who had felt that there would be no benefit to them to have an emergency access between the two properties. He said, however, that this property could provide access to the property line. That way, if Georgetown residents did decide in the future that it would benefit them,it would be possible to put in such an access. The Fire Chief's letter on this plan was discussed. He does not want to have to back his trucks out of the project if there is a fire. i,Ir. Milot said there was not enough room on the lot to lay out the project as the Chief' wants it. The Commission felt the Chief should come talk to them about the plan. Mr. Jacob moved to continue the public hearing on the Bourdeau-Rye _property for two weeks, until December 27, 1983 at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Consider request for one year extension of Grandview ..,r. Lyn Palin represented Grandview. He was asked the cost of the units, which are supposed to be low-cost. He said they were $43,900 with appliances and an off-peak and storage electric heating system. Mrs. Maher moved to grant the one .year extension and Mr. Jacob seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Krassner felt there had been an erosion problem on the site in past years and it was decided that Mr. Ward would look into that. 3. PLAJNIk1G COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1982 the plan of record. 2. This approval expires in 6 months. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Discussion of requirements for through -street connection for Ridgewood Estates and "Indian Creek" Mr. Spitz showed the original plan for the property. That development went bankrupt and another developer picked it up and requested a redesign of the area. He noted that the "Indian Creek" area was now under separate land ownership and that a subdivision was needed for that. That subdivision had never been presented to this body. Mr. Ed Smith said he was president of the Ridgewood Homeowner's Association. They have been told they are in violation of the original plan for -not putting the road through. As far as they are concerned, that connection would be between two private developments. Mr. Poger noted that approval was given for the entire area as a single development and that until the road was put through as originally planned, they were in violation. Mr. Smith said the Indian Creek area was in separate ownership. The Vermont Federal Bank developed it separately and transferred 12 Ridgewood units to their third phase. Mr. Poger said the Commission was never asked for a subdivision. Mr. Smith said the bank had wanted to keep the two areas separate and they told Ridgewood residents that the connecting road would be for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Poger said they had had no right to make such a statement. Mr. Smith said the road was put in this summer and had been a disaster. There were a lot of cars using it to get from Dorset St. to Swift St., avoiding the corner. He felt the original plan had called for a private drive serving one property, but now there would be an unnecessary connection between two private areas. Ridgewood wants the road closed to all but emergency vehicles and had a petition to that effect. Mr. Frank Murray added that Ridgewood was concerned about privacy and safety with the increased traffic on the roads. Maintenance is also a concern. With the separation, there are fewer units to help absorb road maintenance costs. The road is not well lit and there are no sidewalks. Young children and elderly people walk in the area. Mr. Lee Liggett said he was Vice President of the Ridgewood Association. He noted that his Association had jurisdiction over phases 1 and 2 of the original design, but that phase 3 was now under someone else as a separate legal entity. He felt the road in question had probably served a practical purpose in the original plan, but now, with two separate entities, it made no sense to tie them together. Ridgewood agrees it needs an access for emergency vehicles, but that is all it wants. Mr. Demer noted that the road was not paved, but Mr. Spitz said the Indian Creek developer would have to pave it after some utilities were put in. Mr. i=oger felt that with the subdivision coming in after the buildings went up, this was a piecemeal a,;proach. He also noted that the city usually reviewed Articles of Association and that any major changes to those articles should be reviewed by the city, after notification of the changes by the association. He was disturbed by what had happened here. Mr. '„`oolery added that there should be an overall association for the whole project. He did not like the fact that the project had apparently splintered into two groups without the city knowing about it. He was afraid of what would happen if the association said it could no longer maintain the roads by itself. The city would not step in. If condominium associations like this started to splinter all over the city, they would become like individual homes and any association 4. PLANNING COMMISSION UCTOBER 12, 1982 would be lost. He felt that how this situation was handled would set a precedent for others in the city. Mr. Poger felt the road question might be better decided after the subdivision question was settled, and Hr. bona agreed. Mr. Woolery noted that there was one condominium project in the city with separate associationp, but those associations were all under one umbrella association, which set assessments for roads, lighting, etc. Mr. Spitz noted that the request to modify the plan had come in from Carl Creedan, out of Waitsfield, represented by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates and the plan had said "Ridgewood Estates phase 3". Mr. Leggitt said the developer had not represented Ridgewood Estates. :ors. Maher noted that when Ridgewood had come before the Commission 8 years ago, they had dealt with the entire thing, not just phases 1 and 2. If they had, what is now built might have been totally different. Mr. Poger suggested that no certificates of occupancy be issued until this was all straightened out. Mr. Mona moved to send a formal letter to the Zoning Administrator asking him to withhold further certificates of occupancy from Ridgewood Phase III, also known as Indian Creek. Mr. Woolery seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Woolery felt the developers should come before the Commission, that the board should look at the Articles of Association and that the Planner should review the original application and any additions or amendments to it. He also wanted to see the original stipulations, so the board could review why it wanted that road, and he suggested that the Planner discuss the situation with the City Attorney. Mr. Huetz said the Indian Creek area might turn out to be totally different from the Ridgewood area. Mrs. Huetz said that with the loss of phase 3 of the project, the road in question was no longer needed by Ridgewood. She said the road ran close to a playground for children of the development. Mr. Leggitt asked about the violation notice and was told it would stand, but no further action would be taken until something more happens at the Commission level. Mr. Mona noted that the Fire Chief was an advisor to the Commission, but that they sometimes went against him, so his letter regarding an emergency access carried no legal weight as far as the road system as required. It was decided to discuss this further on November 23. Other business Mr. Spitz said that next week the Commission would review City Council changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Woolery suggested going through the entire list and marking those items the Commission agreed to and those it did not, but saving all discussion until after they had been through the list that first time. This was agreed. Mr. Woolery asked about the Letourneau application for the Zoning Board's next meeting. He asked whether turning the building into a church would remove it from the tax rolls. Mr. Spitz will check on that. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Clerk 1/4/82 MOTION OF APPROVAL For the application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan for final plat approval of the subdivision of the Indian Creek development from the balance of Ridgewood Estates as indicated on a plan entitled "Ridgewood Estates," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, stamped November 15, 1982: Stipulations: 1) A revised final plat showing the surveyed boundaries of the Indian Creek and Ridgewood parcels shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner. 2) Additions to some end units may be permitted as long as all required distances between buildings and setbacks from property lines and reserved easements are maintained. The additions shall be drawn to scale on the revised final plat and shall be approved by the City Planner. 3) Legal documents, pertaining to use and maintenance of all private streets within Indian Creek and connecting Indian Creek to Ridgewood, shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recording of the final plat. 4) The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION OCTJEER 12, 19,32 the plan of record. 2. This approval expires in 6 months. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Discussion of requirements for through -street connection for Ridgewood Estates and "Indian Creek" Mr. Spitz showed the original plan for the property. That development went bankrupt and another developer picked it up and requested a redesign of the area. He noted that the "Indian Creek" area was now under separate land ownership and that a subdivision was needed for that. That subdivision had never been presented to this body. . l`r-'.- Ed Smith said he was president of the Ridgewood Homeowner's Association. They have been told they are in violation of the original plan for not putting the road through. As far as they are concerned, that connection would be between two private developments. Mr. Poger noted that approval was given for the entire area as a single development and that until the road was put through as originally planned, they were in violation. "Ir. Smith said the Indian Creek area was in separate ownership. The Vermont Federal Bank developed it separately and transferred 12 Ridgewood units to their third phase. Mr. Poger said the Commission was never asked for a subdivision. Mr. Smith said the bank had wanted to keep, the two areas separate and they told Ridgewood residents that the connecting road would be for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Poger said they had had no right to make such a statement. 1Ir. Smith said the road was put in this summer and had been a disaster. There were a lot of cars using it to get from Dorset St. to Swift St., avoiding the corner. He felt the original plan had called for a private drive serving one property, but now there would be an unnecessary connection between two private areas. Ridgewood wants the road closed to all but emergency vehicles and had a petition to that effect. Mr. Frank Murray added that Ridgewood was concerned about i:rivacy and safety with the increased traffic on the roads. illaintenance is also a concern. With the separation, there are fewer units to help absorb road maintenance costs. The road is not well lit and there are no sidewalks. Young children and elderly people walk in the area. Mr. Lee Liggett said tie was Vice President of the Ridgewood Association. He noted that his Association had jurisdiction over phases 1 and 2 of the original design, but that phase 3 was now under someone else as a separate legal entity. He felt the road in question had probably served a practical purpose in the original plan, but now, with two separate entities, it made no sense to tie them together. Ridgewood agrees it needs an access for emergency vehicles, but that is all it wants. Mr. Demer noted that the road was not paved, but i,ir. Spitz said the Indian Creek developer would have to pave it after some utilities were put in. Mr. Poger felt that with the subdivision coming; in after the buildinC;3 went up, this was a piecemeal approach. He also noted that the city usually reviewed Articles of Association and that any major changes to those articles should be reviewed by the city, after notification of the changes by the association. He was disturbed by what had happened here. Mr. 'n'oolery added that there should be an overall association for the whole project. He did not like the fact that the project had apparently splintered into two groups without the city knowing about it. He was afraid of what would happen if the association said it could no longer maintain the roads by itself. The city would not step in. If condominium associations like this started to splinter all over the city, they would become like individual homes and any association 4. PLANNING COMMISSION UCTOBER 12, 1982 would be lost. He felt that how this situation was handled would set a precedent for others in the city. Mr. Poger felt the road question might be better decided after the subdivision question was settled, and Mr. Mona agreed. Mr. Woolery noted that there was one condominium project in the city with separate association$, but those associations were all under one umbrella association, which set assessments for roads, lighting, etc. Mr. Spitz noted that the request to modify the plan had come in from Carl Creedan, out of Waitsfield, represented by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates and the plan had said "Ridgewood Estates phase 3". Mr. Leggitt said the developer had not represented Ridgewood Estates. Mrs. Maher noted that when Ridgewood had come before the Commission 8 years ago, they had dealt with the entire thing, not just phases 1 and 2. If they had,.what is now built might have been totally different. Mr. Poger suggested that no certificates of occupancy be issued until this was all straightened out. Mr. Mona moved to send a formal letter to the Zoning Administrator asking him to withhold further certificates of occupancy from Ridgewood Phase III, also known as Indian Creek. Mr. Woolery seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Woolery felt the developers should come before the Commission, that the board should look at the Articles of Association and that the Planner should review the original application and any additions or amendments to it. He also wanted to see the original stipulations, so the board could review why it wanted that road, and he suggested that the Planner discuss the situation with the City Attorney. Mr. Huetz said the Indian Creek area might turn out to be totally different from the Ridgewood area. Mrs. Huetz said that with the loss of phase 3 of the project, the road in question was no longer needed by Ridgewood. She said the road ran close to a playground for children of the development. Mr. Leggitt asked about the violation notice and was told it would stand, but no further action would be taken until something more happens at the Commission level. Mr. Mona noted that the Fire Chief was an advisor to the Commission, but that they sometimes went against him, so his letter regarding an emergency access carried no legal weight as far as the road system as required. It was decided to discuss this further on November 23. Other business Mr. Spitz said that next week the Commission would review City Council changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Woolery suggested going through the entire list and marking those items the Commission agreed to and those it did not, but saving all discussion until after they had been through the list that first time. This was agreed. Mr. Woolery asked about the Letourneau application for the Zoning Board's next meeting. He asked whether turning the building into a church would remove it from the tax rolls. Mr. Spitz will check on that. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Clerk PAGE 2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 1982 Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission grant approval for the site plan application by the City of Burlington, Vermont for a mobile operations office for People's Express at the Burlington International Airport as indicated in red and dated 11/23/82 on a portion of a 1982 master plan for the terminal area, with the following stipulations: 1. This approval is valid until January 1985. Continued use of the mobile office after that time shall be subject to new site plan approval. 2. Burlington International Airport will be'allowed to temporarily utilize the Barnes property with the understanding that they will present a formal plan by mid February 1983 and that no parking will be allowed after August 1, 1983 without further approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Woolery arrived at this point. There was some discussion about the proper length of time for the approval of the People's Express office. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion and all voted in favor with Mr. Woolery abstaining. Final plat application._ for 16dian Creek Develo mont Savings and Loan Association for subdivision and the balance of Ridgewood Estates Mr. Poger pointed out that a memo from the City Planner, a letter from the Fire Chief, a letter from the City Attorney, and a petition from several Ridgewood residents had been submitted. Mr. Spitz said that two issues were involved: subdivision of Indian Creek itself and the status of the connecting road between the two developments. Concerning the subdivision, no change in layout of units is proposed. This is only the creation of a boundary line between the two developments. He further noted that most condiminium developments contain an umbrella association. However, when a subdivision takes place there has to be some agreement among the parties involved as to who will maintain the private roads. The City should ask for legal documents explaining how the road will be used and maintained. The first issue, though, is to consider the Ridgwood residents' request to change the existing requirement that the connecting road be kept open. Mr. Poger asked whether a stipulation for screening of the storage area has been carried out yet. Mr. Spitz replied that that still must be done. Mr. Martineau asked if the subdivision would allow construction of additional units on either property. He was told that no additional dwellings could be built under existing densities regardless of the amount of acreage on either parcel after the boundary line was drawn. Mr. Woolery asked how separate homeowner's associations would maintain the private road. Mr. Spitz replied that a maintenance agreement should be submitted to the City for review prior to recording of the final plat. It would also be a good idea to get easements in favor of each development over the common portion of the road. Mr. Sidel representing Vermont Federal Savings and Loan, said they have no particular preference as to whether the connecting road remains open. However, in fairness to the Ridgewood residents he felt he should support their request to close the road. In response to Mr. Poger, Mr. Siderapologized for not having brought the subdivision request in earlier. He said that the lack of application has been his oversight. However, concerning alleged misrepresentations, there had been a lot of different discussions and what the Planning Commission had heard Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVFMBER 23, 1982 may not be exactly what had taken place. Mr. Nona noted that there had been some discussion about whether the indicated boundary line would be the final one. Mr. Sidel responded that this was the line that they were seeking approval for and any change to that would come back to the Planning Commission for permission. Mr. Mona said that if a rearrangement of the line takes place that it be subject to the city planner's discretion as to whether it must come back or not. Mr. Liggett, Vice President of the Homeowner's Association of Ridgewood asked that the issue of the road barricade be tabled until a later meeting because there seem to be a number of issues within the Homeowner's Association that need to be cleared up. He said they would like to come before the Planning Commission with at least a majority position and therefore they request at least a 30 day delay. Mr. Mona questioned whether there would be any new information in another 30 days. Mrs. Maher moved that the final plat application by the Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association be continued until January 4, 1983 at City Hall at 7:30 P.M. Nir. Jacob seconded with six voting in favor and Mr. Nona voting against. Continuation of review of Dorset Street Traffic Study Mr. Spitz said that he had just received additional information from Mr. Oppenlander on Saturday trip generation rates to allow comparision between the three developers. A few other items of information must still be submitted. Mr. Spitz compared the Dorset Street study to the earlier triangle area report prepared by Bruce Houghton's firm. The earlier report contained some very major improvements and was a bit of a wish list. The projections in that report were very high. For example, it assumed that such areas as Corporate Circle would be 80% developed within ten years at a 30% coverage with two stories. He said that although this was the maximum allowed by zoning, most developments can not approach that coverage because of parking and other requirements. The current report focuses in on Dorset Street and is a refinement of the earlier report. Mrs. Maher asked what the specific differences on Dorset Street were between the two reports. Mr. Spitz responded that the earlier report included 3 left turning.lanes at the Dorset/Williston intersection and several additional lanes at the Dorset/Kennedy intersection. It did not address recommended number of lanes for Dorset Street. Mr. Poger added that the earlier report also suggested two connections from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road lining up with two entrances to University Mall. Mr. Jacob also pointed out that there had been two connections in the Houghton report. Mr. Spitz noted that there were 'right-of-way problems with one of the connections between Dorset and Hinesburg Road. As a result, the new study was done with only one connection to see if that was sufficient to handle the flow of traffic through the area. Mr. Nona asked if Mr. Oppelander could explain why the proposed on -ramp from Kennedy Drive to Intersection 89 didn't seem to have much effect. Mrs. Maher asked that the assumptions be explained. Mr. Oppenlander said that since no origin and destination study was available they had to put together their own logic based on a recent Vermont Agency of Transportation Traffic count at interchange number 14. They determined that 320 of the traffic passing through that intersection was entering the interstate during afternoon peak hours. After determing that per- centage, the critical location comes back to Kennedy Drive because those are the only vehicles that can get off to go to the Interstate. The affected movements are the east approach on Kennedy Drive and the south approach on Dorset Street. In determining number of cars that could use the ramp, only non -development traffic is F-1 K , 61.,1,,-(5, �,k March 9, 1983 Attorney Peter Sidell Valley Professional Center Waitsfield, Vermont 05673 Dear Peter, At its March 8, 1983 meeting the South Burlington Planning Colimission agreed to extend the expiration date for your Indian Creek development until March 8, 1985. You must plan to obtain all building permits Lefore that date. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mco Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496.3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON Date: March 9, 1983 To: David H. Spitz Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Subject: Re: Sewer Extension Dear David: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN Thank you for your recomendation last night concerning the sewer extension. I am glad it went so smoothly. I noted when I was there that the extension went from March 11, 1983. If this is correct please indicate by notation on the bottom of this letter. Thanks again. Very truly yours, Peter S. Sidel cc: David Gaylord John Osgood P&e-c Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496-3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON February 18, 1983 David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Extension fc rCInd ian Cr eek�) Dear David: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN In accordance with the letter which you sent me on February 11, 1983, Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association finds it necessary to request a hearing tot an extension. The project consists of 59 units. Eleven units have been built. Of the 48 remaining units, I anticipate that I will have a building permit for 13 more units by March 8th. We would request that the Commission give us as long an extension as they feel is reasonable, although we have every intent to continue to build as fast as the market can absorb the units. Thank you very much. r ruly yours, Peter S. Sidel, Esq. PSS:bw cc: John H. Osgood David Gaylord STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. In re: EXISTENCE OF AN OPEN CONNECTING CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT ROAD BETWEEN RIDGEWOOD ESTATES Docket No. AND INDIAN CREEK DEVELOPMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO APPELLANT The City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski, requests the appellant in this action to produce for inspection and copying at the offices of Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski, 184 South Winooski Avenue, Burlington, Vermont, on March 15, 1983 at 9:30 A.M. the following items: 1. Minutes of the meetings of the members of Ridgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. or its board of directors listed in the appel- lant's responses to interrogatories 6 and 8 propounded to the appellant on this date. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this llth day of February, 1983 cc: Francis X. Murray, Esq. SPOKES. FOLEY & OSUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW XURLINOTON. V[RMONT By: SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI Attorneys for the City of South Burlington Richard A. Spokes 6 Charleston Green Ridgewood Estates South Burlington, Vermont, 05401 September 17, 1982 Mr. Spitz City Planning Commission City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont, 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: As you were made aware during your recent meeting with Charles Bates and Duncan Case, the Board of Directors of Ridgewood Homeowners Association (Ridgewood Estates) voted on August 10, 1982 to close the connecting road between our development and Indian Creek to all but Emergency Vehicles. fie wish to emphasize that these are now two separately owned and administered developments, which is a change in the original concept as proposed by the Ridgewood developers. Our intentions in voting to close this access road to our property are for reasons of safety and security. Attached is a letter from the Chiefof the South Burlington Fire Department expressing his views on the road. You indicated during your meeting with Mr. Bates and Mr. Case that there were some documents signed by the original developers of Ridgewood pertaining to this roadway. We would ask that you supply us with copies of any such documents you possess concerning this access road. 4e most sincerely thank you for the personal time you have given to this matter. t ged"711P EDMUND SMITHX-17 President - Ridgewood Homeowners JES:mjs encl. August 13, 1982 John Geise 5 Chelmsford Green South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Geise, In response to your recent inquiry, the connection between Ridgewood Estates and the new development known as "Indian Creek" is a part of the South Burlington Planning Commission's require- ments for both projects. The Planning Commiss6on's philosophy has always been that there should be two entrances to this development to allow for proper traffic circulation, fire protection, etc. Because of the layout *4.,internal Ridgewood roads I do not expect that this connection would generate much through traffic. Any barrier across this new road would be a violation of the South Burlington Planning Commission's approval for the development. Even though these are private streets, we still must set out those conditions that are deemed necessary to protect the safety of South Burlington residents; and we can not condone circumvention of those conditions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg MCNEIL, MURRAY h SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I l ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: EXISTENCE OF AN ) OPEN CONNECTING ROAD ) BETWEEN RIDGEWOOD ESTATES and ) INDIAN CREEK DEVELOPMENTS ) CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Ridgewood Estates Home- owners' Association, Inc., of South Burlington, Vermont, appeals the final judgment of the South Burlington Planning Commission made on January 4, 1983, concerning the existence of an open connecting road between Ridgewood Estates and the Indian Creek Developments in South Burlington to the Superior Court in Chittenden County. Said land is located in the northeast quadrant of Ridgewood Estates near, but northwest of the intersection of Dorset and Swift Streets in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. Appellant, by and through its attorney, alleges that the Planning Commission of the City of South Burlington is without jurisdiction and lawful authority to require the existence of the so-called connecting road, without lawful authority to enter upon the private property of Ridgewood Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc., and furthermore assuming that it has such jurisdiction and lawful authority, it abused its discretion at its January 4, 1983, meeting by refusing to take action to eliminate the requirement that such an open connecting road exist between the two developments. Appellant further asserts that it has maintained and continues to maintain that the Planning Commission of the City of South Burlington has no jurisdiction or lawful authority to require the existence of such an open road. Furthermore, appellant does not waive this legal position by filing this appeal from the action and inaction of the South Burlington Planning Commission on and after January 4, 1983, concerning said road. Furthermore, Appeallant as part of this appeal, petitions the Chittenden Superior Court for a judgment declaring that the City of South Burlington by its Planning Commission has no legal authority to require the existence of an open connecting road between the Ridgewood and Indian Creek Developments and seeks other appropriate equitable relief necessary to effectuate said judgment. Furthermore, Appellant requests the right to jury trial concerning appropriate jury issues presented by the present appeal and on such issues, actions and prayers for relief which develop in the future from this appeal. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 3 4 day of February, 1983. MCNEIL, MURRAY h SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I I I ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 RIDGEWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Francis X. Murray, Esq. Attorney for Appellant SPOKE*. FOLEY & 0MUCHOW*KI ATTORNEY* AT LAW OURLINOTON, V[RMONT STATE OF VERMONT RECEIVED COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. FEB 16 1983 In re: EXISTENCE OF AN OPEN CONNECTING MA�►AGER'S OFfi1Cff CITY SO, PURLINGr ROAD BETWEEN RIDGEWOOD ESTATES CHITTENDEN SUPERI� COURT AND INDIAN CREEK DEVELOPMENTS Docket No. FIRST INTERROGATORIES OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON TO APPELLANT NOW COMES the City of South Burlington by and through its attorneys, Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski, and propounds the following interrogatories to the appellant, RIDGEWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., to be answered under oath by any officer or agent of the appellant: 1. State your name, present address and your position with the appellant, Ridgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. 2. State whether or not before answering the remainder of these interrogatories you have made such inquiry of the employees, agents, attorney recordkeepers and members of the appellant and have referred to such docu- ments, correspondence, memoranda, minutes, and other records in the posses- sion of the appellant as have enabled you to make full, complete and true answers to the following interrogatories. 3. On what date was Ridgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. chartered by the State of Vermont. 4. State the names and addresses of all persons who were, or are, directors and/or officers of the appellant during the period of January 1, 1981 to the present date including the position each person held, the date each person assumed office and the date each person left office or the date on which his or her term will expire. S. State the names and addresses of all members of Ridgewood Estates I SroKas. FOL[Y & OSUCHOWSKI ATTORNKYO AT LAW DURLINOTON, VKKMONT Homeowners Association, Inc. as of January 4, 1983 and the date each acquired) title to their respective properties in the Ridgewood Estates Development, so-called. 6. Set forth the dates of all meetings held by the members of the appellant between January 1, 1981 and the present date at which Phase III of the Ridgewood Development and/or the connecting road between Ridgewood Estates and the. Indian Creek Developments were discussed. 7. For each meeting date included in your answer to the preceding question state the names and addresses of all members in attendance at such meeting. 8. Set forth the dates of all meetings held by the directors of the appellant between January 1, 1981 and the present date at which Phase III of the Ridgewood Development and/or the connecting road between Ridgewood Estates and the Indian Creek Developments were discussed. 9. For each meeting date included in your answer to number 8 state the names and addresses of all directors in attendance at such meetings. 10. State whether the appellant, or any of its individual members, appeared at hearings conducted by the City of South Burlington Planning Commission regarding a revised final plat application for Phase III of the Ridgewood Development filed with the Planning Commission on or about August 4, 1981. 11. State whether the appellant, or any of its individual members, appealed to the Chittenden Superior Court the decision of the City of South Burlington Planning Commission of September 8, 1981 approving a revised final plat application for Phase III of the Ridgewood Development. y -2- SPOKKs. FoLay & OSUCHOWSKI ATTORNKYS AT LAW mURLINYTON. Y[RMONT 12. State the reasons why the organization feels it qualifies as an "interested party" under 24 V.S.A. §4464(b). 13. Set forth the date on which the appellant's notice of appeal in this action was served on the secretary of the City of South Burlington Planning Commission and by whom such service was perfected. 14. Identify by name and address each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at the hearing of this matter. 15 16. State the subject matter on which each exert is expected to testift. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testidy. 17. Summarize the grounds for each opinion. 18. What is the name and address of each person whom you expect to call as a nonexpert witness at the hearing in this cause. 19. State the grounds for your position, and the facts you intend to rely on in supporting your position that the Planning Commission of the City of South Burlington is without jurisdiction and lawful authority to require the existence of the so-called connecting road. 20. State the grounds for your position, and the facts you intend to rely on in supporting your position that the City of South Burlington Plan- ning Commission abused its discretion at its January 4, 1983 meeting by refusing to take action to eliminate the requirement that an open connecting road exist between Ridgewood Estates and the Indian Creek Developments. APPELLANT IS REMINDED OF THE CONTINUING DUTY TO SUPPLEMENT RESPONSES TO THESE INTERROGATORIES AS IS REQUIRED BY V.R.C.P. 26(e). Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this llth day of February, 1983. By: SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI Attorneys for City of South Burlington Richard A. Spokes cc: Francis X. Murray, Esq. -3- RECEIVED FEB 16 1983 STATE OF VERMONT MANAGER'S OFVICE COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. CITY SO. BURLINGTON In re: EXISTENCE OF AN OPEN CONNECTING CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT ROAD BETWEEN RIDGEWOOD ESTATES ' . Docket No. AND INDIAN CREEK DEVELOPMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO APPELLANT The City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Spokes, Foley & Ubuchowski, requests the appellant in this action to produce for inspection and copying at the offices of Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski, 184 South Winooski Avenue, Burlington, Vermont, on March 15, 1983 at 9:30 A.M. the following items: 1. Minutes of the meetings of the members of Ridgewood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. or its board of directors listed in the appel- lant's responses to interrogatories 6 and 8 propounded to the appellant on this date. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this llth day of February, 1983 cc: Francis X. Murray, Esq. SroK[s. FOLEY & OBUC.MOWSKI ArrORN[YG AT LAW SURLINGTON, VKRNONT By: SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI Attorneys for the City of South Burlington Richard A. Spokes PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 1983 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 4, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; George Mona, Kirk Woolery, Peter Jacob, Mary -Barbara Maher, John Belter, Judy Hurd Others Present David Spitz, Planner; Don Melvin, Free Press; Ethel Harris, Susan & John Geise, Barry Carris, Peter Sidel, J. Edmund Smith, F. Duncan Case, Monica Smith, Mary Anne Murray, Judy Huetz, Bruce Mozhdehi, John Crotty, George Brady Minutes of December 14, 1982 Mrs. Maher moved to approve the December 14, 1982 minutes and Mr. Jacob seconded the motion, which carried with Mrs. Hurd abstaining. Mr. Poger welcomed Mrs. Hurd to the Commission. Mrs. Maher asked that the Chairman send a letter of thanks to Robert Walsh for his services on the board. Continuation of final plat application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association Peter Sidel, agent for subdivision of the Indian Creek Development from the balance of Ridgewood Estates Mr. Spitz noted that on some of the units, the applicant would now like to add dens to the living space. This will have to be an amendment to the final plat. There are 59 units and the dens will be added on about 12. Mr. Poger noted that the Ridgewood owners had made their position known in a December 29 letter with a petition attached (copy on file with Planner). Mrs. Murray asked whether there would be a swimming pool in the Indian Creek area and Mr. Sidel said he believed there would be, but did not know for sure. There is no guarantee of a pool in the paperwork he has done for the project. Mr. Poger noted that if the pool was not on the plan now, it would not be allowed without approval of the Commission at a later date. Mr. Poger asked if there were any obligations left on Ridgewood which had not been fulfilled, as a result of the original proposal, but Mr. Spitz did not think there were any problems of that kind. It was noted that Ridgewood had proposed a swimming pool, which has been built. No pool was ever proposed in the area now under consideration for subdivision. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission was considering a subdivision of this property into two separate pieces. He stated that the development as a whole was at its maximum density and that there could never be any more units added to either side. The issue, he said, was the status of the road - should it be open or closed. Mr. Spitz said the interior roads would be private, but the Economou land next to the proposed Indian Creek had poor access to Dorset.St., so a right of way over a corner of the Indian Creek property will be left. Thus, if Economou wants to have access to Dorset Street over Indian Creek land, he will have to build that portion of the road to city standards, but the right of way will be available. Mrs. Murray was concerned about the addition of those possible units on the Economou land in the future, feeling it would add more traffic on Ridgewood roads. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4. 1983 Mr. Mona said he appreciated the Fire Chief's comments on the road, as he appreciated the concerns of the Ridgewood residents, but he felt that nothing had changed as a result of the two parts of the development being separated. Mr. Woolery was concerned that Ridgewood land would drain onto Indian Creek land. He wanted both,parties to be aware of that so they could have some sort of joint maintenance if it were needed. He thought it was possible boundary lines might have to be changed later. Mrs. Monica Smith felt that if the subdivision took place, it would be a major change in the original plan. She felt the connecting road had originally been planned to allow phase 3 homeowners access to the tennis courts. Now they will have their own, so the road is no longer needed. She said Ridgewood did not want the burden of maintaining that section of road and she said the residents wanted security and privacy. Mrs. Maher noted that during her former tenure on the Commission, this development had been discussed and at that time the road was not laid out as it is only for access to the tennis courts. She said it had been discussed in detail and was laid out this way to provide for safety and convenience. She felt the road as proposed was for the greater good of the citizens of South Burlington as well as the Ridgewood owners. She did not think separate ownership was a good reason to close that road now. Mr. Duncan Case asked about having only an emergency access there, but Mr. Poger noted that the road system was located where it is to allow residents of either section to have access to both Swift Street and Dorset St. He added that it has been the city's experience that such emergency accesses do not work. When there is snow on the ground, they sometimes are inaccessible. He also noted that, if the Commission wished the road to remain open, it would ask for a maintenance agreement to be worked out between Indian Creek and Ridgewood and the city would be a party to it. Mr. Poger did not feel that this simple subdivision would substantially change the development, so he saw no reason to change the circulation pattern. Mr. Belter noted that if this were a new proposal, two entrances would be required and he noted that the Commission has been asking owners of adjoining property to combine entrances, so even if these areas were coming in for approval from scratch, the Commission would be requesting two entrances. Mr. Woolery felt the way this entire thing had happened had been unusual - he was not sure he wanted to see a subdivision at all. He added, however, that he felt the original layout had been followed, so the new and old plans were almost identical. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan for final plat approval of the subdivision of the Indian Creek development formerly phase 3 of Ridgewood Estates from the balance of Ridgewood Estates as indicated on a plan entitled "Ridgewood Estates," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, stamped November 15, 1982, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A revised final plat showing the surveyed boundaries of the Indian Creek and Ridgewood parcels shall be submitted to and approved by the Citv Planner. 2. Additions to some end units may be permitted as long as all required distances between buildings and setbacks from property lines and reserved easements are maintained. The additions shall be drawn to scale on the revised final plat and shall be approved by the City Planner. 3• Legal documents, pertaining to use and maintenance of all private streets within Indian Creek and connecting Indian Creek to Ridgewood, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recording of the final plat. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 1983 4. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. Poger asked what would happen if the documents in #3 were not submitted and Mr. Spitz said the subdivision would be invalid. Mr. Poger noted that the motion did not refer to opening the road between the two areas, which is now closed, but Mr. Spitz said that unless the Commission took action to close the road, it would stand unchanged, which is open. He noted that the road had been closed in violation and that the city had decided not to take any action, pending this Commission action, but that road is to remain open. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission did not take lightly its responsibility for listening to and following the dictates of the residents of the city when they are consistent with the best planning of the city as a whole. He said they did not lightly ignore resident petitions. On the other hand, they do not lightly ignore the history of what the Commission laid out here in the past and the reasons for it. The motion carried with 6 yes votes and an abstention, from Mrs. Hurd. Mr. Case felt the petition had been ignored, but Mr. Poger felt that the Commission had listened to the concerns of the residents and had made a hard choice. Site plan application by George Brady for erection of two buildings for office and/or residential use at 1240 Airport Parkway Mr. Spitz said the Zoning Board had approved this plan for office uses, with the ability to have up to 2 residential units, if necessary. Mr. Brady expects he will not have to have the two residential units. There are industrial units to the rear of the property and there will be a fence between the areas. Mr. Spitz noted that sight distance in this area was not too good. Mr. Brady has permission from the airport to do some grading on airport land to improve visibility. It is about 130' from his proposed entrance to the airport boundary. Mr. Brady said that in the future he would like to add a building beyond the proposed parking lot at the end of the proposed new entrance. Mr. Poger was concerned that another building might be added between the new entrance proposed and the airport boundary line, which could block visibility. He did not think that would be good. Mr. Woolery was concerned about traffic eventually having access to Shamrock Road, but was told that is zoned residential, so it is unlikely. Mr. Brady had shown two accesses to the land. The City Manager/Engineer and City Planner both recommend only one. Mr. Brady said there was a problem with ledge on the property and he noted that to allow a truck enough room to get onto the side, he would have to have such a large radius that it would cut down his plantings in front. Mr. Spitz explained where he felt there could be one combined entrance, between the two shown on the plan. He felt that with the poor sight distance in this area, one entrance would be better than two. Mr. Belter felt that trucks trying to get into the site would have problems coming down that hill and turning into the property. They will have to come down the hill because they cannot come from the other direction due to the weight limitation on the Limekiln bridge. He noted that getting out of the site and going up the hill would be difficult and trucks would probably pull out very slowly. Mr. Poger suggested a single access now with the possibility of a second one later. Two accesses did not bother Mrs. Maher. Mr. Woolery did not like two entrances, but felt that because of the change in grade on the site, plus the low traffic volume, two would be all right in this case. December 10, 1982 Peter Sidel P.C. Lax 115, P,oute 100 Waitsf ield, Ven,3ont 05673 Lear Peter, We need a street naire and numferinq system for the Indian Creek Oevelogient. How about Indian Creek Drive? Please verify and work out condoudnium numLers with Richard Ward. Sincetty, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mca SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WIN005KI AVENUE P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0986 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL February 8, 1983 Peter S. Sidel, Esq. P. 0. 115 Waitsfield, Vermont 05673 Re: Indian Creek - South Burlington Dear Peter: (602) 862-6451 (B02) 803-2867 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL Enclosed please find an Agreement and Waiver form. I would suggest you prepare a similar document. This would pertain to the connector road as well as all other private roads within the Indian Creek development. Paragraph 5 should specify who has the maintenance and repair responsibilities. It also should have some language to the effect that the connector road will be kept open and accessible at all times. I am enclosing an artistic sketch depicting what we understand the connector road to be. The road is highlighted in yellow. The dotted line is the boundary between Ridgewood and Indian Creek. As you can see, we are under the impression that a portion of the connector road is located on Ridgewood property. You indicated in our telephone conversation of February 4th that this was not the case. Perhaps you could drop me a line and verify the title situa- tion. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spoke s//,k RAS:mil Enclosures cc: David Spitz City Planner METHODIST CHURCH VOL- 66 PG. 415 - 11 I. P. °phl� 0 0 D, �p I C% c" O 60tR.0. W. s181__v'i'OL _ ` t 250' 1 � _24 30 W 363.0 � 0 To //P ( 188.14 T� O ^� 0 �O /co N 8035'30' W n p 0 0 0 C` 0 I S I I°4? 4(6 W N cres 150.00 0 ' 151 00 R �_ f c'F � 31 90 ti 21.Id 135° 26 51 011 • �� ' �� f o �Oti_• s 16 7 p ' 2 40 A, 2 R=170' R=401 ;•pQ� A= 940 A=22024 K3 p T=183.92 -=77.9 0 3 49, • n`L 0 V �0 ^ „E 3' C'10°21,18 248050'04'' / PARCEL 2CLL AREA 3.459 Acres / o ro 1978 `\ u) R=147' �Pt R=207' �N 0=900 A=1000 - / O r r T =146.98 T= 246.68 (p l / D- 2 M , ►o''w a° I I;Z11 0 0 0 o M Z ' I h� 1� ti 270000' 10201 77°46'09 476;41' -- S-g►�O�t'OOt' W- .-- 3'51�� Off' l�0 i I I I I I I I I i I certify that the boundary line information for this parcel has been calculated from an accurate grai„nu control purvey, and is wholly within land owned by Ridgewood Estates Development Inc. to the test of my knowledge and ,nter- pr(,t!. I Lon. , Fred C. Koerner C.E. Road Information from Site Plan "'N' EZ kS 4Q OO W 360.00' IItW �S903l'OO"E UTILITIES - KEY 30013 32" 34.00 ----_ -- .54 SANITARY SEWER— - --x- STORM SEWER ----------------------- WATER PHASE I LIMIT ------------------ SEWER EASEMENT I certify,to tre best of my knowledge, that the protect has been constructed and installed entirely on the land Iden- tified as Phase One, Ridgewood Estates, plus sewer eas- ments, and covered by the FHA Insured mortgage,and within the building restriction Imes if any on said land,and does not overhang or encroach upon any easement or right of -way of others. March 29,1978 Registered Surveyor Date Boundary line information for Phase I calculated by Fred C. Koerner, C. E. November 1976 RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT I PERIMETER SURVEY, PHASE I LIMITS, AND CITY UTILITIES SOUTH BURLI NGTON. VT 1 ECONOMOU FARMS S � fence corner 06, LZ — old stone pile - - - --- — — - ----_�t-- - - — / �- -- -- �j° 509.90' _N / /j I - 1 x� 1 w 00 �11 t M 0 Pi m Al Al S 560231291 w C09 9913'59" N o O Q G� N 84 O N 81055'07" E 37 �,J 3 34 N 10°3159 Vf ►��` O 93 9.03—+I % (S5 °.�g ��3„ /-------e PARCE 1650058 —-- ` 1 AREA-_ 4 1 ` JUNE I� � Y p rn41 sr �a) O 8CO ° 036��-- 2351313" � o 5-� 1 s 52Qyg Phase l0116 ° 33 54 Courts i Pool Area AREA 13. wW 'O� O Recreation .�� r Building 00 ° , 11 U o 1 , 41 --- -- - --g. Q S,8°r8'4g S T 260014' 12" © +� 174.49 N N77°0808E j Lp- 104°02'10" - 1174 28' 635.00' -- N 81024'-30-' swi ft stree Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802.496.3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON Date: May 25, 1983 To: David Spitz City of South Burlington City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT. 05401 Subject: Ridgewood Dear Mr. Spitz: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN I have enclosed copies of the Warranty Deed from Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association to Ridgewood Hcmeowners Association and the Agreement and Waiver between Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association and the City of South Burlington as per Peter's instructions. Dick Spokes has requested the originals. Very truly yours, -36 eaWker Bonnie Walker FROM TO YQ rt�q 117 L kil SPOKr S, MO & MCUSKI 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX GIN BURUNGTOK VERMONT 05402 ToN phone: eat - 862.6451 802 - 1963-2857 FORM F269 Available from GRAYARC CO., INC.. New Haoford, Conn. 06057 Ut,A. h (tile, COPY--tr,L1A1N FOR ANSWER. SENU WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. SPOKES, FOLEY & 01BUCH®WSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS402-0966 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL March 25, 1983 Mr. David Spitz City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Indian Creek Dear David: (BO2) 662-6451 (SO2) 663-24BS7 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL Enclosed please find copies of various correspondence regarding the "connector" road. You should be receiving the original Agreement and Waiver any day now. Please let me know if there are any problems. Very ,.txx�y�"our Richar A. Spokes RAS:mil Enclosures t Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802.496-3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON March 14, 1983 Richard A. Spokes, Esq. Spokes, Foley & Obuchowski 184 South Winooski Avenue P.O. Box 986 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Dear Dick: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN I have enclosed the proposed Waiver and Agreement. The deadline for submission and approval to and by you is approximately April lst, 1983. This is in accordance with the minutes of January 4, 1983 granting a revised final plat plan. I will be out of State from the 12th through the 26th of March and I ask that you contact Sheila Morgan if there are any changes which you wish to make in this document. I have drafted it exactly in accordance with the Agreement that you sent me. I have enclosed the following documents for your review: 1. Your original "Agreement and Waiver" with red markings to show my revisions. 2. A copy of my Title Opinion of January 13, 1982 sent to you previously. 3. A copy of the Warranty Deed conveying Indian Creek property to Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association. 4. A portion of the survey map showing part of Indian Creek property and Ridgewood Estates property. I trust that the Agreement and Waiver is satisfactory as it tracks your agreement exactly making specific reference to the individual plat plan and the access of the so-called "Connector Road." Relative to the question of the ownership of land at the Connector Road, I direct your attention to Page 3 of the Deed from Ridgewood to Vermont Federal where I have underlined the word "second parcel." I have also circled on the enclosed map the area which is the second parcel. Page 1 Both Clark Gravel and myself carefully scrutinized the various deeds in the chain of title and concluded that the parcel outlined in red was not included in any conveyance to Ridgewood Estates. Therefore, Ridgewood conveyed to us this parcel which we now, due to the circumstances, are happy to say that we own and therefore control. It is this second parcel that presently has the so-called Connector Road on it. We will maintain, keep open and make accessible that Connector Road as it leads into Ridgewood property. Therefore, the Agreement and Waiver is valid as to the Connector Road and the previous Agreement and Waiver, submitted to you back in January, 1982 in conjunction with this new Agreement and Waiver, covers completely the City of South Burlington with respect to dedication and maintenance as well as opening and accessibility between the developments. Thank you ever so much for your efforts. I remain Very truly yours, Peter S. Sidel, Esq. PSS:bw cc: David Gaylord John H. Osgood Page 2 L & ASSOCIATES P.O. nox sib tSFIFLO, V1 W-ONT C • 67J WARRANTY DEED FROM RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO VERMONT FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That, Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc., a Vermont corporation with an office in Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, Grantor, in consideration of One Dollar and Other Valuable Consideration, paid to its full satisfaction by Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association, a banking institution with a principal place of business in Burlington', in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, Grantee, by these presents does freely GIVE, GRANT, SELL, CONVEY and CONFIRM unto the said Grantee, Vermont Federal Savings and Loan Association and its successors and assigns forever, a certain piece of land together with easements and rights -of -way in South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont described as follows, viz: Being part of the same land and premises as were conveyed to the herein Grantor, Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. by two (2) warranty deeds, being as follows: 1. Warranty deed from Isadore W. Myers and Frances S. Myers to Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc., dated December 1, 1976 and recorded in Book 127, Pages 496- 498 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. 2. Warranty deed from C.B.C. Realty & Development, Inc., to Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. dated December 1, 1976 and recorded in Book 127, Pages 488-489 in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. The land and premises herein conveyed is all the remaining land and premises conveyed to the Grantor herein by the aforementioned warranty deeds, there having been several conveyances by the Grantors herein previously of single lots within the so-called Phases I'and II of Ridgewood Estates Development, as well as the land and premises conveyed by the Grantors herein to the Ridgewood Estates Homeowner's Association by the following two (2) deeds: .. ..._.+..JUL�.�fi.t�..$cnr•.Lwi'.i�1..� ., _. >.� � ,.w ... .. _.. _.. .�. � i.. .. _ ?�Y: r..::a'..t.r6es �...'�n44s�..c _>.I�IC.b�iiii-Si.Aii w x.. 1. Warranty deed of Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. to the Ridgewood Estates Homeowner's Association, Inc. dated July 12, 1977 and recorded in Book 134, Pages 147-148 in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. " 2. Warranty deed from Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc, to Ridgewood Estates Homeowner's Association, Inc. dated October 25, 1979 and recorded in Book 1581, Pages 184- 186 in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. The deeds from Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. as last mentioned had for their purpose the conveyance of all "common areas" in Phases I and II in the Ridgewood Estates Development. There is a map showing the perimeter of all land and premises conveyed to the Grantor herein by the warranty deeds of Isadore W. and Frances S. Myers as well as C.B.C. Realty & Development, Inc, as aforementioned, which map is recorded at Map Book 153, Page 7 in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, which survey map was done by Fred C. Koerner, dated March 29, 1978 and entitled "Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc," to which map reference is made in aid in describing the herein conveyed land and premises. The land and premises herein conveyed is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located as follows: starting at a point marking the southwest corner of a parcel of land owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints recorded in Volume 78, Page 108, dated January 31, 1966, City of South Burlington, Vermont; thence, proceeding S81124'30"W for a distance of 635.00 feet -along the northerly sideline of Swift Street to the point of beginning of this parcel, said point is also the south west corner of a parcel of land known as Phase I Ridgewood Estates; thence proceeding N22°37'40"W, 70.09 feet; thence S77008'08"W, 174.49 feet; thence N7801814911W, 265.45 feet; thence N8°35'30"W, 113.00 feet; thence N54050'36E•, 245.97 feet; thence NO'22'37"W, 286.94 feet; thence N14036'25"E, 137.08 feet; thence S84°37'34'-E, 393.64 feet; thence N10°31'59"W, 59.03 feet; thence N9°46'2211W, 194.04 feet; thence N56°23'29"E, 132.42 feet; thence N8035'30"W, 1-56.00 feet; thence N81°24'30"E, 363.00 feet; thence S8°35'30"E, 100.00 feet; thence N81024'30"E, 1-51.00 feet; thence N11°42'46"E, 106.63 feet; thence N81°24'30"E, 188.14 feet; thence N6°56'00"W, 65.66 feet; thence N81009'00"E, 250.00 feet; thence N6056'00"W, 60.03 feet; thence S81009'00"W, 250.00 feet; thence N6056'00"W, 175.00 feet; thence S81°09'00"11, x A'.SOCIAI S - h0X 1115 I D. VLH?4 ONT 7] - _ 11 d s"f"r .,, • pw S rr N¢. *sa -+ r 7 a. '7'—".T �F^ .1 0CIAIE5 f�OX 113 D. VCIIMOl T '6T3 476.41 feet; thence N6156'00"W, 300.00 feet; thence S8102014011W, 625.33 feet; thence S81115'00"W, 509.90 feet; thence S6046'10"E, 1747.06 feet; thence N81°24'30"E, 539.28 feet to the point, of beginning. Said parcel contains 32.049 acres and the bearings are magnetic as of 1915. There is also conveyed a second parcel of land described as follows: Beginning at a point located as follows: starting at a point marking the northeast corner of a parcel of land owned by Isadore W. Myers and Frances S. Myers on the westerly sideline of Dorset Street; thence S81009'00"W, 250.00 feet, being the northerly boundary of the land and premises now or formerly owned by Isadore W. Myers and Frances S. Myers and the land previously described herein as being conveyed by the Grantor herein; thence turning an angle to the left and proceeding S06156'00"E, 65.66 feet to the point of beginning of this parcel herein conveyed; said point is also on the westerly boundary of land now or formerly owned by Isadore W. Myers and Frances S. ?Myers; thence proceeding S81°24'30"W 188.14 feet; thence S11°42'46"W, 106.63 feet; thence S81024130"W, 151.00 feet; thence S08°35'30"E, 50.00 feet; thence S35°57'39"W, 166.05 feet; thence S43°46'07"E, 183.11 feet; thence N67°23149"E, 375.77 feet; thence N06'01'20"E, 58.30 feet; thence N06°56'00"11, 270.73 feet to the point of beginning. Grantor, for itself, successors and assigns, covenants and warrants that the land and premises herein conveyed is not subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated January 14, 1977 and recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-107 in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, nor as to the amendments thereof as follows: A. Amendment dated July 8, 1977 and recorded in Book 131, Pages 437-438; B. Amendment dated August 11, 1978 and recorded in Book 143, Page 205; and C. Amendment dated August 28, 1978 and recorded in Book 143, Page 339, said amendments being recorded in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. The land and premises herein conveyed is subject to Land Use Permits #4C0161, 4C0161-1, 4C0161-2 and 4C0161-3; this deed shall act as a transfer and assignment of all rights under the aforementioned Permits relative to the land and premises herein conveyed. Reference may be had to the aforementioned deeds and the deeds ih their chain of title and to the land records of the City of South Burlington, in further aid of the description of the land and premises herein conveyed. There is hereby conveyed all rights -of -way, easements and licenses that the herein Grantor possesses or may possess, has right, title or interest in as they relate to or benefit the land and premises conveyed to the herein Grantor by the previously mentioned deeds of Isadore W. Myers and Prances-S.. Myers and C.B.C. Realty and Development Company, Inc. which the Grantor now or formerly owned. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said granted premises, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereof, to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, to its own use and behoof forever; And the said Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant with the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are FREE FROM EVERY ENCUMBRANCE; except as aforesaid. And it hereby engages to WARRANT AND DEFEND the same against — all lawful claims whatever, IN WI`i'NFSS Wf EOF, --T Ater`unto- sets ::i- hand and seal this ja�Y o :IN RIDGE►a0 D ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, INC. SDuly Authorized "gent STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, ss. At (3%i`c�cy\ this 3 day of 1981, i-2-Q-t�Fm L- 17Wt1Lt,-�SC:VV personally pe red and he acknowledged this instrument, b_v him aled nd .ubscribed to be his free act and deed and the fre�,6 c d--d of Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. c Before me, Notary Public FL & ASSOCIATES P.O. I,OX 110 1,: FIFLO, Vf-i(MON7 C-873