Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-83-0000 - Supplemental - 1270 Shelburne Road (2)E April 15, 2015 Via Hand Delivery Susan M. Hudson, Clerk Vermont Public Service Board 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 D Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC Business Sense -Legal Ingenuity Elizabeth L. Kohler Director Tel: (802) 846-8382 Fax: (802)658-0905 ekohler@drm.com Re: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility 2026 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont AT&T Site Name: South Burlington (RCC Great Northern VT6452) Notice of De Minimis Modification and Request for a Certificate of Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248a(k) Dear Mrs. Hudson: Our firm represents New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") in connection with a proposed de minimis modification to an existing wireless communications facility (the Project") located on a retail store at 1270 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont, for which a Notice of De Minimis Modification and Request for Certificate of Public Good was filed on January 14, 2015. By memorandum dated February 4, 2015, the Department of Public Service (the "Department") indicated that it would not recommend approval of the petition until a discrepancy was corrected involving the panel antennas to be replaced. On March 3, 2015, AT&T submitted a supplemental affidavit (a copy of the this supplemental affidavit is attached for your convenience and use) clarifying the discrepancy regarding the panel antennas to be replaced as part of the Project. Then on March 6, 2015, the Board issued a memorandum stating that it could not process the petition due to an inconsistency between the panel dimensions in the project narrative and the site plans. AT&T believes that the supplemental affidavit filed with the Board on March 3, 2015 corrected the internal inconsistency with respect to the panel antennas, and respectively requests that the Board issue a certificate of public good authorizing the proposed de minimis modifications. Since ely E 1z th Kohler cc: Christopher Recchia, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service c/o Daniel C. Burke, Telecommunications Special Counsel, Vermont Department of Public Service (via Hand Delivery) T10 Me1Tel LLC, Unison Site Management Corporation, Attn: James R. Holmes, Vice President/Secretary (via Federal Express) Twelve Seventy Associates, Attn: Mallory Parker, (via Federal Express) South Burlington City Council, Attn: Kevin Dorn, City Manager (via Federal Express) David P. Cooper, Empire Telecom (via EMail) 15885343.1 COURTHOUSE PLAZA ■ 199 MAIN ST. ■ PO BOX 190 ■ BURLINGTON, VT 0 05402-0190 0 T: +1.802.863.2375 ■ F: +1.802.862.7512 0 WWW.DRM.COM March 3, 2015 Via Federal Express and Email Susan M. Hudson, Clerk Vermont Public Service Board 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 DKMMartin Downs Rachlin PI_Lc Business Sense -Legal Ingenuity Elizabeth L. Kohler Tel: (802) 846-8382 Fax: (802)658-0905 ekohler@drin.com dnn.com Re: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility 2026 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont AT&T Site Name: South Burlington (RCC Great Northern VT6452) Supplement to Notice of De Minimis Modification and Request for a Certificate of Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248a(k) Dear Mrs. Hudson: Our firm represents New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") in connection with a proposed de minimis modification to an existing wireless communications facility (the Project") located on a retail store at 1270 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont, for which a Notice of De Minitnis Modification and Request for Certificate of Public Good was filed on January 14, 2015. By Memorandum dated February 4, 2015, the Department of Public Service (the "Department") indicated that it would not recommend approval of the petition until a discrepancy was corrected involving the panel antennas to be replaced. In response to the Department's Memorandum, AT&T is submitting a supplemental affidavit clarifying the discrepancy regarding the panel antennas to be replaced. Please find enclosed an original and one copy of the Supplemental Affidavit by David P. Cooper. Please let me know if you have any questions relating to the Project or if there are items that AT&T should supplement. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter. Sincere /Kohler Eliza th Enclosures cc: Christopher Recchia, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service c/o Daniel Burke, Special Counsel, Vermont Department of Public Service (copy via Federal Express and email) T10 Me1Tel LLC, Unison Site Management Corporation, Attn: James R. Holmes, Vice President/Secretary (via Federal Express) Twelve Seventy Associates, Attn: Mallory Parker, (via Federal Express) South Burlington City Council, Attn: Kevin Dorn, City Manager (via Federal Express) David P. Cooper, Empire Telecom (copy via email) 15759694.1 COURTHOUSE PLAZA 8 199 MAIN ST. 0 PO BOX 190 ■ BURLINGTON, VT 0 OM-0190 • T: +1 A02.863.2375 0 F: +1.802.862.7512 6 WWW.DRM.COM 1 STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD Notice of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ) d/b/a AT&T Mobility pursuant to 30 V.S.A. ) § 248a(k), requesting a Certificate of Public ) Good for a de minimis modification to a wireless ) Docket No. telecommunications facility located at Shelburne ) Road, South Burlington, Vermont ) SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID P. COOPER I, David P. Cooper, hereby declare that the following statements and supporting exhibits were prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that the information contained therein is true and accurate to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I further state and certify the following: 1. I am employed by Empire Telecom ("Empire"), a company contracted by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") to assist with the provision of commercial mobile radio services within the state of Vermont and New England. I am Director of Program Management and am responsible for managing the local and state municipal and environmental permitting processes, design and architectural/engineering services, and construction required for the development and installation of the AT&T 4G LTE project. My resume is attached as Exhibit B1. 2. On January 14, 2015, I submitted an affidavit in support of a proposal by AT&T to modify telecommunications antennas and equipment installed at an existing telecommunications tower and compound located at 1270 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont, on property owned by RSL Enterprises, Inc, and leased to and managed by T10 Unison Site Management LLC. 3. By Memorandum dated February 4, 2015, the Department of Public Service indicated that the Petition was internally inconsistent and would not recommend approval until AT&T corrected conflicting information about the proposed antennas being replaced as part of the Project. 4. I clarify that the Project involves replacing the three (3) existing panel antennas on the rooftop ballast tripod that were previously upgraded pursuant to the certificate of public good (CPG) in Docket No. 7940 (the "2012 Upgrade"). The 2012 Upgrade involved replacement of three (3) existing panel antennas on one of the rooftop ballast tripods with three (3) new panel antennas, two of which measured 48" x 12", and one of which measured 72" x 12", while also adding 26 square feet of aggregate surface area to the Facility. 5. AT&T now intends to replace the antennas installed as part of the 2012 Upgrade with three (3) different panel antennas, two of which measure approximately 48" x 11.8" and one of which measures 72" x 14.8". 6. The remaining statements in my affidavit are true and correct. The discrepancy does not impact the accuracy of the Zoning Drawings, nor does it change the calculation of the aggregate surface area associated with the Project, as set forth in the Petition. N eD am • . avid P. O oper Title: Director of Program Management Empire Telecom STATE OF V4 S ch U It t�5 COUNTY OF M; cae 2V 'SS. On thise 4dday of AMC , 2015, personally appeared David P. Cooper, known to me, or satisfactorily proven to be the person who is the signatory to the foregoing, and made oath that the foregoing instrument, subscribed by him is true. Before me, ©A�ELlE rJl. BEAULIEU / Notary Cmmrronwealth of Mass MasRachusetts Mr commkigim Expires No afy Public Novsmber5.2016 My commission expires: 4"'0Akee- 5 f '�-o/ S 15759531.1 -2- DAVTS 1270 Shelburne Road Area zoned C-1 District Section 19.00 Non -conforming uses and structures Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements Minimum setback 50 feet - existing 28 feet lot size 40,000 square feet w/200 feet frontage - existing 38,225 square feet w/139 feet frontage Proposed addition 60'x62' = 3720 square feet Use of building retail children clothing Y .r. CIO-o. �- � d ®� ZQ .If uivING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NNE 27, 198 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on Monday, is June 27, 1983, at 5: pm, in the Conference room, City Hall, S75 Dorset Street. Members Present J. Everett Reed, Chairan; John Dinr.lage, James Thibault, Fred Blais, Norman Campbell, ,James McClary Member Absent Alex Guyette Cthers Present Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Robert Lawrence, Gordan R. Lawrence, Dr. Edwin J. Ste,:arie, T. Pezer Trono, cans Huva, Ronald Muir, Ernest Levesque, Farguite Garvey, he]en Gero, Margaret Ana Reilly, velyn Reilly, Martha Blade, Joe F. Reilly, George Murdhacos NDon Le=ebube, Karen T.W. Lefebure, David Bailey, Harland D. Stockwell, Bruce Davidson, Nancy Cote, .Jeff Davis, Monica Farrington, John Larkin Steve Warren No. 1 Appeal of Ernest Levesque Jr Appeal of Ernest Levesque, Jr., seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional requirments and Section 19,00 Non -conforming uses and structures, request is for permission to construct a 12' x 30' addition to the Southerly side and a 10' x 34, • addition to the easterly front side to within twenty-nine (29) feet of the property line, at 195 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ward said the area is an R-4 district the The demensional requirements are 50 ft from the -planned right of way which is 80 feet and the existing right of way is 66 ft so the extra 7 feet would require a minimum set back of 57 feet. The proposed set back after the addition of 10 "x 34' to the front would be 29 ft. Mr. Levesque will remove the existing 7' x 15' porch and in addition there will be an addition to the south of 12' x 30' which will also be in that setback and a garage which conforms to the side yard the closest point of his stretch will be 29 ft. The lot is non- conforming to`'Ihe minimum width which is 75 and the minimum required in that area is 80 . Mr. Ward also stated this week is received a petition with 27 signatues from people in the Hinesburg Road area stating that they have discussed this application:and have no objection. Mr. Levesque gave an in depth presentation comparing his property to others in the area. He stated his objective is to get others interested in remodeling older dwellings and changing the character of existing neighborhoods. There was no objections from the audience and the appeal was approved on a unanimous vote. 4 TUNE 27. 198 3 ZONING BCARD CM AD NSTMENT +o. 2 Appeal of Edwin ate Marie Marie, seeking a variance from aLd, reques��f orming Appeal of Edwin Ste tIs for permission uses and structures and Section 18.113 Dwelling stand nal l office to convert a portion ofesidential unit Intoce addea dniremodelnaaresidentialeunit convert a garage 277 square feet containing 577 square feet, at 1362 Airport Parkway. Mr. Ward said the area is an R-4 . That Dr. Ste Marie proposes to enlarge 2?e dental office area by approvimately 544 square feet and to convert a garage square feet into office area for a third use. He also will be remodeling the existing dwelling upstairs to contain 577 square feet. Dr. Ste Marie stated his objective was to give himself morespacefor hisgaestions practive and to receive income from the remodeled garage. with about the drive -way and parking facilities. Dr. Ste Marie shares a drive -way the Peterson Realty next door and also parking. Mr. Reed stated he would like odelcd garage. Mr. Dinkledge made a motion to know what was going in the re -Ste Mar that if the appeal was approved t e additional lhe mspaceotion be used o conded bynlyrMDr•Campbellie's dental office or the existing The motion was carried. No 3 Appeal of Hans and Helena Huva, seeking a variance from Section 19.00 Non-conforming uses and structures and Section 18.113 Dwelling standards request rt is for permission unit°containingtwo story 14' x approximately700,squareifeeton l,dat 74edwelling Airport Parkway. Into a two family u Mr. Ward said this is an R-4 district the structure is non -conforming to dimensional requirements. The setback requirres 50 ft., the existing is 25 ft. It also has a sideyard abutting Dumont Avenue which requires 30 ft. and the e istifeetswitht• For a two family dwelling the minimum lot size would be 12,000 sq uare 85 ft. of frontage the existing lot has 76 feet of frontage and 9,856 square feet. The dimensional requirement for a two family dwelling is 850 square feet per unit the proposed apartment will be 710 square feet. The addition is between the house and the garage and is a two story addition of 14' x 32' to an existing cape style house which is 25' x 32'. Mr. Dinklage asked if both units would be 710 sq. feet. Mr. Ward said only one unit would be 710 sq. ft. the larger unit would be around 1, q• t. Mr. Blais pointed out that the existing lines not on achange. Tsherreewas no opposition from neighbors. The appeal was approved No. 4 Appeal of J.L. Davis, Inc. Appeal of J.L. Davis, Inc., seeking a variance from Section 19.00 non -conforming and structures, request is for permission to construct a 601 xa620 retailclothingaddition to n existing non -conforming structure and occupy said store, at 1270 Shelburne Road. t� M ~ f ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .JUNE 27, 1983 / J.L. Davis, Inc. Cont'd Mr. Ward said The area is zoned C-1. The setback requirement is 50 ft. the existing is 28 ft. The lot size requirement is 40,000 square feet with 200 feet of frontage the existing is 38,225 square feet with 139 feet frontage. The proposed addition is 60' x 62' or 3720 square feet on the back side of the building and is to be used for a retail childrens clothing store which is a conforming use. Mr. Warren, architect for the project stated all the changes requested of him have been taken care of. It was brought out by the board this was to be taken up with the planning commission and they were to act only upon the non -conforming set back. It was brought out by Mr. Blais that it was a continuation -of an already existing non -conforming setback. Objections were voiced by Mrs. Farrington, and Mr. and Mrs. Lefebure on traffic problems. Mr. Ward explained to them the problems with traffic must be dealt with by the planning commission. The appeal was approved on a unanimous vote. No. 5 Appeal of Gordon and Paulette Lawrence Apnp=_1 of Gordon and Paulette Lawrence, seeking a variance from Section 19.00 Non -conforming uses and structures and Section 18.113.Dwelling standards, request is for permission to construct two additions 10' x 12' and approximately 26' x 30' frith an attached 24' x 24' garage to an existing single family dwelling and convert said dwelling into a two family dwelling with one unit containing 710 square feet, . at 6 Gilbert Street. Mr. Ward Said the area is R-4. The existing dwelling is non -conforming to the dimensional requirements. The miiYdm frontage if 85' the existing is 75'• The minimum setback required in this area is 30 ft. the existing is 25 ft. The minimum frontage required for a two family dwelling is 85' the existing is 75'• The lot size is large enough for a two family dwelling. The proposed alteration would propose a dwelling of 710 sq. ft. Minimum required is 850 sq. ft. The addition if a 10' x 12' to the side and a 26' x 30' to the rear and also a 24' x 24' attached garage.Some portions of the addition is a two story addition. Mr. Reed asked if there were other duplexes in the area. Mr. Lawrence stated there were three on Gilbert Street. Mr. Lawrence stated the second dwelling does not meet the 850 sq. ft requirement because it is for his father and this is all the space he requires. It was determined there would be no change in the setback by Mr. Dinklage. The appeal was approved on an unanimous vote. No. 6 Appeal of Ursula Piche and David Bailey agent Appeal of Ursula Piche and David Bailey agent, seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements, request is for permission to construct a 36' x 36' two family dwelling to within thirty-four (34) feet of the required front yard and ten (10) feet of the rear yard, at 1600 Williston Road. Mr. Ward said the area is zoned R-4. The minimum setback requirement is 50 ft. from the planned right of way which is 80 ft. the existing right of way is 66ft • requiring -a total of 57 ft. The proposed setback is 34 ft. The minimum rear yard would be 30 ft.=The proposed is 10 ft. The application is for a 36' x 36' two family dwelling which is a permitted used. NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 Name, address and telephone # of applicant A&AA* S 1 5re� M.oe�te &'3.97� Su" iva,J . �'r. ofVs 1 `'Name, address of property �iti' .�. �.• 0���_JV ��� �� 4%. Property location and description I 170 SHL&A . ffq A*Aes AW I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays).. The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearing fee of $30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing.�'M / 10k 41? �1'e. Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public'hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on , , at (day of week) (month and date time to consider the following: Appeal of C/ seeking a r from Sectionof the C. Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to South r --------------- �G•r+j 0 a - �A W 5 Driveway has been widened to 24 teet and sec )nd (,ntr,oi, �t I,:i ndscaping information is now complete and appears to be i,,ii,I, substantial. 1 see no remaining problems with this application. 3) Tate, Williston Road The Zoning Board has approved this proposal for combined use of a new building as a pet shop and industrial building. One stipulation was that the existing front building (Imported Car Parts) be removed within 5 years. A storage building will be removed immediately. The existing entrance will have to be defined at a width of no greater than 36 feet. Also, a 6 foot wide offer of dedication for future road widening must be provided. Concerning a sidewalk, the administration does not feel that a single unconnected stretch, 140 feet in length, is useful at this time. In one other application we required an amount to be placed in escrow for a future sidewalk; however, because of the small amount involved and the bookkeeping requirements we don't recommend that approach either. Landscaping, parking, drainage and other required information appears to be complete and satisfactory. 4) Davis, Shelburne Read Application will go before the Zoning Board Monday evening for a front yard dimensional variance. Proposal is to add a 3900 square foot addition to a building previously occupied by John Hancock Insurance. New use will be a retail clothing store. Projected traffic volumes meet the standard for that location. A sidewalk exists on the property's Shelburne Road frontage. However, the City's sidewalk plan also calls for a future sidewalk on Imperial Drive and this applicant should be responsible for constructing it now. Front and rear circulation aisles should be widened to 20 feet. If necessary, several parking spaces should be removed to accomplish this. Also, a large amount of paving has been included so as to provide three spaces near Shelburne Read - not an aesthetically desirable arrangement. Proposed plantings shown within the City right-of-way will have to be relocated onto the applicant's property since there is an existing water line in that location. 5) Chinese Restaurant, Corporate Circle This is the first proposed development in Corporate Circle. The review procedure will be a sketch presentation followed by a revised final plat (public hearing). Re- levant stipulations from the original approval must be reviewed along with normal sub- division and site plan items. Traffic and Access. The benefit of this application is that the greatest traffic: volume will be later than the normal peak traffic in the area. Based on previous stipulations, the through road need not be completed now; however, the next buildingl almost definitely will trigger the requirement for completion. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT tst. Copy CODE OFFICER / 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone..(".. I 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR 4th Copy APPLICANT Date ............................7. `. ...... 19.�. The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laves and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. • •NUMBER 7 LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth Lot No. -■�■- WATER SUPPLY: Public ( El Private E] Offices SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public 0 Septic Tank El Permit Warehouse -�■��- OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # Res. Garage Attic Fl. & Strs. SO ELEC. WIRING: Underground 0 Overhead E] Permit # No. Cars Det.E) Att. El I SE Gas Station mi INTERIORROAD Additions -Alterations Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point indicating North. Concrete ��MMEMEConcrete Block El OEM JOINii N MEN Brick or Stone 0 ■■■■= ■ ■C■ ■ ONION ON ■■■ ■■■■■■■. NOON■■ ■ (��i■■ Piers M■NM NSOM■Om ■■■SON■ ■■EOEEMM ..■■...... OEM on on Cellar Area Full i iiiemmiiiiimNlmi In No Cellar- SM MOOME MEMO MMMMMMM1MMMMMM.■■■■■■■■■■■■.......� ......... _■.......... EXTERIOR ...........=.�C .....=.C...�=....��............ Clapboards epSheathin less Furnac McFipa M0 ■■NOON ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ NOON■■ NOON ■ • _ ...............NOON■■. . .. .......■■.� ....■. Wood Shingles ■■■_■■■■■■■....C='IT'S �i.s ■..m■m■E■■ml■■..No MIMMMMO:i::Mom m.9 :.�i '::i::::::: Stucco on Frame• .. ■M■M■NM ■■l�■E on Tile M NONE mom No Brick Veneer ■■■■Stu:cco MMMME■E MEMO llll'■■■.■■■■■■■■..■..■■.. Brick on Tile- . .... SOMEONE MEN .................■■■■■ .. ■■ ■■■..■■■..■.■.... Solid Brick.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom • . ■MMMMMMMM ■■mom NNl■El ..■.■..... MMMEM Stone Veneer MONSON:M JimEN ::: or Cind. BI. BathroomConc. MNESI 0 MEN MM■■MMMM■E ■ S■M■■■■■■ a = ■■■■■■■■■■■■■C■■■■■■■ ■N■O■O■N■.■ Water Closeton ■ son ■mom ■■■ son ■■■mom Vitrolite I■ ll■■■■■■._ .■■.■ Plate ...■. MS■ ■ES■ ■■.■■■ .■■■■.■.■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Isi.■■ mom M l_■■.■.■.■.■...mom M■MMM■■M..■ 1 InsulationAuto. ■■■■■■■■■■■ i■Smo.m........ on Weatherstrip =■■■■■■■� Remarks El Demolition El Utilities closedAsbes. ie'(10'54!�� 0 ola5� -- _7r0 r r-e fa'AI-5 e ..11;,130 coo -.. Asph. Shingles CPROPERTY Wood Shingles Shingles Bath Fl. & Wcot. Slate Toilet FI.__ cot. C: . OF ROOMS SE® FEE COMPU ATION $ PIG u tl RE'—ol OWNER or BUILDER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED ISSUED TO Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ c Co C" -1✓( i- C ICJ 1 L I �p ADDRE, SS of OWNER / �t SIGNATURE OF CODE O F)CER� Date PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS Trial Court Form No. 501 Subpoena STATE OF VERMONT Subpoena Court Unit Circuit/County Docket No. Check one ❑ Criminal ❑ Civil ❑ Inquest ❑ Grand jury You are hereby commanded to serve on: : $C ;-- , io z , , lit, E - Rurl iugto;i Zoni ag `±1 s i:.C"t-r,,,. and to bring with him any and all zoning/planning files regarding t� L. Davis/Carter's for development at the corner of Trvex-Hal al Drive and '`i1'P1'htlrT,e. Fen ? to appear before the ❑ Superior Court ❑ District Court at the courthouse located at Street Address Town, City Date Time AM V? Main Street I Bl.1r13naton on 8/7-2/83 at I PM .iN RE o APPEAL OF T�ONALD M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE, et to testify in the matter of I signature J4dpe-Cls(k-Attorney �✓ % Date y r RETURN OF SERVICE Date of Service Name On I served this subpoena upon Location: City/Town County AT by delivering a copy of this subpoena. Signature Title FEES CIVIL AND GRAND JURY TOTAL I I (Each witness subpoenaed, in cases other than Civil and depositions, should report to the Clerk's office in order to receive payment) 3M 5/82 Tri/Set 25 per pad STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CATENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. 4 KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT H. i ROSEMARY NARRAMORE 38 Imperial. Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM v HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys, McNamara $ Fitzpatrick, Inc., who hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment granting a variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc. on June 27, 1983. In support of this appeal, it is alleged as follows: 1. The appellants are "interested persons" under 24 VSA 4464(b) and 4471. 2. The appellants own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which was the subject of the above - referenced decision. 3. The Board's decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes or terms of the South Burlington City Plan. 4. The applicant, J.L. Davis, Inc., fails to meet the Icriteria for a variance. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this -2pday of July, 1983. McNANIARA $ FITZPATRICK John C. Fitzpatrick STATE OF VERMONT I SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. 4 KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT II. & ROSEMARY NARRAMORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM & IIENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND €, ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT 4 ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT REQUEST FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT NOW COME the above named parties, by and through -their attorneys of record, McNamara & Fitzpatrick, who move the South Burlington Board of Adjustment for a stay of its June 27, 1983 order granting a variance for a nonconforming structure, and any resulting building permit, to J.L. Davis, Inc. In support hereof, it is alleged as follows: 1. As persons owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the above - referenced order, they will incur unique damage, not shared by the general public, if the stay is denied and construction begins. 2. If this appeal is sustained, but work has begun, return to the st<Itus quo will be more difficult and more expensive. 3. Pursuant to 24 VSA 4466, the Appellants' Affidavit is attached hereto. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 2 otl-,day of July, 1983. McNAMARA & FITZPATRICK John C. Fitzpatrick STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS IIN RE: SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. APPEAL OF DONALD M. $ KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT H. 4 ROSEMARY NARAviORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM £, HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND 4 ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHIVELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT AFGTnAViT NOW COME: Donald 1•1. $ Karen Lefebvre; Vincent 11. & Rosemary Naramore Constance D. Snyder; Shallom & Benny Lewin; Raymond & Elizabeth Delaney; and C. Hackett & Ellen Bushweller who first being duly sworn, on oath depose and say that if the Order of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment of June 27, 1983, granting a variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc., is not stayed, irreparable damage will result. They therefore request that this order be stayed pursuant to 24 VSA 4466. Dated at f�.,Vermont, this 2c,•- day of July, 1983. �r7)117 A- ona Karen Lefebvre 1�,�► c� r1ati�.�. Vincent Naramore C.�11, ett Bushweller E11en Bushweller� Rosemary Naraoore LI (I ,v / i Constance D. Sny r Shallom Lewi.n/n Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2ciiAday of July, 1983. S'TA'TE OF V1101ONT SUPERIOR COURT CIIITTENUEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. 4 KAREN LEFEBVRE ) 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) VINCENT I1. u ROSEMARY NARRAMORE ) 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) CONSTANCE D. SNYDER ) 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) SHALLOM G HENNY LEIti I N ) 3 Worth Street, South. Burlington, VT ) RAYMOND 4 ELIZABETH DELANEY ) 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT ) C. HACKETT y ELLEN BUSHWELLER ) 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT ) NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys, McNamara v Fitzpatrick, Inc., who hereby appeal the decision of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment granting a variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc. on June 27, 1983. In support of this appeal, it is alleged as follows: 1. The appellants arc "interested persons" under 24 VSA 4464(b) and 4471. 2. The appellants own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which was the subject of the above - referenced decision. 3. The Board's decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the policies, purposes or terms of the South Burlington City Plan. 4. The applicant, J.L. Davis, Inc., fails to meet the criteria for a variance. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this _:20+fit day of July, 1983. McNANIARA & FITZPATRICK John C. Fitzpatrick " G' STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. 'IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. 4 KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT 11. $ ROSEMARY NARRAMORE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM $ HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT REQUEST FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT NOW COME the above named parties, by and through their attorneys of record, McNamara $ Fitzpatrick, who move the South Burlington Board of Adjustment for a stay of its June 27, 1983 order granting a variance for a nonconforming structure, and any resulting building permit, to J.L. Davis, Inc. In support hereof., it is alleged as follows: 1. As persons owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the above - referenced order, they will incur unique damage, not shared by the general public, if the stay is denied and construction begins. 2. If this appeal is sustained, but work has begun, return to the status quo will be more difficult and more expensive. 3. Pursuant to 24 VSA 4466, the Appellants' Affidavit is attached hereto. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this ac+6day of July, 1983. McNAMARA $ FITZPATRICK B y .John C. Fitzpatrick (STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS DOCKET NO. IIN RE: APPEAL OF DONALD M. & KAREN LEFEBVRE 14 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT VINCENT H. & ROSEMARY NARAidURE 38 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT CONSTANCE D. SNYDER 39 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT SHALLOM & HENNY LEWIN 3 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT RAYMOND & ELIZABETH DELANEY 34 Imperial Drive, South Burlington, VT C. HACKETT & ELLEN BUSHWELLER 9 Worth Street, South Burlington, VT AFFIDAVIT NOW COME: Donald A. $ Karen Lefebvre; Vincent If. £; Rosemary Naramore Constance D. Snyder; Shallom & Ifenny Lewin; Raymond t, Elizabeth Delaney; and C. Hackett $ Ellen Bushweller who first being duly sworn, on oath depose and say that if the Order of the South Burlington Board of Adjustment of .June 27, 1983, granting a variance for a nonconforming structure to J.L. Davis, Inc., is not stayed, irreparable damage will result. They therefore request that this order be stayed pursuant to 24 VSA 4466. Dated at f;�-�,Vermont, this _20'1- day of July, 1983. VDona d M. Lefebvre G.! , Ka/�en Lefebvre k, n C¢'kvt `lay oAltou- Vincent Naramore C. I,-1kett �Bushwel le1r' Ellen Bushweller Rosemary Naraoore r Constance D. Sny r Sha i.11om Lewin _r fie Raynfcyhd Delane F L-1 '� Q .A. OA-L"' - - l iz eth Delaney Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2v u day of July, 1983. June 13, 1983 Mr. J.L. Davis 50 Coirn*nerce Street Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Davis: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustrlent will hold a public hearing at the City ball Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, June 27, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Plea se plan to attend. Very truly, Richard` Ilard, Zoning,;Administrative Officer RW/mcg LEGALwn i SOUTH SURLINGTON , ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Bur- Ilnuton Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board o1 Adlustmenf will hold a public hearing of the South Burlington Municipal offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, June 27, 1983, at 5:00 P.M. to can. sider the following: No. 1 Appeal of Ernest Levesque Jr. seeking a variance, from Seer tion 18.00, Dimenslonol require- ments and Section 19.00 Noncon- forming uses and structures of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for Permission to con- struct 12'x30' addition to the south- erly side and a 10'x34' addition to the eostfrly front side to within twenty nine (29) feet of the proper- ty line,. at 195 Hinesburg Road. No, 2 Appeal of Edwin J. Ste Male seeking a vor lance, from Section 19.00, Non -conforming uses and structures and Section 18.113 Dwelling standards of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to convert a portion of a residential unit into odditional dental office area, con- vert a garage (277 sware feet) into office area and remodel a res- Identiol unit containing 577 square feet, of 1362 Williston Road. No. 3 Appeal of Hans and Helena Huva seeking a variance, from Section 19.00, Non -conforming uses and structures, Section 18.113 Dwelling standards of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to construct a two story 14'x32' addition and convect dwelling into a two family dweil- Ing with one unit containing aP- proximately 450 square feet, of 74 Airport Parkway. No. 4 Appeal of J.L. Davis, Inc. seeking a variance, from Section 19.00, Non -conforming uses and structures of the South Burlington Regulations. Request Is for per- mission to construct o 60'x62' addi- tion to an existing non -conforming, structure and occupy sold building as a retail clothing store, at 1270 Shelburne Rood. No. 5 Appeal of Gordon and Paulette Lawrence seeking a vari. ance, from Section 19.00, Non -con. forming uses and structures and Section 18.113 Dwelling standards ' of the South Burlington Regu- lations. Request is for permission to construct two additions (10'xl2' and approximately 26'x30') with an attached 24'x24' garage to an ex- Isting single family dwelling and convert sold dwelling into a two family dwelling with one unit con. fairing 710 square feet, at 6 Gilbert Street. No. 6 Appeal of Usuolo Piche, David Bailey, agent seeking a var- iance, from Section 18.00, tpimensional requirements of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for permission 10 con- struct a 36'x36' two family dwell. ing to within thirty-four (34) feet of the required front yard and ten (10) feet of the rear yard, at 1600 Williston Rood. No. 7 Appeal of Ying Liu seeking approval, from Section 19.35, Flil- Ing with earth products of the South Burlington Regulations. Re- quest is for permisslon to fill a ravine of approximately 24,000 square feet, a depth average 50 feet with earth material, located to the rear of no.311-313-315 Hinesburg Road. Richard Word, Zoning Administrative officer June 11, 1983 June 11, 1983 MEMO TO: Chairperson of South Burlington City Planning Commission SUBJECT: Summary of Laurel Hill South residents' position on DAVIS-CARTER plan for 1270 Shelburne Road. (as modified 7112183) Dear Si r: We emphatically urge the SB Planning Commission to reject the DAVIS-CARTER proposal (as presented originally and as modified 7/12/83)for the utilization of 1270 Shelburne Road. Our reasons are as follows t 1. In terms of gross sales, population density, average or per capital income within shopping range, average exposure to traffic, relative competitive pressure, population demographics, store size and store age, Carter's has dismally failed to demonstrate any meaningful quantitative equality between the proposed store and any of their other stores. 2. Their traffic counts are irrelevant and misleading since they are not based on any of the criteria mentioned in Part 1 above. They are also questionable because of their unqualified use of that statistical measure of central tendency known as the average. It is a risky business to trust averages without reference to standard deviations. 3. Since 84 percent of Carter's 83 stores are located in malls, it is obvious that a mall would be an ideal location for the proposed Vermont store. 4. The firm states that only 6 of its 83 stores are in the class of the proposed store. It therefore strikes us as a remarkable coincidence that 3 of these 6 (50%) are in areas which match South Burlington and Chittenden County demographics. 5. On July 12, 1983, the Carter representative informed us that 12-2PM is peak store traffic time, yet the charts on traffic flow designate 3-5PM (on a day not named) as the peak period. •6. Two out of the three "typical" stores exceed traffic overlay requirements when normalized to equivalent square footage of area. 7. Traffic flow comparisons with the local Dexter shoe store are irrelevant and meaningless. Dexter's is one of 16 local stores selling only shoes while Carter's would be one of only three or four stores in the children's market. 8. The proposed Carter's site is a zone 3 area. Discount stores are forbidden in Zone 3. Small discount.stores up to 7100 GFA are permitted only in planned commercial developments. This store with a GFA of 6500 would generate 41.2 trips per hour, thus fark exceeding the 25 maximum allowed. 9. The figures quoted in part 8, above, explain to our satisfaction why Carter's planned a 48-car parking lot. Since the number of cars present on the average is one half of 41, or approximately 20, planning for 100% over average to accomodate growth and peak seasonal demand with the knowledge that Imperial Drive could be used to contain overflow represents planning good for business but not good for Laurel Hill. OVER J - 2 - 10 Table II of Section 17 of the zoning ordinance does not lie a children's store for reference. The nearest we can find are (a) a discount store which we believe this will become despite assertion to the contrary by the petitioner and (b) a hardware paint store. The latter with a max GFA of 4800 represents a lower bound and since the proposed store would generate at least 2-3 times the hardware store traffic at peak times, the 25 car rule would be ripped asunder. Why? Because the paint hardware store criterion allows only 4800 GFA for 25 trips. 11. A 1980 survey has shown that Shelburne Road is far exceeding its design capacity. In 1983, the situation is a disaster, as evidenced by 1-mile traffic lines every morning and afternoon. The Planning Commission by honoring the petitioner's request will compound that disaster. 12. Dr. Dale Kleppinger of 8 Sebring Road has pointed out that school buses cannot turn right into Imperial Drive if cars are lined up waiting to exit into Shelburne Road. Even if it is true as the Carter's representative asserted that their peak traffic hours are from 12:00 - 2:OOPM (but remember that their traffic flow tables contradicts this) the noon Kindergarten bus and the High School and elementary school dismissal buses will be affected. 13. At the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday last the architect made what appeared to be a Freudian slip when he asked, "Are there not other ways to get out of Laurel Hill?" If the petitioner's request is granted and Laurel Hill begins to teem with traffic, the repetition of that question may very likely pressure the city to connect Laurel Hill with Spear Street, and that would mean the beginning of the end of Laurel Hill South as a nice place to live. 14. A traffic light installed at the imperial Drive - Shelburne Road intersection will not beguile us into supporting the proposed construction. With the store in place the installation of such a light would be tantamount to putting a band aid on a whirlwind. 15. We conservatively estimate that the city of South Burlington will lose in excess of 30,000 dollars in tax revenue per year due to decrease in value of homes in Laurel Hill South alone! (131 homes with aggregate value of $13 Million, vs. one commercial property at $ .3million. (See attached table) We believe that it is the funlai.aental and fiduciary role of the Planning Commission to plan and oversee an orderly and responsive development pattern for South Burlington within the bounds of health, safety and well being of our citizenry. All other interests are secondary to these. Over 100 tax -paying citizens from a small and beautiful development have expressed their displeasure with a proposal which would allow an out-of-state firm to choke off their' lifeline to the outside world, endanger the lives of our children and senior citizens, exacerbate an already serious traffic problem on Shelburne Road and violate the law and the spirit of the 1982 zoning ordinance, presumably promulgated to prevent this sort of thing from happening. f - 3 - We ask the Planning Commission to go on record with a clear and resounding NO to, this proposal, thus setting a pattern for the future which will allow us to enjoy the present with some sense of security. Respectfully submitted, najLa� Shallom Lewin Vincent H. Naramore 3 Worth Street 38 Imperial Drive South Burlington, Vermont South Burlington Co -Chairmen of the Committee for the Preservation of Laurel Hill South. CCs Each Planning Commission Member City Council Zoning Variance Board Chairman City Yanager David Spitz Jeff Davis State Representative David Kaufman Highway Department Yedia OVER TABLE I ESTIMATED FAIR YARiET VALUE OF 131 HOINES I LAUREL HILL SOUTH Fair Market Value Number of Homes Range Yidpoint 51,000- 66,000 4 58,500 67,000- 82,000 17 74,500 83,000- 98,000 44 9o,5oo 99,000-114,000 45 106,500 115,000-130,000 17 122,500 131,000-146,000 4 138,500 131 TABLE II ESTIP�'ATED TOTAL FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 131 HOMES IN LAUREL HILL SOUTH BASED ON LOWEST, V.IDDLE AND HIGHEST CATEGORIES FROM TABLE I Lowest Total Fair Market Value Yiddle Total Highest Total Fair Market Value Fair Yarket Value 11,929,000 12,911,500 13,894,000 TABLE III ESTIMATED TAX LOSS TO CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IF APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR 1270 SHELBURNE ROAD IS GRANTED (Notes These figures based on assumption that property devaluation for homes in Laurel Hill South will range from. 10 to 15 percent) If Total Fair Market Evaluation Is: 11,929,000 12,911,500 13,894,000 Tax Loss f or 10, Devaluation 27,675 29,955 321234 Tax Loss for 1 Devaluation 41,513 44,932 48,351 Comment: Since the Carter -Davis property value, depending on improvements, would range anywhere from 190,000 to 300,000, tax revenues from it will fall far short of balancing the loss expected from home devaluations in Laurel Hill South.