HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1450 1550 1580 Shelburne RoadDate Received
Date Applicat.� Completed and Rece1.reS/
BY it ILI By
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIE'ti'
1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF:
(a) Omer of Record A).,4 ,0 AIA L, fe ,
(b) Applicant
(c) Contact Person
2) PROJECT STRLET ADDRESS
' / "- (LO C
►C4
NJ�c/"/-I a
3) PROPOSED
USE(S) .�4
)g
�2ac.�s1,.� G Sneer--'C IC - 2 cn�
0 E�, c C
010-e-212 a-
% OTT-0
S i 77-
4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., 'T of units, floor area, etc.)
5) NUMBER OF MPLOYEES (full & part time)
6) COST ESTIUATES :
(a) Buildings L!zyr'r3
(b) Landscaping 6'- C-o-o
(c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work)
7) ESTI1 ATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE (7" Ne / , / / 71
l3il
8) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TII2AFFIC (in & out)
9) P aW HOUR (S) OF OP �ZtiT ION
10) PEAK DAYS OF OP SAT ION d -11-1 7
DATE
S IGNATU77ZE OF : ,PPL CANT
A
2.
;�'AY 8, 1979
comn-itment from them toward the end of the month. An extension of the street
straight through the land will cause layout proble^ns when the land is developed,
so a dogleg is pro_.osed. The advantage to the school would be when the South rurlinLton
Realty lards are developed, because at that time they would have direct access
to the school from those lands via the road that would cut a corner of their 12
acre lot. The Col.^.--:issicn ~:ants a road from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road through
this area and tile;- also vaat a connection from the road system which will serve
,.'':c �7L1:'2=b10C i'.I'E$ 10 :r'.�i.i5t0 T`. id. That connection will be cn the road under
�iC-a . si on 11c`/', !1111ch ,- ..:ve t: c, r ,,Fct to t:le South �llrlin�ton --realty �i:Un.�022)
!- d
1 5 Jir:ted r'' t inept t':e cnlnGl-v;'•uld '.='ve to c? ve ui^, very little land
by a110---"n- t E road to C.L, s t:.r cC: ter 4f t.e lot. awing asked about
t1_'_'"in. __ road ;n, -,,,_.,pimp ,:E t Y:=t- it, ST_G `C south, but ._r.-"Etr.^so::
felt that would use a too such l,-nd.
'r. Dra_,er did not 1i'le the icul_e dc.lei <t -ointed out that the
traffic consultant had sur-cested t .^aEe fast traffic amid
curves were a way to slow cars down.
'.r. :rOOlerjr aS;'2C if a lulldi£_g could be ccnSt_ jC4 —d i :tiI : Fr, on the
S=de of the r;;a'd if the r_;sc ..a d tC an. arc E' 'e" s t:' 'd t' at, could
b' G but V-at it Y'. --1 t`_ v t' t if t' 1.� 1 .' 1. �F !_,i to 0O On
G
'JZ t`2 �4 '1. - `�. .':e b'11._._-ham _.'[. :�,r r �., `.r.
ri071Er�j wondered if the Could b2 put.closer to t:E Sat;,acr: line t::an
normal and was told a Zoning variance would be necessary for that. T:r. Page said
he would do more 1•.ork on tr.e ,:'cblem of reads and ouild;r: S.
_
_... D.•fl::er felt t'.:i� ws- a terrible locati on for a .•`ides _•'uffler s::o:; but
,:as t1-ld It had already .eon an roved, and that it was an -1=4w d u-e 1^.der the
zoning of the area. It was also _;cinted out that the city ho, ed to have better
traffic flow as a result of the development, which will reduce the number of
curb cuts A1's French Fries has, and with luck someday this access will line up
with „-bite Street and be signallized, providi a ::.sjor intersection at that
point.
"_r. :'ale said a condition f Gr subdivision: \'&1 had been t e level Of
service at the two nearest interactions and he said the traffic en,:-'n(Fr would
have reco=endations for the entire study area soon and would rather rive those
to the Commission than deal specifically with this p r07.Osal at this ti e. I'r. _Page
pelt that issue could be discussed at the final plat stage. he expected the
traffic engineer to cc::.e in by June E at the latest.
:1r. Ewing noted t%:at the City ?•:anager said the drainaz,eway on the lard had
to be cleared and he wondered how such would be cleaned - just this property or
all of it? i.r. :age said he would look into that. It was noted that there was
a property swap planned and perhaps the drainage should be cleaned before that
tao'. :lace. :s. Peterson said they would be glad to do some cleaning back there
on their ?property but noted that that ditch had been a problem for years and was
not the problem of just one developer. He said he would talk to the City ?tanager
about it and 4r. roger noted that perhaps the Commission could recommend that
the city clean cart of it.
:':r. ��oolery waved to continue the : ublic hE arin� on the subdivision of lands of
:rassard AutGmotive Services ur_til ::av 22 at City ;fall at 7:70 -'m- i'"s. Jacob
seconded Vne motion and all were in or.
e w revi.- cd site -lar: fon
__c "crd on S%e 1C`:rne Oa
'.Jrlir; t:�jrl f't8-'rocessinr 'f' ice bui
-r. trat Gririnal _lam a'),'roved showed the building;
-e eD :-- -._ 'n.'_1C-. c_-nnects f:£1C',1_`-.' ^?d t0 vTeFA ..;llnt8ln iT1Ve.
C': °Is::I0I1
:-AY 8, 1979
-I:hen the development went to the Environmental -oard, however, South Furlingten's
Fire Chief requested that two hydrants be nut in, w'nich the ac licants agreed to.
Now what they would like to do is use th-e present ]paved road to get to the gorerty
and put the two hydrants on the north side of that road, so they could serve
the lot to the north of this one when it is developed. The cost of the road to
the developer will be about the same and he mi`=:t save money on hydrants in the
future.
The z:r_>ing lot rill be to the west of the building,, toward Shelburne -'Road
an i-. re .; l be a "r,-. el C_cceSs to the back of the buildi lhir for service and
deliveries. :ny C'xransion to the buildinG will occur on the north, and the
:nest -Dart of the lot may to uoed 1� —r for develorLe:�It. r,e reason o ;,is this
lard and the lot to t::e north, b.:r =se are se_r,arate arcels. :,'r. -: )ods said
the drive would be -rivate.
:•:r. Draper felt the original ;Iar, :_ad :een better. That used t^e strai`ht
read beside-:ordic Ford and w,nuld 'rh ve .:110: cd this lot and the one to the east
of it to use t,le rcnd if both ' ;lnted to do „'). -0'aS Said t_?8t ri„ it of
way no lo~."er exis- ed. '_''he Coy.._. Dior. 4n �n :arlier he-rin- had said that it
did not 'ant a road L cin_ t:irou h th.at east lot tc Green..o,,intain Drive. I':r.
i000S said the city was On r�COI'd SS a:a..:cn:%' t:.�t ri -ht of way, and the
:c=lor'Z�r C:?Y;_-�E k.10' t .. :i f ':.�ntS. Dra:Er vl.. i
1.t _;�ch" rJr i C S�r�'_C-3 Jn ,.*_:° r to �.. C'.. '.I' t"ivad,
ir: Dom['1,,,, alit -.e was Hold it ,,--,ul y �.;atly :t.�„- _::�_ _ _-'c to ta_ that !C'-ace
,-el::i:rre Ec;9d line.
I1:r. ;voolery liked the new plan, feeling that four lots could be serviced from
this one roan. -'r. Po. er said t :ere could be e:::ergenc•, fire access from the
,ast lot 4-0 :act, of this build o•�•er the r...e L ir.
T : f - u ' it was Ginned out Ln t r.uch cf it ;as
�,:e ^i:c�., „_v G :-�r..inE� Ca:=B c-:=a
in front of t..e building. -11r. 'lIoods :.aid much had been in front Ender the other
plan also and it was pointed out that if the land to the west contained a building
someday, as it could, that would hide this -parkin- from the road.
I1r. goods said he did not think it would be unreasonable if, when there is
a i lFn to subdivide the rest of t e l sad, t-e drive we—e to be required to be u. rra ed.
ii:at drive is �4' wide now. '.L,~.e par',
irr lot wil: :e .,wed.
The Commission felt that the road, which was shown going onto the lot to.
the north of this one, should be entirely on this lot.
I-r. Draper reiterated that he did not like this new plan and felt the original
had been better.
.. Ewing; asked about water line and hydrant =ainterance and was told the
a_ plicar.ts would-aintain those if they were private, and if the street became
public, the water lines and hydrants would be t-:�.!cen over by the city and maintained"
by them.
I:r. Draper asned if the building could be roved north but was told that
:;art of the buildin- (to the south) would be leased, and if 1;urlin_;ton Data
rocessing; wanted to ex?;and, they would go to the north, and the way thinc-s were,
he could e;:rand as auch as he wanted because he had a large lot to the north.
'-'r. Draner did not like all the parking being in front of the building. :r.
,tioods said there would be landscaping around it, ae in tiie orif:1_nal pl:.n.
_•:r. .age said the paved road existinL ncx would ce used in t-nds _lan
.,ad beer, built to :13'1^_t L vG'`': ^lOT' rEOli'_:E'_i--'_^ ! t the ti=e.
::r. rioolery ::,cved that the South 'Iurl- n.-tcn "Planning Co.+ . scion a -cve
the site T' %1 n O';cSal of ??chard 1arrant, for a 14,1 mil.' sc;lare foot `--Ce
buiid'in:7, as de:•iOted On a '-lam er tit:ed, " of—r SS rint ;ea .-ffice-7uiidin
urlin�-'ton Data-Cr,-cessin-. n . drawn Gy Associates, dated 5/ 79,_
sheet TA,s.cject to the folio in;. nt::u'_atio: s•
4.
FL-A'_;'SI:',G COM7.'ISSION
1. A landsca)ing bond of $7,000 shall be .posted.
2.
spaces
1•14Y 8, 1979
The reguire_ent for parking scace for 70 suaces is waived to the 50
shown on the Dreli3inary site plan conditional on the partial use as a
ccmtutation and training facilitL._Any change in use or ownership would rein
review of the zarkin- by the Planning Comm.issi of
3. A revised ianasca_ :p clan shall be s-ubr~itted fcr aopr:val by the
')fanner. `1' iere shall be no chanCe In rla-,Aing s eci s but only in location.
6. The access drive s tall be -privately Lairtair.ed.
5. This annroval expires 6 months from this date.
6. "he access drive s :all be entirely on this piece of -,)ro-ert, .
: r. .�eccb seconded the TMotion and it passed on a vote of 5-1 w:Lth ?"r. Draper
votinE no.
re
eteh elan reV1E-itT�30 lot subdivision west of aherr• cad and north of Oakwood Dr.
�e 1: 4,aid t i^.t tf'e .rCt,l T fie f-o'.!4^` Is
.R4, t1a:- e are llt:c5 on t::c- si le and a water :'. '-'= _ -- ae Li .^_ 1�. ,ich of
the 7ro_erty next to this is zoned coa-rercial. There are deed restrictions
w .ich require the construction of single far:ily detac ,ed units and the .parcel is
an irregular shape. r_ 150' setback requirement frog, the Interstate ir:�acts
t'-e -parcel. The land is - enerally -flat but a waterl V n �r. ',e � 1 �-a runs t:�__ . •�; no~�t.:east
:rt of the land. The hen -es ,pro, osed for t= is Tc' + 1 a: e to be s:-.all and
irexDersive. 'fir. Yoger said the city needed that.
I..r. Duppstadt said that a zero lot lire ari:roach had beer. tried here ir an
effort to get as many homes on the land as -possible. Gee wall of each buildinE
would be on the lot line and that wall would be blank, givinE scr..e jr-vLcy to
the ho .e next to it. This is --.,er:rissible because this is a 'RD. The lots will
be 60' x 90' and with a zero lot line on one side, there can be a 15-2C' side
yard on the other. Xr. Duprstadt was asked to consider movir_g, the homes to the
center of the lot so that each home would have two narrow side yards instead of
the zero lot line concept. The Co=ission felt that in a development such as
this there would be a lot of people asking for variances to add to their homes
and it would not be good to put garages and other home extensions in the only
space between the homes. It was noted that it might be preferable to preclude
additional building in the side yards.
The Cc. -:.fission did not object to the density lropcsed, but did not like zero
lot lines. :s. Jacob suggested moving the homes forward on the lots to give the
owners larger backyards. Garages could be part of t o home, as in a raised ranch,
or could go in the backyards. i,ir. EwiriE felt there s�!ould be about 20' between
houses.
: r. Drat er asked about the 150' setback frct- the _. ..er z,tste. :e was told
that would preclude a road being; built or that lan, a-2 that to use that lard a
use variance would have to be -ranted by the Zo_n: - _....
:r. FaFe felt t e Fe c_eation Director we.ecre +.ion fEe instead
r.
of lard in this case. _"owe trees gill be tr to c:-_* i:vn ..__se fro^
t^e Interstate.
.:r. J'an::tadt `eras asked ab; ut cc'rnectin` .'.t eastern IE:r ry
.J.
:toad but relied that it would be very ex_'Ens ve to do so. He was t_'_er. asked
a', -out joir_irg Brookwood Drive to Cakwood via a road :arallel to the Interstate.
VIDA No. 4
2) (3) (4) (5) VERMONT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Findings of Planning Commission ii Municipality
(To be prepared by Municipal Planning Commission; if no Municipal Planning Commission exists, Munici-
pal Officers or Regional Planning Commission may make findings.)
Name of Planning Commission or Municipality ....South Burlington _Planning Commission
....................................................................................................................................................................................
Description of Proposed Industrial Project or Park .... 14.,_000.... s.quare.... ft...... facility_,_to...............
house computer production, research and development and office
..............
headquarters for Burlington Data Processing, Inc.
........................................................................................................
Municipality in which Proposed Industrial Project or Park is to be located .. South Burlington
...............................................................__ _.. _... ........ .__................... ..............................................................................
The undersigned ..... P14.nn�ng...Comm.s.s.ion....................................................................................................
(Municipal officers) (Planning Commission)
of the City, H of ... 5ci. %k t.... �rt-A ."k-ATP.{.................................................................. Vermont, after
a study of the proposed industrial site, a review of the municipal ordinances and a general study of the
effects of the proposed industrial project or park upon the municipality in which it is to be located here-
with submit the following findings at the request of the Vermont Industrial Development Authority.
1. That the proposed industrial project or park f�kR) (will not) violate existing zoning ordinances
and regulations, and would be located in a district zoned ... Business Planned Development
2. That the proposed industrial project or park (is) .(lD§XZt) in accord with a comprehensive municipal
plan.
3. That the proposed industrial project or park W) (will not) involve unusual costs to the com-
munity.
If affirmative —estimate costs —
Water Mains $............................ Street Extensions $ ............................
Sewer Mains $............................ Other costs (itemized)
4. That the proposed industrial project or park (is) (is not) in the best interests of the community
for the following reasons:
Signatures .......
I
I
ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME/FILE REFERENCE Burlington Data Processing
4
1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS &
2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS
LAND SCAP INC� 7tvo
SEWER
WATER
STORM DRAINAGE
ROADS
CURBS
SIDEWALKS
(NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS)
ER - �j,?/ 2
3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND PERMITS GRANTED & SITE Y, 0'-
INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: 111511jp
4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE ,,�'�`L``'s,e J
RECORDED
ACCEPTED
5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x
6. ROADWAYS
DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED *
PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x
7. FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - T
ED ..0 SIGNED, & FILED OR RECORDED
—4
8. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS
ACCEPTED & RECORDED
FILED
9. MISCELLANEOUS AGREE-MENTS
LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION
FUTURE ACCESS POINTS
SHARED ACCESS POINTS
OTHER
10. COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES)
11. FEES - PAID/DATE
HEARING
BUILDING PERMIT
ENGINEERING INSP.
SEWER
RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT)
12. IMPACT FOLLOW UP
i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL KIDS CAR COUNTS
2.
PLANNING COMISSION
NOVEMR 14, 1978
Item #3 was postponed because a -member had a conflict of interest
and if he stepped down there would be no quorum. .The Commission wanted to
wait until another -.-member came.
Sketch plan review, 1 lot subdivision of Chastenay property, east of Kirby
Road
Mr. Thomas Chastenay said that his parcel of land was about 3 acres in
size and that he wanted to cut it into two pieces - 1 1 acre parcel and 1
2 acre piece. The dividing line would be just to the west of the existing
sewer easement.. Kr. Chastenay said that he had a duplex on the southwest
corner of the lot and wanted to put a dwelling in the northeast corner also.
Access to this new dwelling would be over the sewer easement, which would need
some additional fill in order to do this. The land is zoned R4. YX. Chastenay
felt there was more than adequate buildable area in the back.
S. Poger brought up the question of the pedestrian easement over the
sewer easement and was told that Mr. Chastenay did not mind if people walked
on the driveway, as they do now. Mr. Chastenay rioted that the only things
at the end of the easement were the dump and the sewage treatment plant, neither
of which were the most popular places in town.
Kr. Chastenay felt he had 8 or 9,000 square feet of level land on which
to build the dwelling in the back and S. Page added that completion of a
contour map would tell them more about that. He also noted that this parcel
came very close to a parking lot for a business on Airport Parkway and that
any emergency vehicles needing to get close to the dwelling could do it from
there rather than coming down the new long narrow drive.
Asked about utilities, Mr. Chastenay said they would come from Kirby Road,
since he had tried but was unable to get an easement across anyone else's
property so they could come from Airport Parkway. The Commission was not
sure it would be a good idea to have several utilities one over the other
underground. If any problem developed with one of them, the others might
be disturbed while people were trying to fix the one with the problem. It
was also noted that if any utilities had to be dug up,. the driveway would
not be passable. Mr. Chastenay said the people living in the dwelling could
walk in if they had to. The drive would be 20' wide, he said. Mr. Chastenay
said that the sewer was quite deep, perhaps 20-25' below the street level and
he felt that other utilities could be moved 12-15' to one side of the ewer
line and run alongside it instead of over it. G. Mona wanted to know more
about where and how much fill there would be at the next meeting.
Site plan review, proposed office building north of Nordic Ford
S. Page said this lot was part of the old National Life Subdivision
and was almost 5 acres large.
Ins. Richard Tarrant, president of Burlington to Processing:, said
that company wanted to build a new building on this site. He said that they
would change the angle of the gooseneck which is there to serve two lots
beyond this one so that it meets the road differently. This will make
turns onto it easier. He said that they were planning to build a 14,000
square foot building on the lot and use 7,000 square feet themselves, renting
the rest for now and hoping to expand into that space later.
Mr. Tarrant said that they would pave the old horticultural farm right
of way where telephone poles and other utilities already exist. They will
Provide parking for 50 vehicles in two separate lots. They have less than
3•
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 14, 1978
the required number of spaces because half of their space is taken up with
computers and classrooms. The parking aisles are a.standard size.
S. Page noted that he would like to retain the option for the person
who builds on this lot to have access through the lot to the east to Green
Mountain Drive, and the signallized intersection of that road and Shelburne
Road. Mr. Tarrant noted that the expected traffic count for this business
was between 30 and 35 trips per day. Regarding the parking -he said he would
be willing to stipulate that if the business moved out they would come back
for a review of the adequacy of parking, but S. Page felt that safeguard was
already present in the city regulations.
Mr. Tarrant agreed that he would not build over the old horticultural
farm right of way in order to leave the option of getting to Green Mountain
Drive open, although neither he nor the Commission was anxious to see a
lot of people using such a drive to come out to the unsignallized intersection
with Shelburne Road. S. Poger asked S. Page to check on the legality of
Nordic using the old horticultural farm access road.
G. Mona moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan proposal of Richard Tarrant, for a 14,000 square foot office
building, as depicted on the preliminary site plan for Burlington Data
Processing Inc., dated 11 10 78, subject tc the following stipulations:
1. A landscaping bond of $7,000 shall be posted.
2. The requirement for parking space for 70 spaces is waived to the 50
spaces shown on the preliminary site plan conditional on the partial use
as a computation and training facility. Any change in use or ownership
would require review of the parking by the Planning Commission.
3. This approval expires 6 months from this date.
P. Jacob seconded the motion.
It was noted that underground utilities would probably be required.
Mr. Tarrant was questioned about other things and said that the drive would
be paved and 25' wide, that no sidewalks were planned pince very few pedestrians
came to the building, that the classrooms were for out-of-towners and might
have 2-6 people in one class, and that 28-30 people would be employed in the
building.
The motion passed unanimously.
Sketch plan review, 2 lot subdivision of Garcia property at 1860 Williston Rd.
S. Page showed the Commission a slide of the area, which is about 5
acres large on the north side of Williston Road directly east of the sewage
pumping station near the Kennedy Drive,Williston Road intersection. The lot
has been filled for some time now and is quite irregular in shape. It is
zoned Industrial. S. Page -said his primary concerns were the quality of
the fill, the proposed storm drainage and proposed filling plan and how that
would impact drainage in the area, and the location of the access point for
the lots. He noted that traffic back-upB at the light at the intersection
were beginning to be noticeable and would probably get worse, thus dictating
that the access be far from that intersection. Lot 2 (to the east) has more
fill in it than the other one. S. Page noted that he would like access for
these lots to line up with a street on the other side of the road.
Mr. Cobb, who spoke to the proposal, said that the owner had a potential
customer for the land who would use it for a shop for maintenance of rental
cars. He said they would prefer to have two access points rather than have
Suggested Motion of Approval
Burlington Data Processing
I move that the South Burlington Planning; Commission
approve the site plan proposal of Richard Tarrant, for a
14,000 square foot office building, as depicted on a plan
entitled, "Progress Print ... New Office Building; ...
Burlington Data Processing"..., drawn by Cordon Woods
Associates, dated 5/4/79, sheet IA, subject to the following;
stipulations:
1. a landscaping bond of $7,000 shall be posted
2. the requirement for parking space for 70 spaces is
waived to the 50 spaces shown on the preliminary site plan
conditional on the partial use as a computation and training
facility. Any change in use or ownership would require review
of the parking by the Planning; Commission
3. landscaping shall be installed as shown on the attached
plan of record (as previously approved 11/14/78)
4. the access drive shall be nrivstely maintained.
APfWle.- W)W Its, !o NC*,� FVK 'TAN -,b MI-W.
Memorandum
5/4/79
Page 2
#5 lincton Data Processin Modification
The applicant proposes to relocate his driveway to facilitate
fire protection and future development plans for his property
(recently enlarged by the acquisition of a contiguous 10 acre parcel
to the north). Access and circulation are adequate. Parking and
landscaping are unaffected.
J
C-HtVY
I
-At
�.- 4Jill
V
�40
01�
VaC
f
, H69
C� ( M '-7 'GR�
STATE OF" VERMONT
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMLNTAL CONSLRVATION
INTERAGENCY ACT 250 REVIEW COMMITTEE
RE: DDP Realty Associates * DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4
For construction of a one-story
14,000 square foot office building APPLICATION #4C0391
in So. Burlington, Vermont
APRIL 4, 1979
ENTRY OF APPEARA�'CE
Please enter the appearance of the Agency of Environmental Conservation.
State of Vermont, in the above captioned matter.
PRE -HEARING COMMENTS
There were no adverse comments with regard to this application.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE and
PRE -NEARING COMMENTS was sent by U. S. Nail (Postage Prepaid) to all statutory
parties.
Dated on this 4th day of April, 1979 at Montpelier, Vermont.
Respectfully submitted,
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
INTERAGENCY ACT 250 REVIEW COMMITTEE
BY � ( J
Stephen . Sease, Administrator
Land Use and Development
e-, Y, Q'r `mac ✓� J �?
PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
NO.
Filed:
(Location) (Date)
Signature of Coordinator/Com. Member
1. Name, address and
phone
number of the person seeking this permit?
U7
2. Name, address and
phone
number of the person to be
contacted regarding this
application? (Complete this only if different from #1 above.)
3. Describe the project briefly including its location, type, number of units,
lots, etc. Indicate the high and low elevations and outline the tract of
land on a county highway map and attach the map to this form.
4. Give the address of each of the applicant's offices in Vermont, if any.
5. Does the applicant own the tract of land in fee simple? If not, what is
the applicant's legal interest in the land, what is the name and address
1
I
IM
of the owner? y�=
When did the applicant acquire ownership or control of the land?
!� 1972'
6. If the applicant is not applying as an individual, what kind of legal
entity is the applicant filing as, e.g. partnership, corporation, etc.,
and the date and place the legal entity was formed. (Foreign corpora-
tions must supply the date they registered with the Secretary of State
for the State of Vermont, and the name of the person upon whom legal /1
processes are to be served.) ��% /2J"/�l/=r�1� 42 1;5���'
l 'l� 1G� 1 laf �Gf/Z Gg-, C4511PN,?e9A/ T
7. a. How many acres are in the entire tract of land? In answering this,
include the total acreage of the landowner.
b. How many acres are directly involved in this project? C-lzfS
8. On the back side of this page, write in the names and addresses of all
adjoining property owners. If you are not the landowner, list the names
and addresses of all property owners adjoining the landowner's tract of
land. /J
9. When do you plan to begin this project?��<�
When will this project be completed?
10, Attach, when applica4le, a copy of: restrictive covenants to be used in
deeds, restrictive provisions set forth in leases, bylaws of condominium
associations, or any other restrictions.
11. Financing:
a. Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project?
Applicants for subdivisions should include cost
of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc.
b. How will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and
what additional financing will be necessary? V, Z, 7Ff v
c. If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details
of the bonds.
12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? P-1*1' police; ✓ fire
protection; solid waste disposal; road maintenance; sewage
disposal; water supply; other. (explain).
13. Will this project involve any of the following: (check those that apply.)
a.
Fuel burning equipment
c.
Incinerators _
b.
Process equipment
d.
Air pollution control equipment
NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to do so by a district coordina-
tor.
14. I/we hereby certify and affirm under oath that I/we have notified by personal
service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled
to notice of my/our application pursuant to Title 10 VSA, §6084, as follows:
(Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans):
L'iry o�
ft4
IJame and ATJress of , uni ci pa i ty
Ci O �J' 4, kelm—
(Name and-Address'of Municipal PlanningCommission)
C#i! r^r ve �s Co►awr g�<, /�i�o,�Y � A'as",e S7.. 0:0-4 �t y
Name and Address of RegionaTPlanning ommission
� gnat4te
15. I/we have arranged for a notice of application to be placed in
to be published for one day on
(Newspaper) ate
under legal notices, and I/we have given a copy to the Town Clerk of
and requested that it be posted.
MASTER APPLICATION SCHEDULES TO BE ATTACHE_D:
The checklist of schedules below refers to specific application material
described in pages 11 through 15 of this manual. Before completing any sched-
ule, call the district coordinator for your area. His address and phone number
is on the map on page 5.
The district coordinator will tell you which schedules to complete and the
number of copies to file with your application.
j
A
- Plans and Specifications
copies
Q
B
- Act 250
copies
Lj
C
- Sewage Disposal
copies
Q
D
- Water Supply
copies
E
- Public Buildings
copies
tQ
F
- Air Pollution Control
copies
ACT 250 NOTICE
APPLICATION AND HEARING
10 VSA, @6083-6088
Application #4C0391 was filed by BDP Realty Associates c/o Richard
Tarrant and Robert Hoehl, 164 College Street, Burlington on March 21,
1979 for construction of a one-story 14,000 square foot office building
on four acres north of Nordic Ford on Shelburne Road in South Burlington.
This project will be evaluated in accordance with the 10 environ-
mental criteria of 10 VSA, 96086(a).
A public hearing is scheduled for 1 PM, Friday, April 6, 1979 at
the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, 58 Pearl Street,
Essex Junction.
Susan I1. Cain, District Coordinator
For the District #4 Commission
111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT
879-6563
March 21, 1979
SHC/lmp
11/14/78
SSP
i
SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL -
BURLINGTON DATA PROCESSING
I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve
the site plan proposal of Richard Tarrant, for a 14,000 square foot
office building, as depicited on the plan of record, subject to the
following stipulations:
1. A landscaping bond of $7,000 shall be posted.
2. Extension of drive to southeast corner of the property...(?)
3. This approval expires 6 months from this date.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Next Weeks Agenda Items
Date: 11/9/78
Kirby Road Lot:
1. I don't believe there is sufficient buildable area on the parcel
to put up a house.
2. The sewer main crossing fill was constructed to accomodate the
sewer. It was constructed with steep side slopes.* using this fill for
a driveway widening and additional filling may be required) otherwise un-
stable conditions with the side slopes may result.
',Williston Road Subdivision:
1. Area is partially filled. If additional filling is required)a
study of the possible effects must be made upon the existing drainage
system.
Jov Drive Plot Plan:
1. There is an existing sewer line across the westerly end of the
parcel.
2. Proposed lot drainage must be toward street and not toward private
property to the north.
tj Burlington Data Processing: ,hc `j
1 ML, -1___ 1__.
Office Buildina north of Nordic Ford
A 14,000 square foot office building, half to be occupied by
Burlington Data Processing and half to be leased office space, is
planned for this 4.8 acre site. The building is located outside
of the Interim Traffic District, in BPD. Access is off the "goose-
neck", as required under the original subdivision plan of National
Life. Landscaping, circulation, and parking are adequate. I would
suggest retaining the option of a service connection to Green
Mountain Drive, so as to provide the benefits of a signallized
intersection to this property, if desired. (See attached map)
ApPuc ;aq) { - OWN
li�� �T erica .
��«-r��--k�, 't�� �? Pa����`� P►.�-n G� 'gyp. 5, � `.._
2z-
/
= -
ci -- /
1 �'�AIL��