Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 South Beach Road (2)MW No Text Pay l/%Word OWNER P. O. BOX 2385 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 862-0480 October 26th 1981 David Spitz, City Planner S . Burlington City Hall Dorset Street S. Burlington, tit. 05401 Hear Mr. Spitz: Exactly three creeks ago, you telephoned me concernint; some brushing that had been done on the 1000' of Lakeshore Dank at Bartietts Bay, owned by Lakelands Corporation. The orders were to trim out all brush and weed trees smaller than four inches; a.id dead, diseased and damagea trees. Ail. good and iiealthy trees over four inches had been plotted ei;ht years ago and ray inspection indicates that they ;lave been main- tained extent for those which had broken tops from storm damage. October 5th, I reported this back to you and suggested that if you had any problem with this, that you would let me know prompt- ly. You assured me that you would. Today, after no further communication in three weeks, I received your memorandum to the Planning Commission with recommendations, in capital letters, that a hearing be delayed until tree "viola- tion" has been resolved. This is a breach of faith which leads we to doubt your wore: in any further transactions. Ray Unsworth, President La elands Corporation RRU/bp CC: Sid Poger, Planning Coumiissioner TWO BEDROOM TOWN HOUSES THE LEDGES, SOUTH WILLARD STREET AT CHITTENDEN DRIVE, BURLINGTON VILLAGE GREEN APARTMENTS, 75 HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON WILLIAMS ROAD APARTMENTS, WILLIAMS ROAD, COLCHESTER COMMERCIAL SHOP AND STORAGE SPACE - HOWARD SPACE, CORNER PINE AND HOWARD STREETS, BURLINGTON } ( I te of Vermon-) Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION RCBER'T %W: WIELIAMkd f M6ht1*Hdt,>>VtfhWf f- U%U DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS Essex Junction, Vermont 0.5452 March 8, 1974 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator 117F Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick: This letter will contain my reactions and suggestions pertaining to two proposed condominium developments in South Burlington, Pine Creek Condominium and Lakeland Con- dominiums. Because these projects are more than ten units each, my comments will concern the ten criteria of Act 250 (Sec. 10. 10.V.S.A. 6086(a) (1-10)) as they relate to the projects. Pine Creek Condominiums The proposed Pine Creek Drive will depart from Joy Drive, skirt the perimeter of the WJOY tower, proceed along the Rice H.S. athletic field and enter the property. Con- struction of the first 300 ft. of the proposed road will necessitate the removal of some trees. Loss of these trees will not be detrimental as long as the integrity of the stand is maintained. This stand of trees has no commer- cial timber value, nor are the individual stems significant with regard to species or quality, however the stand is a substantial green island in the midst of open fields and buildings. This island should be maintained, There is also a hedgerow of oak, pine, and lesser shrubs on the property line between WJOY and Rice H.S. If it is impractical to save these trees, provisions 'should be made for replanting. Richard Ward -2- March 8, 1974 Vegetation west of the power line is principally white pine, hemlock, and gray birch. Although the con- struction activity in this area will be extensive, the developer should make a strong effort to retain clumps of this vegetation between buildings, and between the project site and Rice property. Although the ;ray birch is a short-lived species, it will afford green space for a few years until better trees can be established. Under the power line are located the road and parking areas. Approval for facilities within the right-of-way should be in writing, and any restriction or conditions imposed by Green Mtn. Power should be incorporated into all presentations before governmental bodies. East of the power line the forest type is composed principally of hemlock, pine, and elm with less dray birch than west of the power line. The major topographic fea- tures in this area are the stream and stream banks. A FO foot setback from the stream is indicated. I presume this is a zoning requirement, however the top of the slope should also be considered in establishing the location of the buildings. The three buildings in the northeast quadrant (6,b,& 4 units) should be located so that site modification and construction will not affect or disturb the bank. If the bank is disturbed, soil erosion is certain to occur and direct siltation of the stream can be expected. The soils on this site are of the Enosburg-Whately and Hinesburg series - fine sand over silt and clay. The soils are characterized by a seasonal high water due to the slow permeability of the sub -soil. The forest cover has been previously described, however the use of the open space should be considered. The wood- land composition is such that I would not recommend any improvements in the way of thinnin7 or supplemental plantings due to the high maintenance involved. If the open space receives intensive use by the tenants, passive maintenance by these people will probably contribute more to the aesthetics and usability of the area than an initial "beautification" project which will create a long- term maintenance need. Richard Ward -3- March 8, 1974 The road is planned to be a private road, and no profiles have been submitted. The District Environmental Commission will want to see a document stating that the road will be owned by the Homeowner's Assoc. (?) and the Association is bound to maintain the road. If there is any way that the town can be required to accept the road in the future, the Commission will require that the road be built to town standards. Underground facilities are planned. This feature will be received favorably. Lighting should be low-key and inoffensive. Outdoor lights on short standards are strongly recommended. Insulation in the buildings should be as efficient as possible - recommended standards are available. A complete, detailed landscape plan will be necessary. Bonding for a landscape project this large may be de- sirable. Lakeland Condominiums This project may be the subject of some controversy, due to its proximity to the lake shore. The buildings are located away from the top of the bark, however site work, of necessity, extends beyond the buildings. This project should be planned so that the bank is not subject to any disturbance. In developments such as this, the owners sometimes wish to cut corridors through the trees to provide vies for the tenants. Because such cutting would detract from the natural shoreline I would advise against it. The project site is presently open meadow on Covington soil. This soil is a poorly drained clay characterized by a high water table at all times. The soil limitations will re- quire special designs regarding bases for roads and buildings. The intersection of Lakeland Avenue and Shelburne Road appears to be unnecessary, considering that a road is already under construction next to Automaster Motors. Shelburne Road is heavily traveled and more accesses add to existing hazards. Iwould recommend that Lakeland Ave. join with the road under construction rather than with Shelburne Road. Municipal water and sewer facilities are planned. Underground electrical and telephone service would be desirable. Lighting should be low-key and on short poles. Insulation should be of maximum efficiency- recommended standards available. Richard Ward -- March 8, 1974 Because this project will be highly visible from Route 7 and the lake, a professional landscape design of major proportions will be necessary. The soil presents severe limitations for tree growth, therefore long-term bonding for such a landscape project may be desirable. One of the most important features of this site is that it is one of the few undeveloped lakeshores in South Burlington. This area was considered high priority for public acquisition in the 1967 South Burlington Natural Resource Inventory. This development does not appear to be in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan which becomes effective later this month. In view of this non-conformance, an application to the District Environmental Commission will probably be denied. Sincerely yours, Russell S. Reay Environmental Advisor LAKELANDS CONDOMINIUM South Burlington, Vermont Owner/Developer Lakelands Corporation, Inc. Ray Unsworth 1700 Spear Street S. Burlington, Vermont Land Surveyor Jeffrey G. Snyder Birch Hill Stowe, Vermont Land Planners Peter Bergh Associates Rd#1 Shelburne, Vermont LAKELANDS CONDOMINIUM The Lakelands Condominium is proposed to be built on a tract of 14 acres lying west of the Vermont Railway adjacent to Shelburne ) .y in the Southwest corner of the City. The owner/developer of the project, Lakelands Corporation, has long recognized a demand in the Burlington area for attractive, close to town, water oriented condominium housing. Existing zoning allows a residential density of seven units per acre, or a total of ninety-eight units for the 14 acre site. The proposal is to build a total of 96 units, consisting of efficiency, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. The exact number of each type of unit will be determined by buyer preference. All units are planned to be pre -sold before construction begins, and the project will be phased over a 3 to 4 year period. The question of public access to the lakeshore lands has been given careful consideration. All units will be set back a minimum.6f one hundred feet from the high water mark, leaving a wide greenbelt next to the lake. It -is the intention of Lakelands Corporation to allow public pedestrian access along the waterfront when the City of South Burlington is prepared to maintain a trail network, and the Lakelands waterfront can be incorporated into a more extensive trail system. Access to Lakelands would be via a new road (Lakelands Ave.), off Shelburne Road, crossing lands owned by the Corporation and con- structed to City Specifications. The city road would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the proposed VELCO right-of-way, and a private driveway maintained by the Condominium Association would cross the railroad and serve the condominium owners. Water and electricity would be brought to the project by this route. Sewage would be collected in the northwest corner of the property and pumped from there.via the Vermont Railway right-of-way to the Bartlett Bay treatment plant. All utilities would be underground. The architecture of the units is not finalized at this time. How- ever, they will be primarily of wood construction with vertical ' siding stained natural colors, and will have pitched and/or shed roofs. The buildings will be two to three stories in height, well below the height of the existing tree -belt along the lakeshore. } Ta ZOO! I M G PA A 11 !'TOWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IS � CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT To .' AS REVISED AND ADOPTED M"�'�l "� I,✓ ! . _/�\ FEBRUARY 28, 1964 RESIDENCE o o �o • INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT "A" e_:.: DISTRICT "B" RESIDENCEye� BUSINESS f/ Iq \ l i 1 •� A DISTRICT "B" DISTRICT "A" i l + ` To •'•.e,.b 1, r r�., ,. f :INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS „ DISTRICT "A" DISTRICT "B' PLANNED U DISTRICT 1 ), T, Mrlran '�1y/ I �"�•� ''"• 't 4. SAW Ic - - N - _ ' \ I _____`__ It �)���.+,;:;:;:,. sc •.=atis: - ___-_ ___ m l T. Dndi,proe I — _ _ _' '� a a<em.�•.r [;:' � g; =' _ Y ,- •Were. �:�:�::: �:r. oy •P /'+� // CITY �- Deal. ,:.......x..c i,...90'__:�\ o •/�/'! .. �j� "%', �Unian.Iry �� •�:jlefl• teen ler ���• --�/ -- •��y J,: u •,'ri.113u " 'r �a', e � r Yerwenr So. l,rrhnprw 1 .. p� . 4 = 'f � !� #. ra r . �! "ipn , •'• aEln tirf ,_ Y l a�o�Rke\\ �� \ \ \� \\ l ZZZ r Mlle f.•;�/�J/t•:yy: '+/.Ji:f::Y j lip y" �''l.' '1' 'rl/jV�ly,�';•',,,�•J,',ilr�itr•%./�U��\ r.^�. � ^^^ i�t;i-:�';'i`:�� si rI�J), JIi�/ rl��'l� i°�/ lu ��Y•/1>%..0 Fii 11 l 1. } fl le,y ,'i !J1 i l / 1• r'},�T; ;� _ -=fc• lV',' �..::: Rio"". :::::::.... ' " .fi ' . � 1, /ark �✓,l',� t.i-'r.• n. �,; 'L r/.f r.• (l.'+)i •.� �+ 11 i)s;:;i-_ ;:;:;:;:;';:;:;:;:;:;q�;�. ✓( :.:'Jl,i._.,,.! of J�J.C116 LAKE a cn y CHA MPLA IN - .1 ry CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number Lakelands Corp. c/o R.R. Unsworth, Box 241 S. Burlington, Vt. (862-0480) 2. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application Refer to #1 3• Nature of the Development or Subdivision Residential condominium, 96 units 4. Location of Development or Subdivision Westerly of Rt.7, on Shelburne Bay, S. Burlington, Vermont 5. High and Low Elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision High Elevation 1381, Low Elevation 100' 6. Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont Lakelands Corporation, c/o Jere Meserole, Box 357, Burlington 7. Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) Fee Simple N - 2 - 8. If the Applicant is not an individual, the For C'o pora�ion and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM. DATE: Oct., 1968PLACE: By Hilton Wick, Burlington 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not hswer )$4,o00,000 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots 96 Condominium units 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any Deed(s) to be issued? All land within the development will be owned in common by the condominium association. Protective covenets appropriate and suitable to condominium ownership are planned. 12. Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. (4) Include a contour man of the land involved drawn on a scale of 5 foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and width of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision or Development? Residential 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development or Subdivis- ion including information, if available, on Soils,Streams or Other bodies of Water, Bedrocks, Etc. The site is an old meadow, sloping gently toward the lake. The soils are a sandy loam. There are few trees on the property, except for a dense border along the lakeshore on the bank. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest 28 ac-„rps B. Number of acres in this project 14 acres C. Number of acres previously developed Nnna D. When do you anticipate beginning the project Summer 1974 E. When will this development or subdivision be completed Phased construction to 1978. lb. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. Municipal Im Where is the nearest municipal water system and is it available and feasible to use it? 12" Main along Rt. 7. Yes. 17. Sewage System: A. ,That type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, or municipal system? Municipal - 4 - B. Where is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? Bartletts Bay Rd. Yes. C. If the sewage system is other than a conurunity, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching field, include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. 18. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. North: Harrison Ambrose, S. Burlington; Lydia Lowell, Shel- burne. East: Vermont Railroad, 267 Battery Street, Burl- i , n WPRt : T,akP C'haml;2 lain B. What is the adjacent property used for at present? Ambrose, Residential; Lowell, Vacant; VeLamont' Railway, Railroad Lozon, Vacant. C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? Unknown 19. Zoning: A. Which'District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? Residential District , Zoned R-7, March 17, 1969 DATE February 20, 1974 SIGNATURE Peter Bergh, Y City of South Burlington M�dM1,! �SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 April 2, 1974 Mr. Ray Unsworth 1700 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 051+01 Dear `ir. Unsworth: Upon advice from the City's attorney, Mr. Richard Spokes, I regret to inform you that the South Burlington Planning Commission hereby formally rejects the Lakelands prop osal because it does not conform to the duly adopted 1974 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Spokes' opinion #54 , which details the basis for this decision. Please be advised that a) approval of the Pine Brook proposal has been rescinded and b) the Pine Brook proposal has been rejected, on these grounds as well. Sincerely yours, o. Mary Barbara Maher Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission MBM/ j Enclosure The Chronological History -Community Interest In Recreational Use of Lake Shore Land in So. Burlington In 1967 the town of So. Burlington asked the Chittenden County Natural Resources Technical Team to inventory the natural areas in the town and pro- pose possible uses. This team was established through an inter -agency agree- ment of= Soil Conservation Service,U.S. Dept. of Agriculture University of Vermont Extension Service Vermont Resources Research Center with the following agencies also contributing; Vermont Dept. of Forests and Parks Vermont Dept. of Recreation Green Mountain Audubon Society This report was issued in three parts. Report #3 took the form of an attitude survey which allowed residents of So. Burlington to express their feelings on the needs and goals of the community. Report #2 contained a soils inventory for So. Burlington which indicated the suitability and limitations of the soil. types for various land uses. Report #1 was prepared using information gained in the other two studies. The technical team used the goals indicated in Report//3 and the soil infor- mation accumulated in Report #2 to guide their study which developed as an inventory of the potential recreation and conservation sites within the boun- daries of So. Burlington. Specialists from the fields of forestry,soil science recreation,wildlife management,biolo:;y,resource economics,rural sociology and engineering all made their contributions to Report #1. In the Opinion Survey(Report #3) we find that;- 64 % of respondants indicated desire for lake access to be developed 67 % said lack of public access to the water is a special problem 77 % indicated the desire for picnic areas along, river and lake 86 % said they would like bathing beaches "chile we realize these statements were made in the 1167-68 time frame ( pre -Red Rocks development), they are still pertinent. Althou?h many sites were studied, some sixteen were selected as meeting the needs and goals of the community and having the proper soil conditions for the intended use. These sitestwere then numberered on a map starting at the top of the map and working down from left to right. Site #15 in this survey is the area we are discussing tonight. I would like to quote the Technical leam's evaluation of this site at this time. It The lake front offers potential for an excellent municipal swimming beach. Presently small stones cover the beach and water area,,however there appears to be a sandy base. Clearing the stones and. debris from the area and possibly spreading more sand could be done at reasonable cost. The beach is approximately 25-40 feet in width. A bank 15-20 feet h high rises from the beach to the open meadow:(from page 27 of Rpt.#1) In 1969 at the request of the Board of Selectmen and in cooper- ation with the Park and Recreation Committee and the town recreation dir- ector, the State Board of Recreation was asked to make a Recreation Survey and an Appraisal of Recreation in the town of So. Burlington. Information for this study came from two sources. The League of Women Voters survey from 1968 and another survey the State Board of Rec- reation made specifically for this study. They also made on the site observations. Their recommendations were tailored to fit the express- ed needs of the community and were based on sound practise. Ater praising a successful athletics program for bo,ys,they added "AN EFFORT SHOULD BE idADE AS FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE PRESENT - ED 'TU THE TOWN TO SET ASIDE LAND IN THESE SUBDIVISIONS FOR RECREATION AND PARK PURPOSES". ------"Continued efforts should be made to develop suitable swimming facilities". Because of the location of So. Burlington in the metropolitan Chitten- den County area ,the wise use of natural resources and the development of a comprehensive recreation program are essential to the maintenance of the reputation of So. Burlington as a first class community in which to live. In their summary(see section8) they indicate that one of the pressing problems is the need for swimming facilities. In their charts we find a formula for 61ftP l c-31i bf,the ,W#ecdc@ssary 'peach area per unit of population. Adequate beach for a community should be able to place 5% of the town population,with a minimum beach area of 50 sq. ft. per person. For a population of 10,000 a town would require 25,000 sq. ft. of beach. At present with Red Rocks available So. Burlington residents will have the use of 17,500 sq. ft. of beach for use. In May of 1971 at the request of James Lamphere,Chairman of the plan- nin;7 commission, the Natural Resources Comm. submitted a statement entitled "Public Access to Lake Champlain". I would like to quote a portion of this statement at this time as it is most pertinent to the present discussion. " We feel there is still a need for access to the lake. The beach area at Red Rocks is not large enough to handle both swimmers and boater- a ques- tionable combination at any beach. Furthermore the only road into the Red Rocks beach is very steep and will be maintained for emergency use only. Trailer traffic and parking of vehicles (When launching boats) is completely incompatible with the grade and especially the space at the beach. Public access roads with adjacent parking lots at other spots along the So. Burlington shore could serve several valuable purposes. 1. Boating access-- otherwise (So. Burlington residents)must travel to other towns. 2. A chance to get to the edge,,of the water- to look at the water, the mountains or sunset. 3. Ice fishing- Ice skating 4. Access to any future public walkway(pedestrian corridor) along the lake shore. An access road to the lake on the property under di.scussion(South Beach) would be feasible along the southerly boundary where there is already a cut in the bank that has been used for boat launchings." (End of Quote) While this was written in luiay of 1971 , it is obviously quite appli- cable at this time. In April and May of 1972 the Natural Resources Committee also spoke out '.on the importance of maintaining a green belt in So. Burlington and the <;reat need for additional parkland along the lake. Durin- the public f hearings at which the new Zoning ;haw and Comprehensive_Plan were submitted to the public; first the rlanning Commission and then the City Council were dramatically reminded by the people of So. Burlington of their con- cern for recreational use of lake shore property. From the public reaction at these hearings it is obvious that the Natural:tResources Committee goals were in agreement with pi)2ic sentiment. In June of 1973 the Natural Resources Committee submitted to the Planning Commission, with copies to City Council, " A Plan For Lake Champlainf for consideration as a goal in the So. Burlington Master Plan. Let me read to you the goal set out in this plan. " The greatest physical asset of South Burlington consists of 727 acres of Lal<.e Chairii;'L._in wi ,si.L,, ci ;y-Loundaries. ti major goal of our city i i�,r. planning is to protect the scenic, aesthetic and natural environmental qualities and make them available for pleasure,enjoyment and recreation to the citizen of South Burlington and the region in a way that will_ pro- tect and enhance this incredibly valuable asset." In the proposed So. Burlington Comprehensive Plan,1974-1980-we find included in Chapter VI Lake Champlain recomendations which echo the above goal. The purpose of this: rather long development of the history of community interest in lake shore access is to document for you how con- sistant this has been. While the members of the Natural Resource Committee have changed as have the membership of the Planning Commission and the City Council,from 1967 on,the goal of making lake shore use available to the citizens of this community has remained unchanffed. i W M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER SZYMANSKI RS: LAKELAND CONDOMINIUM DATE: MARCH 11, 1974 \ Sanitary Sewers �r1. Plans should include method of sewering Lakeland Avenue. This should be by a sewer line down the center of the street. 2. A 15 foot sewer easement extended to the southerly property line should be provided. V 3. The condominium development will produce approximately 30,000 to 35,000 gallons of sewage per day. The additional flow capacity of the Bartletts Bay plant is approximately 200,000 gallons per day. The plant is designed to handle 700,000 gallons per day with a B.O.D. loading of 0.2 lbs. per capita per day. The flow due to infiltration of clean water is higher than expected, however the loading is below the anticipated amount, and the plant is operating satisfactorily on one-half of the units,' indicating that unless there is a change in the loading, the plant can handle in excess of 700,000 gallons per day. The Potter development is expected to produce approximately 60,000 to 70,000 gallons per day. ' Water V 1. Valves must be provided at Shelburne Road near cul-de-sac and. and at each leg of the service mains, also on each hydrant spur. V 2. Main under track shall be cast iron enclosed in a sleeve. 3. Easements should be provided northerly and southerly so that system can be looped in the future. Drainage 1. Size of drainage pipes is not shown. G2. A 48" culvert pipe should be added under Brigham Road to handle the development's faster run-off. 43. The parking areas of the condominiums are up -grade from the buildings. A drainage system that serves the parking areas and \ the building roof drains should be considered. v4. Provide a headwall on road drainage pipe where it outlets into ditch. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM CITY MANAGER MARCH 11, 1974 Page 2 \ Roads and Sidewalks �r 1. Sidewalks should be constructed along the north side of Lakeland Avenue and extended to the development. 2. Curbs should be considered along the numerous radii to protect grassed areas from traffic shortcuts. 3. Provisions should be made for internal walkways. 4. Provisions should be made for street lights. .k. . TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: LAKELAND CORPORATION DATE: MARCH 6, 1974 Proposal is to construct 96 condominium units. A new road will be constructed off Shelburne Road. A cut -de -sac is planned with a private road entering into the development. An on -grade rail crossing is planned (see letter from Vermont Railway). This site has been reviewed by tl.e County Forester, Mr. Russell Reay. 1. Area is zoned Residential District C. Parcel contains approximately 14 acres. The Comprehensive Plan of 1972 projected Residential for this area. Therefore, this proposal is in conformity with the ordinance and plan. It is not in conformity with the 1974 Master Plan and Ordinance. 2. Minimum lot size is 6000 square feet per unit or approximately 13.2 acres. 3. All yard. requirements are in conformity. 4. Height & dwelling standards are unknown. 5. Off-street parking is in conformity. 6. Parking area and screenin= appears appropriate - hedge row proposed along railroad. 7. Accessory buildings are in conformity (bath house for swimming pool). Swimming pool is required to conform to existing regulations. MEMORANDUM TO: MARY BARBARA MAHER, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRWOMAN FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: STUDY PLAN OF LAKELAND CONDOMINIUM PROPOSAL AND REQUIREMENTS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DATE: MARCH 61 1974 Section of Subdivision Regulations L&keland Study Plan 401 Conformity to Town Plan - some conflict relating to the Lakeshore RCO strip approximately 1651 wide shown on 1972 Plan 403 A & B Street Requirements - proposed private driveway is from 20 to 24 feet wide - under A, minimum required width is 60 feet; proposed driveway also serves more than one dwelling, which is conflict witY_ part B. 405 Dead End Streets - insufficient turn around radius 407E Street Names - no street name for proposed "private driveway" 40P Parks and Playground - see conflict with Town Plan under Sites sect. 401 and also, Ch. 91, sect. 4415 (5). Do the tennis/pool facilities and "common land" satisfy the stipulation about dedication of land for public recreational purposes? 503 D, E & I Plan Data - part D requires endorsement of Commission Chairman of plans sub- mission date; part E requires approximate width and location of all easements, i.e., sewer, water, utilities; part I relates to parcels proposed to be deeded tc, the City for streets, parks, public open space is also related to rea_uirements under section 401 & 40F. LAKELANDS CONDOMINIUM South Burlington, Vermont Owner/Developer Lakelands Corporation, Inc. Ray Unsworth 1700 Spear Strcet S. Burlington, Vermont Land Surveyor Jeffrey G. Snyder Birch Hill Stowe, Vermont Land Planners Peter Bergh Associates Rd#1 Shelburne, Vermont LAKELANDS CONDOMINIUM The Lakelands Condominium is proposed to be built on a tract of 14 acres lying west of the Vermont Railway adjacent to Shelburne Bay in the Southwest corner of the City. The owner/developer of the project, Lakelands Corporation, has long recognized a demand in the Burlington area for attractive, close to town, water oriented condominium housing. Existing zoning allows a residential density of seven units per acre, or a total of ninety-eight units for the 14 acre site. The proposal is to build a total of 96 units, consisting of efficiency, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. The exact number of each type of unit will be determined by buyer preference. All units are planned to be pre -sold before construction begins, and the project will be phased over a 3 to 4 year period. The question of public access to the lakeshore lands has been given careful consideration. All units will be set back a minimum,of one hundred feet from the high water mark, leaving a wide greenbelt next to the lake. It is the intention of Lakelands Corporation to allow public pedestrian access along the waterfront when the City of South Burlington is prepared to maintain a trail network, and the Lakelands waterfront can be incorporated into a more extensive trail system. Access to Lakelands would be via a new road (Lakelands Ave.), off Shelburne Road, crossing lands owned by the Corporation and con- structed to City Specifications. The city road would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the proposed VELCO right-of-way, and a private driveway maintained by the Condominium Association would cross the railroad and serve the condominium owners. Water and electricity would be brought to the project by this route. Sewage would be collected in the northwest corner of the property and pumped from there via the Vermont Railway right-of-way to the Bartlett Bay treatment plant. All utilities would be underground. The architecture of the units is not finalized at this time. How- ever, they will be primarily of wood construction with vertical siding stained natural colors, and will have pitched and/or shed roofs. The buildings will be two to three stories in height, well below the height of the existing tree -belt along the lakeshore. ZONING MAP TOWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT AS Rl- VISE D AND ADOPTED FEBRUARY 23, 1964 RESIDENCE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT "A.. DISTRICT "B"' RESIDENCE BUSINESS DISTRICT "B "A" INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT "A., DISTRICT "B" PLANNED DISTRICT To To 11 wlmoo,ki To M000sko dy eniy II n Off.. To of V.— ...... D,pt. CITY ------ OF'13LIRLINGTON L — R � 1 v—t — — P11- ;.- ", . .,- J-0--nE A4-6.1 _J0 High soh—f 11 MEN MR, 9 -01 LAKE CHAMPLAIN "n 10 I To Sbdb.,- SCALE OF MILES 0 2 Prepared by THE NATIONAL SURVEY, CHESTER. VERNIOIJT .............. .............. ........... .......... .............. .......... ............. ............. .............. .............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............. .............. To E— J.—ti.. and C.khwt, RX To Bi— II ; 1�` / /�G�./c G /4. N Q �O N�d �h / it! / �I .rs7 i' e � � �! � �•f /J �� / N 9 (,r c'S t/ o , Is 14 �o�ose4 1tiC Gurvi�/�/S ss i4 o woo / `G ,r L/ AJ 0, i I 'lu lef a loeC .-" GA., iQPY U i,PP 0110 A.) f S ,s- /Ju/e,//,tiy At d �'/!.� 0 Gt/ N /4 V �1 ' -lace e S e i!'e 'v / * O T / /9�•�' /.vcj d O Gc"s Ao y PETER BERGH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SITE PLANNING • PLANNING • SHELBURNE, VERMONT 05482 • (802) 425-2433 February 5, 1974 Mr. Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator City Hall South Burlington, Vermont RE: Lakelands Condominium Dear Mr. Ward: Enclosed is a study plan for the Lakelands Condominium project that is being proposed to be built off Shelburne Road at Bartlett Bay. We would like to request at this time a preliminary sub- division hearing at the February 12th meeting of the Planning Commission, and will submit at that time the required documents in triplicate. May I also request at this time that you warn a hearing on this proposed project for the February 26th meeting of the Planning Commission,at which time we would like to present documents re- quired for subdivision approval. S' e _ , Peter Bergh 74'00� PB/d Encl. cc. R. Unsworth J. Meserole sVOA- en T`'p rit e ®�7� s vi 7G v,s e�� �� S�`r�' �` &Vv��c'a/�i7 •v �G macro .ss C /�/i70/ �A1 f Lv rc�/SSIIi�G r�.5/l�e.�r -►'S /7�irr�ri7'Qr-sGC [!7 �iIC Gy'v7�;/'C ..ST/'Xe7 C3 G/4 eS�►o iv i'c/rov a/ T� �� •�.s ,s,�w/-, �o v/�� c �/ �e�, e 7540 G, s, 4eei� �j T�-c ,S� 415 .s .1 in >frr sc c, o•y Arc .Er./� j /fi o�q���•� c/�>�< ,�.c ,t�V/ou���nco�r*� IG- la-k. r �a, iv p �o.�4/a /r, /.v / U r , Ai-7110 1Ys /far �iE-e /,v 9Cr�sr:o�c, IS 20.•vr a 1es/4)foAd7o' a:G Olt'UA.014,Na DSe �iu/Pi .s/Pc� AGO 4/41G' A)O ,(�'� o w �v /4- %�// � .s 7" .1, t . . Al--�; , J-, 74", 4 )0 ;F,-- /r/f/o w N' , Al tog 6 S N�'s /� roe c) ex ou o 7' February 13, 13174 Webster -Kart in Inc. Airport Drive South Burlington, Vermont il-littention: Stan Wilbur ilea bartletts Bay Sewers Dear Stan: The City has a proposal for the construction of a 96 unit condominium whit includes 24 one -bedroom. units, 36 two -bedroom units and 36 three-bedroore, units. The site is at Bartletts Bay, west of the R. R. tracJI:s adjacent to the Shelburne line, consisting of approximately 14 acres. Please review this proposal an answer the following questions: 1. What is the anticipated flow from the development? 2. Will the Dartletts Bay plant accomodate this additional flow? 3. What effect, if any, on the syster' that is designed for the area? Your prompt answer to these questions will b-, appreciated. Very truly yours, ;-7illiaizi J. Szymanski City Manager VqJS/h 34 State a Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Plannin; Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY Or ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ROBERT:Z{ WiL'C AMS; S&efcfaf�C �Ibiif�i�Ii&I Vefrticrn 55=c DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 March 8, 1974 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator 1175 Williston Road South B�rlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dick: This letter will contain my reactions and suggestions pertaining to two proposed condominium developments in South Burlington, Pine Creek Condominium and Lakeland Con- dominiums. Because these projects are more than ten units each, my comments will concern the ten criteria of Act 250 (Sec. 10. 10.V.S.A. 6086(a) (1-10)) as they relate to the projects. Pine Creek Condominiums T,he proposed Pine Creek Drive will depart from Joy Drive, skirt the perimeter of the WJOY power, proceed along the Rice H.S. athletic field and enter the property. Con- struction of the first 300 ft. of the proposed road will necessitate the removal of some trees. Loss of these trees will not be detriindn al as long as the integrity of the stand is maintained. This stand of trees has no commer- cial timber value, nor are the individual stems significant with retard to species Dr quality; however the stand is a substantial green island in the midst of open fields and buildings. This island should be maintained, There is also a hedgerow of oak, pine, and lesser shrubs on the property line between WJOY and Rice H.S. If it is impractical to save these trees, provisions should be made for replanting. Richard Ward -2- March 8, 1974 Vegetation west of the power line is principally white pane, lemloc.,, and „ray birch. Althou;h the con- struction, activity in this area will be extensive, the developer should ma:--.e a strop effort to retain clumps of this ve;e ,atlon between buildin_;s, and between the project site a:; Rice property. Although the gray birch is a short-lived species, it will afford green space for a few years until better trees can be established. Under the power line are located the road and parking ° areas. Approval f'or facilities within the right-of-way should be in writin, and any restriction or conditions imposed by Green Mtn. Power should be incorporated into all presentations before governmental bodies. East of the power line the forest type is composed principally of hemlock, pine, and elm with less ;ray birch than west of the power line. The major topographic fea- tures in this area are the strear:, and stream banks. A 50 foot setback from the stream is indicated. I presume this is a zoning requirement, however the top of the slope should also be considered in establishing, the location of the buildin.;s. The three buildin;s in the northeast quadrant (650,& 4 units) should be located so that site modification and construction will not affect or disturb the bank. If the bank is disturbed, soil erosion is certain to occur and direct siltation of the stream can be expected. The soils on this site are of t1he Enosburg-Whately and Hinesburg series - fine sand over silt and clay. The soils are characterized by a seasonal high water due to the slow permeability of the sub -soil. The forest cover has been previously described, however the use of the open space should be considered. The wood- land composition is such that I would not recommend any improvements in the way of thinnin; or supplemental plantings due to the high maintenance involved. If the open space receives intensive use by the tenants, passive maintenance by these people will probably contribute more to the aesthetics and usability of the area than an initial "beautification" project which will create a long- term maintenance need. Richard Ward -3- March 8, 1974 The road is planned to be a private road, and no profiles have been submitted. The District Environmental Commission will Viant to see a document stating that the road will be owned by the Homeowner's A<:soc . (? ) and the Association is bound to maintain the road. If there is any way that the town can be required to accept the road in the future, the Commission will require that the road be built to town standards. Underground facilities are planned. This feature will be received favorably. Lightin-, should be low-key and inoffensive. Outdoor lights on short standards are strongly recommended. Insulation in the buildings should be as efficient as possible - recommended standards are available. A complete, detailed landscape plan will be necessary. BondinJ for a landscape project this large may be de- sirable. Lakeland Condominiums This project may be the subject of some controversy, due to its proximity to the lake shore. The buildings are located away from the top of the bank, however site work, of necessity, extends beyond the buildings. This project should be planned so that the bank is not subject to any disturbance. In developments such as this, the owners sometimes wish to cut corridors Lhrough the trees to provide views for the tenants. Because such cutting would detract from the natural. shoreline I would advise a;;ainst it. The project site is presently open meadow on Covington soil. This soil is a poorly drained clay characterized by a high water table at all times. The soil limitations will re- quire special designs regarding bases for roads and buildings. The intersection of Lakeland Avenue and Shelburne Road appears to be unnecessary, considering that a road is already under construction next to Automaster Motors. Shelburne Road is heavily traveled and more accesses add to existing hazards. Iwould recommend that Lakeland Ave. join with the road under construction rather than with Shelburne Road. Municipal grater and sewer facilities are planned. Underground electrical and telephone service would be desirable. Lighting should be low-key and on short poles. Insulation should be of maximum, efficiency- recommended standards available. tr Richard Ward -4- March 3, 1974 Because this project will be hi hly visible from Route 7 and the lake, a professional landscape desin of major proportions will be necessary. The soil presents severe limitations f cr tree rowth, therefore long-term bondinrf for such a landscape project may be desirable. One of the most important features of this site is that it is one of the lei: undeveloped lakeshores in South Burlin -ton. This area was considered i�;h priority for public acquisition in the 1967 ;;out:l Burlin;to:, :Natural Resource Inventory. This development does not aopear to be in conformance with the South Burlinton Comprehensive Plan which becomes effective later this month. In view of this non-conformance, an application to the District :environmental Commission will probably be denied. Sincerely yours, Russell S. Reay Environmental Advisor i State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator 1175 Williston Road Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Ward: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MARTIN L. JOHNSON, Secretary Montpelier, Vermont 05602 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY March 19, 1974 I have recently received a copy of a letter sent to you by Mr. Russell Reay, Assistant County Forester for Chittenden County. This letter involves a review and comments upon a proposed development by Ray Unsworth in South Burlington, Vermont. It is my understanding that this letter was presented to you and read at a Planning Commission meeting at which the development proposal by Mr. Unsworth was being considered. Having reviewed this letter, I wish to make the following comments. The development proposal by Mr. Unsworth has not been submitted to the District Environmental Commission for an Act 250 permit. Until such time as an application is filed, the Agency does not have any position, pro -or con, with regard to the development. Upon receipt of an application filed by Mr. Unsworth, the various plans and specifications will undergo a complete review by many different technically competent persons within the Environmental Agency. In addition, we will ask Mr. Reay to meet with Mr. Unsworth or his representative at the development site to discuss the project and based upon that discussion Mr. Reay will submit his comments to the Agency for review. I wish to make it clear that the District Environ- mental Commission which has the responsibility for making decisions under Act 250 is not bound in any way by the Page No. 2 Mr. Richard Ward March 20, 1974 comments made by Mr. Reay or by the comments which may ultimately be made by the Environmental Agency. The District Commission functions independently and makes its decision upon the facts as they are presented to them at the time of the hearing. Any inference in Mr. Reay's letter with regard to the possibility that this applica- tion when filed under Act 250 will be denied or that the Agency will take an adverse position is entirely irrelevant and does not reflect the position of this Agency. It is my feeling that the South Burlington Planning Commission should act upon the application based upon the information which you deem appropriate for your considera- tion and should not include any conjecture about the possible future actions of either the Environmental Agency or the District Commission acting under Act 250. If you have any questions regarding this matter, I would be most willing to discuss them with you. Sin cer l /a/i� ,�L Envir MLJ:mss cc - Ray Unsworth P. 0. Box #241 Burlington, Vermont " ar of sere tion March 15, 1974 South Burlington Planning Commission Mary Barbara Maher, Chairwoman City hall South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mrs. Yiaher: 0n March 12, 1974 the Bartlett's Bay Association was asked by the Planning Commission to express our opinion on the proposed Lakeland Development of Messres. Unsworth and �iieserole . The Association met on March 15, 1974 and reached total agreement that we would support an R-1 development plan on the Lakeland site with an R-3 cluster bonus as outlined in the /Zoning nlegulations February 1974, Section o.40 .Tanned Unit Development - Resid.ential. :sincerely, B. E. Buley, ,president r' J Members of the South Burlington Planning Commission: It is the consensus of the residents and members of Pine Haven Shore North Association that the proposed development of Messrs. Unsworth and Meserole be given permission to proceed on said project. However, it would be appreciated if the Commission would take the follow- ing suggestions into consideration: 1) that the number of condominium units be reduced from 96 to something in the vicinity of 56 as shown on the plans; however, in order that the City may not lose the tax advantage, a higher priced, better quality condominium could be sold; 2) that the structures be limited to a height of two and one-half stories; 3) that outdoor lighting be low density and directed so that they won't be an annoyance to the neighbors; 4) that the access road to Route #7 be located as proposed therefore limiting the decibel factor from traffic to the immediate development and future development on the easterly side of the railroad tracks. It is our feeling that locating the access on the southern boundary of the Unsworth property could necessitate the destruction of trees which had hitherto been left to act as an audio and visual barrier from Wickes Corp. In addition, this southerly location or use of the Bartlett Bay Road would leave the Unsworth property east of the railroad tracks wide open for another annoying railroad siding. On behald of our Association and other interested Shelburne residents, I thank you for allowing us to express our desires. Sincere William T. Mur y, President Pine Haven S re North Association March 26, 1974 AAAAA V E R M O N T RAILWAY SERVING THE SCENIC GREEN MOUNTAIN AREA February 21, 1974 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City Hall 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Lakeland Condominiums Dear Mr. Ward: In line with our phone conversation this morning, this is to advise that the Vermont Railway will issue a license for sewer and water crossings but have advised the owners of the property that we feel a crossing at grade is very unadvisable and we do not expect to grant permission for this type of crossing. We would, however, allow an underpass for access to and from the west side of the tracks. Very truly yours, 0001�- jAz4y---- Harold T. Filskov Vice President and General Manager cc: Mr. Jerre Meserole OFFICES IN BURLINGTON, VERMONT—AREA CODE 802-658-2550 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. BOX 108, 58 PEARL STREET ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 802 658-3004 April 8, 1974 Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Bartlett Property Dear Mary Barbara, This letter is in regard to our meeting on the above mentioned property. The following are my comments on this matter: 1) I believe that the access to the retail portion of the development should remain off Shelburne Road as shown. There should never be access through the residential section for those retail uses. 2) The roadway system around the commons area should be redesigned to allow access to the residential units from the rear. This would keep the commons area free from motorized traffic, thereby enhancing people use. This may also cut down on the length of small access roads. 3) The access road from Spear Street may be too long. Realizing that at some time in the future the City will be responsible for upkeep, it may be good to consider terminating the road at the main recreation area in the center of the development, with private access roads from that point on. The main- tenance, resurfacing, plowing, etc. would be the responsibility of the home- owners association. 4) The possible development of 310 units of housing times a conservative three persons per unit equals approximately 930 people. This potential population is equivalent to a small town. Consideration should be given to the use of a small portion of the land for neighborhood retail uses. They may include a ... Serving the Municipalities of .. . Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher April 8, 1974 Page 2 local grocery store, drugstore, etc. This may become more important as the surrounding properties develop. 5) Consideration of a school site is most important. This site could be located physically in the center of the development in conjunction with recreation area and neighborhood retail. Somewhat along the lines of a "neighborhood. " 6) The City of South Burlington should be made a party to, and a voting member of, the homeowners association. It would be good to see a sample of their homeowners association agreement. 7) Perhaps the developer can submit an alternate development scheme for a "gridiron" subdivision together with the appropriate economics for con- struction and maintenance of both types of development. If I can be of further help, please call. Sincerely, DONALD T. RICH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DTR/cm cc: Mr. C . Harry Behney Mr. William D. Kellner NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2/19/74 REPORT PARAPHRASED WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK....... Do not let the Lakelands Corporation build needed housing which will provide tax revenue for the City on t!le South Beach Property!!! Refuse them any legal proposition. Keep the land open so the City may eventually buy it. Natural Resources Committee wants to acquire all of the open land in South Burlington for parks and playgrounds and to take it off the tax rolls. What we propose on page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan will have a beneficial effect on: POLLUTION: a) Note that we propose trailer camp sites and swim- ming and boat launching areas. Since it would be economically im- possible to afford facilities for City sewer at trailer camp sites, we propose a on site septic system which would enrich the surrounding water and provide nutritional benefits to the Champlain Water District. b) The run off from our parking lots and tennis courts would have a favorable effect. c) From our enriched water, the propogation of fish would be enhanced. d) The hundreds of cars and trailers from all over the eastern United States would be beneficial to the area and not add to the pollution of water, air or noise of the Shelburne Bay area. e) Our boating activities would not add to the previous- ly mentioned water pollution problems. However, the Natural Resources Committee objects to the proposal of Lakelands Corporation for the following reasons: a) If you permit condominiums on Shelburne Bay attached to the Bartletts Bay sewer system, (which is now nowhere near it's max- imum capacity), this will have an adverse effect on the water supply of Lake Champlain Water District much more than a toilet flushed at any where from Swift Street south; including Cedar Glen, Laurel Hill, Brewer Parkway, Queen City Park or the Orchard Development. b) The run off from the -roof tops of the condominiums would dilute the water of Shelburne Bay. c) This uncontrolled dilution would cause the "propogation of fish to decline, since fish lay their eggs in the sandy shallow bottom of the Bay.". d) The pollution of the cars of 96 taxpayers would be far more adverse than those of a much larger number of tourists and trailer park campers. e) Boating activities at a private beach would be more onerous than similar activities on a public e� ac Respectfully submitted, Ray Unsworth, Secretary Unnatural Resources Committee SOUTH BURLINGTON NOTICE SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, March 12, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: #1 Appeal of Lakeland Corporation, Mr. Raymond Unsworth of South Burlington, Vermont for approval of a subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately fourteen (14) acres, for the purposes of constructing ninety-six (96) condominium dwelling units, said parcel is located on the westerly side of Shelburne Road and bounded by the,Vermont Railroad, bounded on the south by the Lozon property, on the north by the Lowell and Ambrose properties and on the west by Lake Champlain, as per plan on file in the City Hall Offices. #2 Appeal of V-:illiam Haas of Ticonderoga, New York for approval of a subdivision of a parcel of land containing approximately twelve (12) acres, for the purposes of constructing fifty (50) condominium dwelling units, said parcel is located off Joy Drive, bounded on the south by Interstate 189, on the east by property owned by the University of Vermont and the Burlington Country Club and on the west by the Rice Memorial High School and radio station WJOY, as per plan on file in the City Hall Offices. Mary Barbara Maher, Chairwomen South Burlington Planning Commission 2/25/74 LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 JOHN T. EWING AREA CODE 802 RICHARD A. SPOKES April 1, 1974 863-2857 Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion Letter 54 New Zoning Regulations - ISSUE: Do the new zoning regulations apply to subdivision applications pending upon the effective date of the new zoning regulations? Dear Bill: The question has been raised whether the two subdivision applications pending before the Planning Commission on March 21, 1974, must conform to the City's new zoning regulations. It is my understanding that both subdivision applications were filed prior to March 21, 1974, which was the effective date of the new zoning regulations. Neither application at that time, however, had been approved by the Planning Commission. It is also my understanding that neither applicant has been issued a zoning permit. In order for a person to be free from the limitations of a new zoning ordinance, he must have established a nonconform- ing use or a vested right, or there must be some specific authority contained in the State's enabling act or in the municipality's zoning regulations preserving pending permit applications. My examination of the Vermont Planning and Development Act and our new zoning ordinance reveals that neither source contains language fixing the rights of an applicant at the time his application is filed. Therefore, the issue is whether the two applicants in ques- tion have established a nonconforming use or a vested right under which they would need not comply with the new zoning ordinance. Generally speaking, "land included in a newly improved plat which has been approved by the planning board and filed in the appropriate office is as vulnerable to changes in the zoning regu- lations as is all other land in the community." 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 19.23. Also, "the filing of an approved subdivision plat does not establish a nonconforming use of the plated land which protects it from subsequent zone changes." 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section-19.23,.and cases there cited. a EWING & SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- April 1, 1974 Another zoning authority has stated the general rule in the following terms: "It is generally held that neither the filing of an application for a building permit nor the issuance of a building permit, although valid and issued in con- formity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, alone confers any rights in the applicant or permittee as against the change in the zoning ordinance which imposes further limitations upon the use or structure proposed." Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 57-2. The clear weight of authority indicates that no right to a nonconforming use is established when a land owner applies for a permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.21. Following this one step further, the issuance of a permit adds little to a land owner's case for a nonconforming use. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. It is clear from the case law that in order to establish a nonconforming use, the owner of the land must actually use his property for the intended purposes. Many opinions distinguish between preparing the land for an intend- ed purposes, and actual use of the land for that purpose. See Town of Mendon vs. Ezzo, 129 Vt. 351, 361 (1971). The Mendon case in icates a preparation for a forbidden use is not enough to relieve property from new regulations nor is a substantial investment commit- ed to the project enough to establish a nonconforming use. There is no question that neither applicant in South Burlington has established a nonconforming use. Concerning the acquisition of a "vested right", the majority rule requires the land owner to spend a substantial amount of money or change his position in reliance upon the issuance of a valid permit. 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Section 6.22. Although there are no Vermont Supreme Court cases defining a "vested right", last year, the Chittenden County Court considered vested rights in Preseault vs. Wheel and City of Burlington, Chittenden County Court .Docket No. C82-73CnC. In that case, the Court, by implication, ruled that vested rights.are earned if the developer has spent. a substantial amount of money in reliance upon the issuance of a building permit. I would conclude that the, South Burlington applicants have neither acquired a nonconforming use nor a vested right, and both applicants must comply with the new zoning regulations. From the scanty case law in Vermont, it appears that our Supreme Court would side with the majority view on both of these issues. Very truly yours, • 'ch rd S oke� Ri a A p RAS: rap JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 February 19, 1974 Mr. William J. Szymanski City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Opinion Letter 48 Subdivision Application of Lakeland Corporation Dear Bill: AREA CODE 802 863-2857 Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the subdivision application of the Lakeland Corporation. It is my understanding that the applicant submitted a study plan to Dick Ward by trans- mittal letter dated February 5, 1974. At the same time, it requested a preliminary hearing on February 12th, and on that date the Planning Commission held a work session to consider the proposal. On February llth, notice was published in the Burling- ton Free Press warning a Planning Commission public hearing to be held on February 26th to consider the application. The speci- fic question presented to me is whether the Lakeland Corporation has submitted the material required by our subdivision regulations, and whether the Planning Commission can consider the application in its present form. It first should be noted that the work session held on February 12th has no legal significance. Its purpose, I presume, is merely to assist and advise the developer in submitting its application. The work session is designed to expedite the appli- cation procedure and to identify problem areas that the proposal may present. There are no specific requirements in our subdivision regulations concerning work sessions. After reviewing the material on file at City Hall, I must conclude that the data required by Section 202 and Section 503 of our subdivision regulations has not been submitted. The regulations require the application to be accompanied by a study plan incorporat- ing those items set forth in Section 503 of the -regulations. Much of this information is lacking in the present application, and would hinder consideration of the proposal by the Planning Commission. Prior to warning a public hearing, the complete application should EWING & SPOKES Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- February 19, 1974 be filed. This was not done in this case. I would recommend that the developer complete its application in accordance with our regula- tions, file the application with the required filing fee, and request a new public hearing. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS:nm