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