HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Stonehedge Drive (4)PROJECT NAME/FILE REFERENCE
ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLI:_)
5+wAdge, Nse
-,J. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER
2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS
�8pp
LANDSCAPING
.
SEWER
.
WATER
.
STORM DRAINAGE
.
ROADS
CURBS
SIDEWALKS
(NOTE
ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS)
V13.
T.TMT APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND
INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.:
-X4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE
RECORDED
ACCEPTED
�. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x
. ROADWAYS
DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED
PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x
7.
ERMITS GRi
PTNAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAKED , SIGNED, & FILED
S. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS
ACCEPTED & RECORDED
FILED
�"'a. MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS
LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION
FUTURE ACCESS POINTS
SHARED ACCESS POINTS
OTHER
0 COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES) 6��( �0
11. FEES - PAID/DATE
HEAR ING
BUILDING PERMIT
ENGINEERING INSP.
STT �7;1'Q L �k
SEWER
RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT)
IMPACT FOLLOW UP
4. i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL KIDS CAR COUNTS
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION
Aqreement made this clay of March, 1980,.by alld
buLwccn Glenwood Corp., a VermoiiL corporation (the
"Owner") and the City of South Burlington (the "City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has approved a
final subdivision plat entitled "Stonehedge Condominiums,
Cluster "J", dated January 14, 1980, as revised March ,
1980, by Dubois & King, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission
dated , 1980, requires the Owner to offer to dedicate
the roadway known as Stonehedge Drive to the City; and
WHEREAS, the above described roadway is to be
dedicated to the City free and clear of all encumbrances,
pursuant to said final approval and final plat; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has delivered a deed to the
City for the roadway.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning
Commission's final approval and in further consideration
of the sum of One Dollar in lawful money paid by the City
to the Owner and other good and valuable consideration,
it is covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. The Owner herewith delivers to the City a warranty
deed for the premises described in Exhibit A attached
hereto, said delivery being a formal offer of dedication
to the City to be held by the City until the acceptance
LISMAN & LISMAN or rejection of such offer of dedication by the council of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW the City.
191 CULLEGE 9THELT
,It'RLINGTON. VT. 05401
2. The Owner agrees that said formal offer of dedication
is irrevocable and can be accepted by the City at any time.
3. This irrevocable offer of dedication shall run
with the land and shall be binding upon all assigns, grantees,
successors and/or heirs of the Owner.
IN PRESENCE OF:
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
GLENWOOD CORP.
MW
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
BY:
its duly authorized agent
At South Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 1980,
personally appeared and he acknowledged
this instrument by him signed and sealed to be his free act
and deed and the free act and deed of the City of South
Burlington.
Before me,
Notary Public
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
At Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 1980, personally
appeared Mervin Brown, and he acknowledged this instrument by him
signed and sealed to be his free act and deed and the free act
and deed of Glenwood Corp.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IHI C-ILL.EGE 9THELT
BU RLINGTON, VT. 05401
Before me,
Plotary Public
Ryhi hi t A
Three pieces or parcels of land, two of which are seaments of
Stonehedge Drive, so-called. Reference is made to a boundary
survey, recorded in Volume 107, Page 124 of the Land Records
of the City of South Burlington:
(1) A parcel 50.00' in width, and 1706.96' in length, the
centerline of which extends from a point in the northerly
sideline of Cedar Glen Drive, which is identified as P.C.
Sta. 1+54.88 on the aforementioned plan; thence proceeding
northerly, westerly, and southerly along the curves and
tangents described therein to an endpoint identified as
P.T. Sta. 18+61.85, which is 25.00 feet easterly of the
southeasternmost point of the Cluster "C" parcel; meaning
to convey the existing so-called "loop" roadway with all
drainage, sewerage, or water supply appurtenances and
improvements located therein, and which may be subject to
easements or appurtenances relating to power supply, cable
TV, telephone and natural gas.
(2) A parcel of land 60' in width and approximately 350'
in length, the centerline of which commences at a point
identified as P.T. Sta. 18+61.84, and terminates at a line
labeled "End of R.O.W. to be deeded to the City", as
depicted on a plat entitled "Stonehedge Condominium,
Cluster "J"" recorded in Volume , Page of the City
of South Burlington Land Records. This conveyance shall
be deemed to be centered on the roadway leading to
Cluster "J", as constructed, and by a subsequent survey
of the conveyance to be furnished the grantee by the grantor.
This conveyance further includes all drainage, sewerage, or
water supply appurtenances and improvements located herein
and may be subject to easements or appurtenances relating
to power supply, cable TV, telephone and natural gas.
(3) A triangular shaped parcel, whose southwesterly boundary
is a portion of the eastern edge of the "loop" road parcel
described as Parcel 1 above, and the northerly and easterly
boundaries of which are defined by these distances nd
bearings: S78°56'25"E, 179.13', and S18035'00"W, 198.58';
meaning to convey a parcel at the extreme northeast corner
of the lands of the Grantor for the purpose of future road
extension to the north, to lands now or formerly owned by
Wheelock.
Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to
Glenwood Corp. pursuant to a warranty deed, dated August
17, 1978 of the Burlington Savings Bank, recorded in
Volume 142, Page 454 of the Land Records of the City of
South Burlington.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IBI COLLEGE ST HEET
BURLINGTON. VT. 05401
FORM 1901 - WARRANTY DEED numusreid*
i
now
That GLENGVOOD CORP., a Vermont corporation having a principal
place of business
Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont Grantor in the consideration of
----------TEN AND MORE--------------- Dollars
paid to its full satisfaction by
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality
Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont
Grantee , by these presents, do
freely 0ibe, Orant, &err, Conbep anb Conf irm unto the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
successors
and its jeftxand assigns forever, a
certain piece of land in South Burlington in the
County of Chittenden
follows, viz:
and State of Vermont, described as
Three pieces or parcels of land, two of which are segments of
Stonehedge Drive, so-called. Reference is made.to a boundary
survey, recorded in Volume 107, Page 124 of the Land Records
of the City of South Burlington:
(1) A parcel 50.00' in width, and 1706.96' in length, the
centerline of which extends from a point in the northerly
sideline of Cedar Glen Drive, which is identified as P.C.
Sta. 1+54.88 on the aforementioned plan; thence proceeding
northerly, westerly, and southerly along the curves and
tangents described therein to an endpoint identified as
P.T. Sta. 18+61.85, which is 25.00 feet easterly of the
southeasternmost point of the Cluster "C" parcel; meaning
to convey the existing so-called "loop" roadway with all
drainage, sewerage, or water supply appurtenances and
improvements located therein, and which may be subject to
easements or appurtenances relating to power supply, cable
TV, telephone and natural gas.
(2) A parcel of land 60' in width and approximately 350'
in length, the centerline of which commences at a point
identified as P.T. Sta. 18+61.84, and terminates at a line
labeled "End of R.O.W. to be deeded to the City", as
depicted on a plat entitled "Stonehedge Condominium,
Cluster "J"" recorded in Volume , Page of the City
of South Burlington Land Records. This conveyance shall
be deemed to be centered on the roadway leading to
Cluster "J", as onstructed, and by a subs, 'ient survey
of the conveyane.e to be furnished the gran,,,; by the grantor.
This conveyance further includes all drainage, sewerage, or
water supply appurtenances and improvements located herein
and may be subject to easements or appurtenances relating
to power supply, cable TV, telephone and natural gas.
(3) A triangular shaped parcel, whose southwesterly boundary
is a portion of the eastern edge of the "loop" road parcel
described as Parcel 1 above, and the northerly and easterly
boundaries of which are defined by these distances nd
bearings: S78°56'25"E, 179.13', and S18035'00"W, 198.58';
meaning to convey a parcel at the extreme northeast corner
of the lands of the Grantor for the purpose of future road
extension to the north, to lands now or formerly owned by
Wheelock.
Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to
Glenwood Corp. pursuant to a warranty deed, dated August
17, 1978 of the Burlington Savings Bank, recorded in
Volume 142, Page 454 of the Land Records of the City of
South Burlington.
Reference is made to said deed and plan and to their records and
to the deeds and records therein referred to in further aid of
this description.
To babe anb to borb said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap-
purtenances thereof, to the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
its successors h*M and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever;
.4nd the said Grantor
GLENWOOD CORP.
for itself and its
executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors
MU and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is
the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the
same in manner aforesaid, that they are -free from ebery encumbrance;
s
and it
hereby engage to Warrant anb ref enb the same against all lau ful claims
whatever,
In Ujitneo Wbereof,
this day of
41it�)re-4eitcc of
hereunto set his }and and seal
March .1. D. 19 8 0
Glenwood Corp.
state of Vermont, Burlington this
CHITTENDEN ` ountC day of March ,1. D. 19 B 0
MERVIN BROWN, President and duly authorized agent of
Glenwood Corp.
personally appeared, and he acknowledged this instrument, by
him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed. and
the free act and deed of Glenwood Corp.
Before m-e .
NOTARY PUBLIC
F )PERTY TQRAP!` IFERFTAX F
TAXES_^URN N0. A 2 317
VERMMONTPELIER,
VERMONT 05602
A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR) NAME(SI
AILIP G ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE
Drive
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
1enw_oQ�LCor_..
Stoneled'ge
_
South Burlington, VT
BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAME(S)
MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE
Vermont
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
rit-V of South on
South Burlington,
' • ' LOCATION (Such as ''173 Maple St.. Burlington OR'The Smith Farm, Old Mill Road, Tunbridge"). If property is located in. two towns, please list both.
onehedae Drive, South Burlington
If the buyers acquired less than the entire interest (Fee Simple) in the property. please state the interest acquired (such as "Life Estate," "Perpetual Easement. etc.)
rii of way
APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: ACREAGE: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH:
Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings-
1 F&I NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑ STORE
2 ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO. UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO, UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
amm Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 L`r COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
Please check the category which best describes the proposed use of the property AFTER TRANSFER.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 qCGOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
• THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. If such an exemption is claimed, you need not complete
tilled TAX. but you MUST COMPLETE the section titled "VALUE."
rl,hsection
EXEMPTION and EXPLAIN: ansfer to municipalityREAL
PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notes, property. stocks. bonds, etc. given to seller. and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. If the transfer was
ilt or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property transferred.
0
TOTAL PRICE PAID $ LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $
TAX PAYMENT DUE: FIVE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (0.005) OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE, BUT NOT LESS THAN $1.00 (FOR EXAMPLE: IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000
TH7TAXDUE $50.00: IF THE VALUE WAS $100., THE TAX DUE IS $1.00).
AM' 0 Make checks payable to: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES.
If there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value,
please explain:
IMILU191141i
DATE SELLER ACQUIRED: 8 / 1 % / % H IF BY GIFT. DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED:
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED, CHECK HERE: ❑
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED. INDICATE REASON BELOW(MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.)
transfer to municipality
32 V.S.A 59605 (Board of Health Subdivision Regulations) 32 V S A '9608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Acti
This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10,
of the Board of Health. Vermont Statutes Annotated.
(Vermont Health Regulations, Subchapter 10. as amended)
PERMIT NUMBER
PERMIT NUMBER
It exempt, state reason (see instructions) 11 exempt, state reason (see instructions)
not a subdivision
not a subdivision
1
CERTIFICATION - Flood Hazard Areas - Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 I/we hereby swear and affirm that I/we have investigated and have
disclosed to each party involved in this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS if any which affect the site
hereinbefore described.
We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our
knowledge.
SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER S) SIGNATURE S) DATE
Glenwood Corp. City of South Burlington
By:
PREPARERS SIGNATURE )P- PREPARED BY Carl H. Lisman, Esq.
PREPARERS ADDRESS 10- 191 College Street Burl A P�i;PE)Vermont 05401
• • • • OR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TOWN NUMBER
TOWN/CITY RETURN RECEIVED. TAX PAID. BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE
RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT
DATE OF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED.
BOOK NUMBER __ PAGE NO RETURN NO.
I)
LISTED VALUE $ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED CLERK
MAP AND PARCEL NOS. — _ _ DATE
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION
AGREEMENT made this day of
, 1980, by and
between Glenwood Corp., a Vermont corporation (the "Seller")
and the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "City")
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission approved, on
final subdivision plans regarding Cluster
J of the Stonehedge housing project, so-called; and
WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission
requires the Seller to convey to the City the water and
sewer lines and piping located therein; and
WHEREAS, the Seller has delivered Bills of Sale to the
City for the pipes and lines above described;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning
Commission's final approval and further consideration of the
sum of ONE DOLLAR in lawful money paid by the City to the
Seller and other good and valuable consideration, it is
covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. The Seller herewith delivers to the City Bills of
Sale, to and of the water line and piping and the sewer line
and piping servicing Cluster J of the Stonehedge housing
project, so-called, said delivery being a formal offer of
dedication to the City.
2. The Seller agrees that said formal offer of
dedication is irrevocable and can be accepted by the City
at any time.
LISMAN & LISMAN 3. This irrevocable offer of dedication shall be
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 COLLEGE STREET
BORLINGTON. VT. 05401
binding upon all assigns, grantees, successors and/or heirs
of the Seller.
IN PRESENCE OF:
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
Glenwood Corp.
City of South Burlington
At South Burlington in said County and State on the day
of , 1980, personally appeared Mervin Brown, duly authorized
agent of Glenwood Corp. and he acknowledged this instrument by
him sealed and subscribed to be his free act and deed and the
free act and deed of Glenwood Corp.
Before me
Notary Public
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
At in said County and State on the day of
, 1980, personally appeared
duly authorized agent of the City of South Burlington and he
acknowledged this instrument by him sealed and subscribed to
be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the
City of South Burlington.
Before me
Notary Public
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT UAW
191 COLLEGE STRELT
OURLINGTON. VT 01401
BILL OF SALE
Glenwood Corp., a Vermont corporation having a place
of business in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Seller") by
these presents, does hereby grant, sell, transfer and deliver
to the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "City") all
of the Seller's right, title and interest in and to the
water line and piping, including piping, joints, T's, valves,
gates, hydrants and all other items and appurtenances (but
specifically excluding building service lines) as located
within Stonehedge Drive, so-called. Reference is made to a
plan recorded in Volume 107, Page 124 of the Land Records
of the City of South Burlington and to a deed, dated this date,
from the Seller to the City.
To have and to hold said property to the City, its
successors and assigns, to its own use and behoof forever,
and the Seller hereby warrants and represents that it is
duly authorized to transfer said property, and there are
no liens, claims or encumbrances of any kind against said
property and the Seller will warrant and defend the same
against all lawful claims whatsoever.
DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this day of
March, 1980.
Glenwood Corp.
IM
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IUI CULLEGE STREET
HURLINGTON. VT 05401
BILL OF SALE
Glenwood Corp., a Vermont corporation having a place of
business in South Burlington, Vermont (the "Seller") by these
presents, does hereby grant, sell, transfer and deliver to
the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "City") all of the
Seller's right, title and interest in and to the sewer line
and piping and other items and appurtenances (but specifically
excluding building service lines) as located within an
easement 20 feet in width serving Cluster J of the Stonehedge
Condominium. Reference is made to a plan entitled
"Stonehedge Condominium, Cluster "J", recorded in Volume ,
Page of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington
and to a Right of Way Easement, dated this date, from the
Seller to the City.
To have and to hold said property to the City, its
successors and assigns, to its own use and behoof forever,
and the Seller hereby warrants and represents that it is
duly authorized to transfer said property, and there are
no liens, claims or encumbrances of any kind against said
property and the Seller will warrant and defend the same
against ail lawful claims whatsoever.
DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this day of March,
•:1
Glenwood Corp.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 CULLEGE 9TRLE1
BURLINGTON, VT 05401
OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION
Agreement made this day of March, 1980 by and
between Glenwood Corp., a Vermont corporation (the "Owner")
and the City of South Burlington (the "City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has approved a
final subdivision plat entitled "Stonehedge Condominium,
Cluster "J", dated January 14, 1980, revised March, 1980,
by Dubois & King, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission
dated , 1980 requires the Owner to convey to the
City easements for the sewer line serving Cluster J; and
WHEREAS, the above described easement is to be dedicated
to the City free and clear of all encumbrances, pursuant to
said final approval and final plat; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has delivered an easement deed to the
City for the area above described.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning
Commission's final approval and in further consideration
of the sum of One Dollar in lawful money paid by the City
to the Owner and other good and valuable consideration, it is
covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. The Owner herewith delivers to the City an easement
deed for the premises described in Exhibit A attached hereto,
said delivery being a formal offer of dedication to the
City to be held by the City until the acceptance or rejection
of such offer of dedication by the council of the City.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
101 COLLEGE STRELT
BURLINGTON. VT 05401
2. The Owner agrees that said formal offer of dedication
is irrevocable and can be accepted by the City at any time.
3. This irrevocable offer of dedication shall run
with the land and shall be binding upon all assigns, grantees,
successors and/or heirs of the Owner.
IN PRESENCE OF:
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
GLENWOOD CORP.
MW
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
BY:
its duly authorized agent
At South Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 1980,
personally appeared and he acknowledged
this instrument by him signed and sealed to be his free act
and deed and the free act and deed of the City of South
Burlington.
Before me,
Notary Public
STATE OF VERMONT
CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS.
At Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 1980, personally
appeared Mervin Brown, and he acknowledged this instrument by him
signed and sealed to be his free act and deed and the free act
and deed of Glenwood Corp.
Before me,
LISMAN B LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Notary Public
iU1 CVLLEGE 9TItELT
BURLINGTON, VT. 0'401
Exhibit A
An easement, twenty feet in width, for the installation,
construction, operation, repair, maintenance and re-
placement of a sewer line; the easement commences at and
is centered on manhole Bl in an existing public sewer
easement, as shown on a plan recorded in Volume 153, Page
15 of the Land Records of the City of South
Burlington, and thence proceeds sougheasterly through
manholes D2 and D3, as depicted on a plan entitled
"Stonehedge Condominium Cluster "J"", recorded
in Volume , Page of the Land Records of
the City of South Burlington; and terminates at
manhole D4 on said plan.
To the extent that the actual construction of said
sewer line differs from the location herein described
and referred to, this easement shall be interpreted
to correspond to actual physical location of the
sewer line, as built.
Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to
Glenwood Corp. pursuant to a warranty deed, dated
August 17, 1978, of the Burlington Savings Bank,
recorded in Volume 142, Page 454 of the Land Records
of the City of South Burlington.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IQ% COLLEGE STREET
SURLINGTON. VT. 05401
I ORM I M - WARI1n,NTY )EP)
Ar
Blow
Xbat GLENWOOD CORP., a Vermont corporation having a
principal place of business
of South Burlinton in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont Grantor in the consideration of
--------------TEN AND MORE------------------- Dollars
paid to its full satisfaction by
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality
Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont Grantee , by these presents, do
freely 0ibe, Orant, &ell, Conbep anb Conf irm unto the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
successors
and its xh and assigns forever, a
certain piece of land in South Burlington in the
County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as
follows, viz:
An easement, twenty feet in width, for the installation,
construction, operation, repair, maintenance and re-
placement of a sewer line; the easement commences at and
is centered on manhole Bl in an existing public sewer
easement, as shown on a plan recorded in Volume 153, Page
15 of the Land Records of the City of South
Burlington, and thence proceeds sougheasterly through
manholes D2 and D3, as depicted on a plan entitled
"Stonehedge Condominium Cluster "J"", recorded
in Volume , Page of the Land Records of
the City of South Burlington; and terminates at
manhole D4 on said plan.
To the extent that the actual construction of said
sewer line differs from the location herein described
and referred to, this easement shall be interpreted
to correspond to actual physical location of the
sewer line, as built.
Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to
Glenwood Corp. pursuant to a warranty deed, dated
August 17, 1978, of the Burlington Savings Bank,
recorded in Volume 142, Page 454 of the Land Records
of the City of South Burlington.
Reference is made to said deed and plan and to their records
and to the deeds and records therein referred to in further
aid of this description.
To babe anb to bolo said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap-
purtenances thereof, to the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
its successors k,640 and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever;
.gnd the said Grantor
GLENWOOD CORP.
for itself and its XM6s
executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors
**" and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is
the sole owner
of the premises, and
have good right
and title to convey the
same in manner
aforesaid, that they are
,Free from
eberg encumbrance;
and it
hereby eneafe to Warrant anb ref enb the same against all lauful claims
zvha teller,
3hn
W.itnegg
Whereof,
hereunto
set
his hand and seal
this
day of
March
.4.
D. 19 8 0
,-liltpreyence of Glenwood Corp.
�kr
BY: � .l
a�!r " .r 1
H
r
Mate of Vermont, gg.gt Burlington this
CHITTENDEN countp day of March .4. D. 19 80
MERVIN BROWN, President and duly authorized
agent of Glenwood Corp.
personally appeared, and he acknowledged this instrument, by
him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed, and
the free act and deed of Glenwood Corp.
Before me
NOTARY PUBLIC
• 4 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RETURN 1�' A 512316
i i
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES N A O. v 1 % L_ 3 1 6
Y MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602
A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR NAMES)
Glenwood Corp.
MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE
Stonehedae Drive
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
South Burlington, VT _
BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAME(S)
City of South Burlington
MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE
South Burlington, VT
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
• e LOCATION (Such as' 173 Maple St. Burlington OR'The Smith Farm, Old Mill Road. Tunbridge'). It property is located in two towns, please lis! b,th.
one e ge Drive, South Burlington, VT -_-_
It the buyers acquired less than the eenSenl,lnereesltl(Ftee Simple) in the property, please state the interest acquired (such as "Life Estate.- Perpetual Easement," etc-)
ea
APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: ACREAGE: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH:
Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings.
1 NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE _ 5 ❑ BARN - 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑ STORE
2 ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO. UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO. UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
0903 Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ® COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
Please check the category which best describes the proposed use of the property AFTER TRANSFER.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND - 4 ® GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. If such an exemption is claimed, you need not complete
the section titled "TAX." but you MUST COMPLETE the section titled "VALUE."
CITE EXEMPTION and EXPLAIN. eLr— t O mt] n ' al , _Y
REAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notes, property, stocks, bonds, etc. given to seller, and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. If the transfer was
a g�. or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property transferred.
TOTAL PRICE PAID $ 0 LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $
TAX PAYMENT DUE: FIVE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (0.005) OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE, BUT NOT LESS THAN $1.00 (FOR EXAMPLE: IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000
THE TAX DUE IS $50.00: IF THE VALUE WAS $10o., THE TAX DUE IS $1.00).
AMOUNT DUE: ' 0Make checks payable to: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES.
It there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value.
please explain:
DATE SELLER ACQUIRED. - 8/17/73 IF BY GIFT, DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACOUIRED:
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED, CHECK HERE: ❑
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED, INDICATE REASON BELOW: (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.)
transfer to municipality
� _tea � 131T. i
32 V S.A. §9606 (Board of Health Subdivision Regulations) 608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act)
This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations r is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10.
of the Board of Health. atutes Annotated.F1
(Vermont Health Regulations. Subchapter 10. as amended)PERMIT NUMBER
PERMIT NUMBER
Ltatay
II exempt, stale reason (see instructions) on (see instruclans)
not a subdivision subdivision
CERTIFICATION - Flood Hazard Areas - Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 I/we hereby swear and affirm that I/we have investigated and have
disclosed to each party involved in this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS if any which affect the site
hereinbefore described.
We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our
knowledge.
SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE
Glenwood Corp. City of South
B B
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE 1► PREPARED BY Carl H . Li sman,
PREPARER'SADDRESS 1• 191 College Street, Burl i nMfTTY`QT
05401
ACKNOWLEDCEMEN?
TOWN NUMBER
TOWN/CITY ---_— _ - RETURN RECEIVED. TAX PAID. BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE
RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT
DATE OF RECORD--------------------- -- CERTIFICATE RECEIVED.
BOOK NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO.
LISTED VALUE $ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED CLERK
MAP AND PARCEL NOS. — DATE
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES COPY
--
1r .
FORM 1901 - WARRANTY UEEU
{ +ram
Aglow tab 20fil, 0
That GLENWOOD CORP., a Vermont corporation having a
principal place of business in
Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont Grantor in the consideration of
----------TEN AND MORE------------ Dollars
paid to its full satisfaction by
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality
Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden
and State of Vermont Grantee , by these presents, do
freely 0Ibe, Grant, Geri, Conbep anb Confirm unto the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON successors
and its 4"Wand assigns forever, a
certain piece of land in South Burlington in the
County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as
follozcs, viz:
A temporary easement for use by municipal maintenance and/or
emergency vehicles, as depicted by an irregularly shaped cross
hatched area labeled "temporary cul-de-sac, gravel", as
depicted on a plat entitled "Stonehedge Condominiums...
Cluster "J" ", recorded in Volume , Page of the
City of South Burlington Land Records, which shall terminate
at such time as the adjacent public street is extended.
Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to Glenwood
Corp. pursuant to a warranty deed, dated August 17, 1978, of
the Burlington Savings Bank, recorded in Volume 142, Page 454
of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington.
Reference is made to said deed and to its record and to the
deeds and records therein referred to in further aid of this
description.
To babe anb to borb said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap-
purtenances thereof, to the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
its successors lieYrVand assigns, to their own use and behoof forever;
.4nd the said Grantor
GLENWOOD CORP.
for itself and its hettyx
executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors
&gales and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is
the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the
same in manner aforesaid, that they are free from eberg encumbrance;
i
j
and it
J�
1
j
hereby engage to Warrant anb Mef enb the same against all lauful claims
I
i
whatever,
I
In Witnefw Wbereof,
hereunto set his
hand and seal
i
this day of
March .4. D. 19
8 0
a
?Ilt Pre!5vitce o
Glenwood Corp.
BY:
----- - - --
I�`r '�l
- — ��( ll
�QOnq
Mervin Brown
>
1440
F q
n
state of Vermont, gg. .It
Burlington
this
CHITTENDEN ountC
day of March
1. D. 19 80
MERVIN BROWN, President
and duly authorized
agent of
Glenwood Corp.
personally appeared, and he
acknowledged
this instrument, by
him sealed and subscribed,
to be his free
act and deed. and
the free act and deed of Glenwood
Corp.
Before ?ne
_—..Notary_-Public
P-R4PERTY TRANSFER TAX R-TURN
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES N0. A 512315
MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602
A. SELLER I?dq��lenwoodr ly� .orp .
Stonehf d-q All F3ESSJN6ULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
South Burlington, VT
BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAM SI
City of South
AILIN 'DDRE SIN FULL - CLUDING ZIP CODE
South gur�ing on, rmont
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Burlington
' ' • ' - LOCATION (Sych as 173 Ma le St, Burlington' QRR T e $mdhAalrrm, Miljl Rot.OTunbridge"). If property is located in two towns. please list both:
Drive,
Stonenedge tj] gL
If the buyers acquired less than the entire interest (Fee Simple) in the property. please state the interest acquired (such as "Life Estate, ' "Perpetual Easement, etc.)
temporary easement
APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: I ACREAGES AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH:
Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings.
1 a NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑ STORE
2 ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM. NO. UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 4i4 COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
Please check the category which Mast describes the proposed use of the property AFTER TRANSFER.
1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION
2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN)
• • THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. If such an exemption is claimed, you need not complete
the section titled "TAX.but you MUST COMPLETE the section titled "VALUE."
CITE EXEMPTION and EXPLAIN. transfer to municipality
EONREAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notes, property, stocks. bonds. etc. given to seller. and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. If the transfer was
a gift or way to, nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property transferred.
TOTAL PRICE PAID $ O LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $
TAX PAYMENT DUE: FIVE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT to-005) OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. BUT NOT LESS THAN $1.00 (FOR EXAMPLE: IF THE VALUE WAS $10.000
THE TAX 00: IF THE VALUE WAS $100.. THE TAX DUE IS $1.00).
:DUE$50
AMOUNT � 0 Make checks payable to: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES.
If there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value,
8 / 1 /
78
DATE SELLER ACQUIRED - IF BY GIFT. DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED:
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED, CHECK HERE: ❑
IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED, INDICATE REASON BELOW: (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.)
transfer to municipality
32 V.S A. 9606 (Board of Health Subdivision Regulations) 32 V.S A 59608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act;
This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10.
of the Board of Health_ Vermont Statutes Annotated.
(Vermont Health Regulations. Subchapter 10, as amended)
PERMIT NUMBER i
PERMIT NUMBER
If exempt. state reason (see instructions) If exempt, state reason (see instructions)
not—&—siihdi sision not a subdivision
t
CERTIFICATION - Flood Hazard Areas - Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 I/we hereby swear and affirm that l;we have investigated and have
disclosed to each party involved in this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS if any which affect the site
hereinbefore described.
We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our
knowledge.
SELLERS) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(SI SIGNATURE(S) DATE
Glenwood orp. City of South Burlington
B B
PREPARERS SIGNATURE )• PREPARED BY ` Carl H. Lisman Es
PREPARERS ADDRESS V. 191 College Street BurlinlNTtQ6riPE) Vermont
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TOWN NUMBER
N/CITY RETURN RECEIVED. TAX PAID. BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE
RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT
\ATEOF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED.
K NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO. _
ED VALUE $ _ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED CLERK
AND PARCEL NOS. DATE
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES COPY
r
3.
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 29, 1980
Kitchen and to Lakeview Motel respectively. A revised site plan indicating these
changes shall be submitted.
3. This approval expires in six months.
4. The most northerly curb cut shall be closed after 6 months of non-use
of the fuel pumps.
Mr. Jacob seconded the motion.
The Commission felt that painted arrows on the pavement were needed to direct
traffic flow. They did not require lighted signs, but said the applicant was free
to erect them if he so chose. Mr. Cairns had no problem with painted arrows.
Whether or not to ask the applicant to construct a sidewalk was discussed.
Mr. Spitz noted that the right of way for the road was wide enough for one, but it
was noted that this was the last property in South Burlington and was south of the
proposed Southern Connector ramps. It did not seem that a sidewalk was needed.
The motion passed with Mr. Levesque voting no.
Continuation of revised final plat review of application by the Glenwood
Corporation of Cluster J 20 units of phase 2 of the Stonehedge development
Mr. Mona said that normally the Commission might reopen a hearing for the
admission of facts, and since they were ready to review whatever facts might be
presented to meet the requirements they had said could be conditions for approval,
he moved to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion.
Mr. Ewing asked what facts Mr. Mona expected to hear and was told he expected
a proposal on how to do what the Commission wanted the developer to do.
Mr. Spitz noted that the City Attorney had felt that if the hearing was
reopened, interested parties should be allowed to comment, but discussion should
be limited to the new items introduced.
Mr. Poger opposed the motion because he felt the developer had not submitted
any new plans and Mr. Jacob agreed. Mr. Jacob felt the Commission was on dangerous
ground and he noted that in many meetings the Commission had said it could not
look at building design. He felt the Commission had listened to every complaint
voiced by the Stonehedge residents and that if they had grievances, the place to
discuss them was in the courts.
Mr. Mona said that at the last meeting he had made a suggestion as to how the
new housing could be blended in with the existing buildings such that the fears of
the residents would be minimized and so that, when the project was finished, there
would be common elements to the buildings. He felt that the discussions at the
last meeting lead the audience to believe that the Commission might review a
proposal tonight. Mr. Ewing pointed out that there was no evidence to show that.
Mr. Spitz said he had had a conversation with the applicant's representative and
that he had some drawings they were prepared to present regarding the issues
raised at the last meeting.
Mr. Poger asked if the applicant wanted the hearing reopened and Mr. Lisman
said that they had some drawings and they were present.
The motion on reopening the public hearing for the purpose of discussing
esthetics passed with Messrs. Poger and Jacob voting no.
Mr. Page put.the drawings on the board. They showed front and right side
elevations._ The 2auilding siding runs vertically and diagonally on the buildings,
as opposed to being vertical elsewhere. X.r. Ewing had visited the site and said
there were areas in the project where the siding ran different ways on the same
building. Mr. Page said the roof pitch here was 5:12 and elsewhere it is 6:12
or 8:12. These units have 1,010 sq. f t. and others have 1200 sq. ft. of space.
Mr. :age said the materials, color and siding would be the same, although the color
4.
.PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 29, 1980
of the shingles is different on the townhouses constructed by Mr. Potter. The
height of these buildings are about the same as existing ones — 27' here. Mr.
Page said the configuration of covered parking varied through the development, so
he felt this style did not present a divergence from what exists elsewhere.
Mr. Levesque wished that there had been some drawings of the existing buildings
for comparison purposes.
It was noted that some existing units might be about 32' tall. Mr. Page
said this window was the same as elsewhere. There are two styles in the development.
Mr. Page was asked when this would be built and he replied that it would be
after approval and in accordance with the phasing schedule submitted.
Mr. Dale Kline said the building looked square, where others are about 4x
as long as they are wide.
Ms. Moore noted that there were some units with 1500 sq. ft. of space.
Mr. Mona moved to close the public hearing and Mr. Walsh seconded. The
motion carried without dissent.
Mr. Jacob felt that on a technical basis the Commission could not deal with
esthetics and he was not concerned about having lower priced homes in that area.
He did not believe having these units constructed would lower present values and
he noted that unless the buildings looked good, they would not sell and the developer
would be in trouble. He felt the Commission had given the residents every opportunity
to complain, but that they should resolve their differences with the developer in
court.
I+Sr. Mona disagreed that the Commission could not discuss esthetics. His
concern was the change in the plans and what might come in in the future. He noted
that this development had been before the Commission many times. He also felt
the developer had a vested interest in maintaining property values in the area.
He welcomed the opportunity to see the plans but made it clear that if this were
approved, the Commission was not establishing a precedent for future changes in
the development. He said he would keep an eye on the development. In looking at
other condominium developments in the city, he noted the monotony of some of
them,idich he did not consider a plus, so this proposed change did not bother him
that much, he said, although he would look closely at other proposed changes.
Mr. Levesque felt the proposal met the legal Commission requirements as to
space, location, green area, etc. Unfortunately, he said, the city did not have
design control. He believed in heterogeneity because that creates style rather
than monotony. He felt, however, that this was a very poor architectural presentation.
Mr. Poger stated that the proposal for change was primarily because of
economics in that the developer felt he could not continue to sell units like those
he has built up to now. He also felt that the concern of the residents was economic
in that they wanted to have what they bought constructed around them. He was not
sure the Commission could insist on such a standard as long as the major reasons
for the development are still met for a PUD, and he thought they were with regard
to green space, use of the land, etc. Mr. Poger said he was uncomfortable with the
esthetic problem because it was not a problem the Commission could ever solve. He
was not sure he favored design control because he was not sure his taste or the
taste of any other commissioner was very good in such,things. He agreed there
were problems with monotony, but felt there were also problems with sharp changes
in style. He wanted some assurance that these units would be compatible with what
is there now and he felt that the proposal looked like these units would not be
incompatible, so he thought the change might be appropriate. He also felt
strongly that unless the Commission had some evidence that it could not trust the
developer, it should trust him, and he has told them that this will be the only
cluster changed.
Mr. Ewing felt the proposal would blend in somewhat with what exists, but he
stated that the Commission was on the fine edge in discussing this matter. He said
PLANNING COMMISSION
5.
APRIL 29, 1980
the only problem he had had with the development concerned the change in where the
sewer line went and he felt the Commission had no jurisdiction on any matter by
which they could reject the development.
Mr. Walsh felt the Commission did have some justification to review esthetics -
he said his interpretation of the purpose of the statutes was to look out for the
welfare of the city and its people. Looking at the history of the development,
he was not sure that if the change were approved they would not set a precedent.
He noted that the reason for the change was economic and he saw no hardship for
the developer. He noted that that land was some of the most beautiful in the city.
Mr. Mona agreed that the Commission did have justification to review esthetics
and he added that in this review they were not imposing anyone's personal taste
on the developer, they were discussing having the units blend in with those existing.
Mr. Ewing moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the
revised final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for 20 units in a
condominium project as de icted on a plan entitled "Stonehedge Condominiums
Cluster J", last revised 4 1 80, prepared by Dubois and King, subject to the
following stipulations:
1. Previous stipulations, as of 6/6/78, 12/12/78, 3/13/79, and 11/27/79,
as they affect this revised application, shall remain in effect.
2. Loop road sub -grading work shall be approved by the City prior to
placement of the road base gravel.
3. Road gravel shall be approved by the City prior to placement in the road bed,
4. Details on widening the loop road in Phase 1 shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bonding or equivalent surety for the road
widening shall be arranged prior to the issuance of the first building permit
for cluster J.
5. The note on sheet 2 of the plans stating "Match or Taper to Existing
pavement" shall be deleted.
6. Sewer pipe shall be bedded in 3/8" crushed stone.
7. The applicant shall install a 62 foot length of 10 inch sewer line in
front of the old John Hancock building and parallel to Shelburne Road prior to
occupancy of the first unit in Phase II. Prior to issuance of the 76th building
permit in Phase II the applicant shall gauge the critical section on Imperial
Drive as defined in the October, 1972 Paulsen report and shall make improvements
as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
8. Legal documents, including deeds, offers of dedication and transfer returns
shall be provided for approval by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for cluster J. Documents shall,cover the roadway from the
existing Stonehedge Drive to the entrance to cluster J. the temporary cul-de-sac,
sewer line, and tale triangular parcel adjacent to Stonehedge Drive in the northeast
corner of the development.
9. Complete survey data for the proposed public streets _shall be filed at
City Hall prior to the issuance of the first building permit for cluster J.
10. Bonding for required public improvements including a landscaping bond
of &5800, shall be provided prior to the issuance of the first building permit
PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 29, 1980
for cluster J. r
11. The final plat, bearing the title "Cluster J, Final Plat" shall be
recorded within 90 days.
12. Approval for Phase II expires if construction is not completed within
3 112 years from this date.
13. The architectural plans entitled "Stonehedge Housing Development,
Burlington, Vermont," dated February, 1980, drawn by Reich, Schertzer. Scoler. and
Gluck formed the basis of determining compatibility with the character of the
existing units. This shall be submitted as an attachment to the plan of record.
14. Stipulations 4, 6 and 9 above shall be made part of the plan of record.
Mr. Jacob seconded the motion.
Mr. Page noted that the architectural drawings had not been submitted before
this time. Mr. Mona noted that the drawings represented the "esthetics discussion".
Mr. Mona did not like "shall be approved" phrases in approval motions. He
wanted to be sure that someone could go back in the record and find out that
approval had been given, and by whom. Mr. Spitz said his office had a record sheet
which was checked against the stipulations. It was suggested that that sheet
be initialled, not checked. Mr. Mona wanted the plan of record to contain as much
information as possible.
Mr. Mona.felt the Commission had not acted as a design review board and he
said the judgement of whether these units met the conditions of compatibility would
remain with the commissioners. The Planner was directed to notify the members
when it was appropriate to examine the development.
The motion carried with Messrs. Walsh and Levesque voting no. Mr. Levesque
stated that he felt it was a sloppy project.
Other business
Kr. Spitz said he had talked to the City Attorney about Business Park North
as directed at the last meeting and there was a problem with it because the bank
never obtained use approval. He noted that the City Council had taken action to
grandfather the development, though. He also said that the Cl/C2 zoning had been
passed and would be in effect in 20 days. The city is under the zoning it had
prior to interim zoning. Mr. Jacob hoped this Planning Commission would uphold
the actions on the Business Park North taken by the Commission which discussed it
before. Mr. Poger noted that the applicant had had a lot of time to seek use approval.
He also noted that he had stated during the previous hearings that he did not want
two drive-in banks on that corner and he had not changed his mind.
Mr. Spitz said the Plywood Ranch situation had been corrected.
Mr. Spitz also said that if the bottling company received approval for the use
from the Zoning Board, it would come to the Commission to resubdivide the Lozon land.
Mr. Spitz has not received a timetable from McDonald's on the work they are doing.
Regarding the free trade zone building, Mr. Spitz said that would not come
before the Commission and neither would another building constructed on airport land.
Mr. Mona did not think the right turn in, right turn out for the Burlington
Savings Bank on Kennedy Drive was a dead issue. The City Engineer approved the
plan, he was told:' Hr. roger asked if the present owner could be forced to adhere
to stipulations and he also wanted a sign on the island saying No Left Turn and
another sign on Williston Road.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Clerk
' 4/15/80
DHS
STIPULATIONS AND/OR FINDINGS OF FACT
STONEHEDGE, PHASE II, CLUSTER J
For the revised Final Plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for
20 units in a condominium project, as depicted on a plan entitled "Stonehedge
Condominiums, Cluster J", last revised prepared by Dubois & King.
Stipulations:
r
1. Previous stipulations, as they affect this revised application, shall remain
n effect.
2. Loop road sub -grading work shall be approved by the City prior to p-lacement
of the road base gravel.
3. Road gravel shall be approved by the City prior to placement in the road bed.
4. Details on widening the loop road in Phase I shall be provided to the sat-
isfaction of the City Engineer. Bonding or equivalent surety for the road widening
shall be arranged prior to the issuance of the first building permit for cluster J.
5. The note on sheet 2 of the plans stating "Match or Taper to Existing pave-
ment" shall be deleted.
6. Sewer pipe shall be bedded in 3/8" crushed stone.
7. The applicant shall install a 62 foot length of 10 inch sewer line in front
of the old John Hancock building and parallel to Shelburne Road prior to occupancy
of the first unit in Phase II. Prior to issuance of the 76th building permit in
Phase II the applicant shall gauge the critical section on Imperial Drive as
defined in the October, 1972 Paulsen report and shall make improvements as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer.
8. Legal documents, including deeds, offers of dedication and transfer returns
shall be provided for approval by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for Cluster J. Documents shall cover the roadway from the
existing Stonehedge Drive to the entrance to Cluster J, the temporary cul-de-sac,
sewer lines, and the triangular parcel adjacent to Stonehedge Drive in the north-
east corner of the development.
9. Complete survey data for the proposed public streets shall be provided prior
to the issuance of the first building permit for Cluster J and shall be recorded..
10. Bonding for required public improvements including a landscaping bond of
$5800, shall be provided prior to the issuance of the first building permit for
Cluster J.
11. The Final Plat, bearing the title "Cluster J, Final Plat" shall be recorded
within 90 days.
12. Approval for Phase II expires if construction is not completed within 32 years
from this date.
M
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next week's agenda items
Date: April 25, 1980
2) Municipal Building. Several items have been addressed since last meeting.
Entrances to the high school across the street are now shown on the map.t The
northerly police and fire entrance is shown about ten feet off -center from a
high school entrance. Centering the access would result in a loss of a number
of parking spaces. Since the new access is not supposed to be for the general
public, centering is not crucial.
Options for the southerly entrance are still being explored. It will be
impossible to line up with the high school and to provide access to the adjacent
Hurley property with only one access point.
The number of parking spaces has been re-examined and appears sufficient
for any projected use of the municipal building. A more likely occurence is
that the municipal parking lot would be used for overflow high school parking.
Location and possible construction of a pedestrian walkway and crossing light
are being examined.
Layout of drainage improvementsjbutnot complete engineering details, should
be available for Tuesday's meeting.
One additional fire hydrant may be required.
On a municipal application such as this I would suggest that the Planning
Commission indicate the conditions that it feels are important for proper use of
the site. However, working out of details, such as for drainage, and deter-
mining timing of improvements, such as access to the Hurley property or a ped-
estrian crossing light, should be left to the City Council and Administration
based on budget and other considerations. I would recommend that site plan
approval need not be held up while the City works out such matters.
3) Champlain Oil. Information required from last meeting has not yet been
provided, brit I -meet it to be available by Tuesday's meeting.
4) Stonehedge, At'the end of the last meeting the Planning Commission requested
that a-'moion be prepared to support the Commission's ability to review the
appearance of the new units and their compatibility with existing units. The
only section that I believe may be utilitzed is one of the general standards
under which the Planning Commission shall evaluate any proposed Planned Unit
Development. (Sec. 12.002(A)(7)): "Will not have an undue adverse effect on
the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and
ireplaceable natural area, and conforms to proposed pedestrian trail system."
Memorandum
April 25, 1980
Page 2
The key word is "aesthetics"; none of the other items appear to be re-
levant. Aesthetics is a very broad category - some viewers might find a
uniformly styled area more aesthestically pleasing while others might prefer a
blend of architectural styles. In this application aesthetics were not con-
sidered under previous approvals, and therefore this requested change should not
be reviewed in relation to conditions of any previous approval. Instead, the
design of the new buildings may be reviewed for their aesthetic compatibility
with existing buildings in the entire surrounding area. If it is found that
there is aesthetic incompatibility it must further be found that there would
be an undue adverse effect.
5) Other Business. Responses to several enforcement inquiries are available.
P&a.X-
�Ns-F,zs-F Pater 0�
C.O% C • gco,o 3--Io
I n Places o-%
st-
weeK. -77 1 you .
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
RE: 4C0103-10 Certified to Comply with
Glenwood Corporation Environmental Protection Rules:
Stonehedge Drive Chapter 4 - Public Buildings
South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Chapter 7 - Sewage Disposal
Chapter 9 - Plumbing
This project, consisting of interior plumbing and
ventilation and exterior sewer and water line extensions and
services for Cluster I (Units 1-16) of Stonehedge Condominiums
located off Stonehedge Drive in the City of South Burlington,
Vermont is hereby certified to meet the requirements of the
regulations named above, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans
Sheet 1 of 4, dated Mar. 1984, Sheet 2 of 4, dated Mar.
1984, Rev.83; Sheet 3 of 4, dated Mar. 1984; and sheet 4 of
4, dated Mar. 1984, revised 1983 prepared by FitzPatrick-
Llewellyn, Inc. and on Drawing No. P-1 and P-2 for Units 1-
4; P-1 and P-2 for units 5-8; P-1 and P-2, for units 9-12
and P-1 and P-2 for Units 13-16, each dated 3-12-84,
prepared by Paul B. Rinehold and which have been
stamped APPROVED by the Division of Protection. No
alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where
written application has been made to the Agency of
Environmental Conservation and approval obtained.
(2) A copy of the approved plans and the Land Use Permit shall
remain on the project during all phases of construction and,
upon request, shall be made available for inspection by
State or Local personnel.
(3) The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and
workmanship must meet the standards of the Environmental
Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing
Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention
Section of the Department of Labor and Industry.
(4) Upon completion of the rough -in for the waste plumbing, and
prior to said plumbing being covered or closed -in, the
Agency of Environmental Conservation is to be contacted so
that we may have an opportunity to inpsect the workmanship.
(5) A professional engineer, registered in the State of Vermont,
is to generally supervise the construction of the sanitary
sewer line extensions, and, upon completion -of construction,
the supervising engineer is to submit to the Protection
Division a written certification stating all construction has
been completed in accordance with the stamped approved
plans. The engineer's certification is to be submitted to
5.
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1980
Mr. Woolery asked if the Commission had jurisdiction over buildings at the
airport, and in the free trade zone.
Mr. Mona noted that in the City Council minutes he had noted that they had
closed the public hearing on the Provost application. He wondered if they had
received the Commission's memo regarding that application. Mr. Poger said he was
sure the Council was aware of the Commission's objections to the plan. Mr.
Levesque felt that if Mr. Provost had a hardship, it was of his own making. He
had permission for an apartment and a real estate office and if he obtained a
building permit and put in mail drops he was not authorized to put in, that
expense was his own fault, Mr. Levesque felt.
Mr. Woolery noted that the Lozon property was going to be developed. He was
told that lots would be combined to obtain the acreage wanted. He wondered if
lot combination should be considered a subdivision, subject to the same criteria.
Mr. Mona said that when Mr. Victory came to the Commission for approval of
a subdivision on Victory Drive, he wanted to see a plan of what would be done with
the rest of the land.
cation/bv Glenwood 'for revised final plat for cluster
phase 2 of Stonehedge
The Commission decided to discuss this item.
Mr. Poger felt the question the Commission had to discuss was character.
Mr. Levesque felt that other projects in the city had been built out with one
theme only. They are the same style without changes. Mr. Mona pointed to, in
the general standards for PUDs in the Zoning Regulations,proof of the economic
capability of the developer to complete on schedule the phases of the PUD. He
felt that criteria could be applied to the review of this project, or the board
could consider that economic conditions had changed significantly since the
Regulations went into effect.
Mr. Poger saw a problem with knowing where the characteristics changed, noting
that there were 4 architectural styles in the development now.
Mr. Spitz noted that the only references he had been able to find in the city
ordinances dealing with housing types referred to low-cost housing. Mr. Mona did
not think this development qualified, but Mr. Poger felt it might be close. He
also stated that this development was not set up to have a diversity of housing
types.
Mr. Mona did not feel that the change would have an adverse impact on the
value of the existing units.
Mr. Walsh felt the proposed change was a major one and he did not want to
set a precedent. Mr. Poger noted that the developer had stated that he did not
intend to build the rest of the units in the style he proposed for J. I-Ir. Ewing
did not feel the change was drastic and he noted that there were several styles of
home in there now. He said it was not up to the Commission to control whether the
development was homogeneous or not. The city does not have design control.
The Commission was concerned that if the change were approved, other clusters
might also be built in this style. Mr. Poger did not think the criterion of
economic capability to complete the project dealt with the actual construction of
the units.
Ms. Ewing noted that already some of the units had cellars and some did
not - some had one floor and some had two. He asked if that changed the character
of the area.
Mr. i:ona asked whether it would be :possible, since the developer had come in
to request a change, to add a stipulation that within the context of this proposed
chance where development has already start-d, the Commission can institute a limited
design review. The Commission would serve as a temcrary Design Review Board.
0
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1980
The Commission wanted the units to resemble those already there. Mr. Poger
pointed out that the original criteria were set up when the land was an empty
field. Now there are buildings in that area. Mr. Spitz noted that when the
development was originally discussed, how the buildings would look was not a
criterion. He added that there had been no change from what was originally
approved and considered by the Commission.
Mr. Ewing said that what would be requested from the developer would be a
voluntary submission of a plan which showed the new units blending in with the
existing units. Mr. Spitz saw some problem with considering architecture or
esthetics since those were not considered before in this development. If they
were to be considered from now on, the Commission would need something to base
that review on. He mentioned general standards #7 or 9, but did not like either.
N:r. Mona mentioned #12. He went on to say that if the developer voluntarily
submitted a design which matched the previous ones, he would consider it. Mr.
Woolery agreed to that, if the developer obligated himself to build that way.
Mr. Poger said the Planner could be directed to draw up a motion for a
meeting two weeks from tonight that would incorporate this language and this
concept. The public hearing could be reopened, the additional factual information
submitted, the hearing closed,and the motion made.
There was no objection to taking up this discussion in two weeks under these
conditions, and the Planner was directed to add this item to the agenda for two
weeks from tonight.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm.
Clerk
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
WILLIAM G. LIVINGSTON
SPOKES 8 OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. BOX 2325
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054Cd
April 11, 1980
South Burlington Planning Commission
c/o David Spitz, City Planner
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Stonehedge Development
Dear David:
1775 WILLISTON ROAD
ELEPHONE (802) 863-2857
You asked that I clarify statements contained in my letter of
April 7, 1980 concerning the above matter. You especially
asked me to focus on the last paragraph set forth on page 2 of
that letter.
In summary fashion, we believe it appropriate for the Planning
Commission to review the issue in three phases:
1. Identify and impact of amendments to the PUD project.
2. Determine if the impact identified under phase 1, above,
falls within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction as
specifically defined by the standards referred to in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of my April 7th letter.
3. If the impact defined under phase 1 can be classified
as falling within specific criteria as suggested by
phase 2, is the impact on such criteria substantial
enough to change basic characteristics which were the
basis for the Planning Commission's original approval
of the PUD concept.
By its very nature, PUD approval contemplates the conferral of
certain bonuses upon a developer in exchange for the City's
receipt of certain benefits which are inherent in development
through the PUD format. When the Planning Commission is sub-
sequently faced with an amendment request, it is important for
the Commission to avoid disturbing the exchange which occurred
during the course of original PUD approval. However, the
Planning Commission is confined to reviewing proposed alterations
within specific criteria contained in 24 V.S.A., Chapter 117 as
well as the zoning ordinance. Within those confines, we believe
South Burlington Planning Commission
c/o David Spitz, City Planner
April 11, 1980
Page 2
the approach outlined above as well as my letter of April 7th
will best maintain the status quo established when PUD approval
was first conferred.
Again, if you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
William G. Livingston
WGL:mi1
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Stonehedge
Date: April 11, 1980
To accomodate the Phase II sewage, a 62 foot section of sewer line in
front of the Old John Hancock building and parallel to Shelburne Road should
be replaced with a 10 inch sewer main. This will accomodate approximately
159 additional units.
The next critical section as defined in the Paulsen report is on Imperial
Drive and just upstream from the above section. This length has a reserve
capacity of 75 units. Upon completion and occupancy of 75 units I re-
commend this section be regauged to determine the exact reserve capacity.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next Week's agenda items
(2) Municipal Building
According to State statute, Title 34VSA, Section 4409, municipal buildings
may be regulated with respect only to "size, bulk, yards, courts, setbacks, height,
density of buildings, off-street parking and loading facilities and landscaping
or screening requirements" - i.e. the normal zoning and site plan criteria.
Final site plans are being provided today, and the above items will be
checked by Tuesday's meeting.
One item of note.- when the adjacent Hurley property was developed the
Planning Commission made the following stipulation: "Access to the project
from Dorset Street may be relocated at the City's expense, to a point north
of, but within 100 feet of this property, when and if the abutting municipal
property is developed. If such a change were to be made I would suggest that
it be with concurrence of both Planning Commission and City Council.
(3 Stonehedge
In light of recent discussions I feel it is important to comment further
on which aspects of a PUD the Planning Commission has the power to review.
Let me emphasize at the outset that these are my interpretations of the
statutes only, and my comments in no way should be considered as a legal
opinion.
Relvelant statutes include State enabling legislation - Title 24,
VSA, Sections 4407(3) Planned residential development and 4407(J2) Planned
unit development; and the local zoning ordinance - Sections 6.30 Residential
Planned Unit Development and 12.002(A) General Standards.
State enabling legislation (24VSA4407(3)) clearly state that PUDs shall
consider the most.appropriate layout in terms of land use: "The purpose of
such authorization shall be to enable and encourage flexibility of design
and development of land in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate
use of land, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets
and utilities, and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of the open
lands of this state."
In relation to the above land use criteria it is clear that the location
of buildings is subject to review. The major issue in this application is
whether the type and design of buildings may also be included as reviewable
items.
The only State reference (24VSA4407(3)(C)) to building type addresses the
option for a mix of "varied types including one -family, two-family or multi-
family construction." LThile this statement does not appear to extend to such
considerations as townhouses vs. flats, it is possible that a liberally -
minded local ordinance could interpret the State enabling legislation to allow
review over such differences.
Memorancum
Re: Next week's agenda items
April 11, 1980
Page 2
However, nothing in the South Burlington ordinance indicates such an
interpretation. The only references to housing types in the local ordance
deal with protection of housing opportunities for all groups rather than
with architectural. conformity: "The degree to which housing types and --
costs alleviate the most imminent housing needs of the community, such as
low cost housing as determined by the Planning Commission" (S.B. Zoning
6.302(C)(3)); and "Housing types, costs, and characteristics appropriate
to the most imminent housing needs of various social and economic groups
as determined by the Planning Commission" (S.B. Zoning 12.002(A)(9)).
It appears that neither the State enabling legislation nor the local
zoning ordinance includes building design or architectural conformity as a
PUD review criteria other than as it relates to provision of low or moderate -
income housing. While cohesiveness in building design (or "character") may in
fact be a desirable element in many residential projects, review standards
would probably have to be set up under Design Control authority rather than
under PUD authority.
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
LOUIS LISMAN
BERNARD LISMAN
ROBERT E. MANCHESTER
CARL H. LISMAN
ALLEN D. WEBSTER
Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT
Gentlemen:
April 8, 1980
STONEHEDGE
CLUSTER J
802-864-5756
At the close of the session of the Planning Commission
on March 25, 1980, Messrs. Woolery, Poger and Mona raised
certain questions. We believe that the following information
will be valuable to the Commission:
1. Legal Status of Glenwood Corp. Attached is a
letter from Lisman & Lisman to the Secretary of State
upon which a reply has been written. There seems to be
no question that Glenwood Corp, is a validly existing
Vermont corporation.
2. Direction of Cluster J Sewage. The original
approval by the Commission for Phase II anticipated that
the sewage from Cluster J, and the other Phase II clusters,
would proceed southerly through Andrews Avenue. The
applicant has sought permission to direct the sewage from
Cluster J northerly through Oakhill Drive. In light of
the controversy, the applicant withdraws its request to
allow the sewage to flow northerly. As you will recall,
the applicant was seeking, in some small way, to assure
the City greater freedom of use of the potential swap
land. In light of the controversy, the applicant deems
its interests more relevant than the contingent interest
of the City.
3. Completion of Phase I. Our review of various
minutes and approvals leads us to believe that the City
has not established a formal deadline for completion of
Phase I. The applicant is willing to accept a deadline
consistent with its proposed construction schedule pre-
viously submitted.
Page -2-
Planning Commission
April 8, 1980
4. Amenities. It is contemplated that the tennis
court and swimming pool in Phase I be constructed this
summer.
5. Sewer Access through Cluster C. At the time
that Glenwood Corp. received its approvals from the
Planning Commission, it delivered to the City an instrument
conveying whatever rights it possessed through Cluster
C. To the extent that the City and the owners of the
property in Cluster C have not reached a formal arrangement,
we believe that the inquiry should be addressed to the
owners of Cluster C.
6. Unbuilt Foundations. All plans submitted by
Glenwood Corp. since its involvement at the site have
shown the open foundations. It has always been anticipated
that the foundations will be built upon, and that continues
to be the position of Glenwood Corp.
7. Design Alteration. It is the position of
Glenwood Corp. that the proposed design changes for
Cluster J are not a substantial change from the
plans previously submitted. We have reviewed the letter
to the Commission, dated April 7, 1980, from the
City Attorney and, based on his analysis, concur
that there is no significant change.
8. Phase II. At the present time, the applicant
has no present intention to alter its approvals from the
City except as set forth in its current application
regarding Cluster J.
9. Compliance with City Permits. We concur with
the memorandum prepared by Mr. Spitz, d d April 4,
1980, that Glenwood Corp. has sat's th standards
imposed by the Planning Commissi n du g i s development
of the Stonehedge project.
Vegy tr4ly %o.trs,
Carl H. Lisman
CHL:ces
CC: Mr. Steven Page
Mr. David Spitz
i
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
161 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
LOUIS LISMAN
BERNARD LISMAN
ROBERT E. MANCHESTER
CARL H. LISMAN
ALLEN D. WEBSTER
Secretary of State
State of Vermont
Montpelier, VT 05602
Gentlemen:
April 1, 1980
GLENWOOD CORP.
We are enclosing, on behalf of this corporation,
its annual report for the year ended July 31, 1979.
Attached to the report is its financial statement,
unaudited, as permitted by statute. We are enclosing
our check, in the amount of $25.00, representing
the reinstatement fee, and our check, in the amount
of $2.00, representing the original filing fee.
We are also enclosing a copy of a check, dated
August 28, 1979, payable to the Secretary of State
and endorsed, which we believe is the fee which
accompanied the annual report for this corporation
for the same period. If your records now verify
that Glenwood Corp. filed its annual report for the
year ended July 31, 1979 on August 28, 1979, please
reinstate the corporation and return our checks.
If you records do not so verify, then please process
the application on behalf of the corporation whose
charter has been revoked for failure to file.
In any event, we are als e�closing our check,
in the amount of $2.00, fof are oot standing certificate
after all of this problTVer
s hlve been resolved.
rulyours ,
,
Carl H. Lisman
CHL:ces
Enc.
C`
602-864-5756
State of Vermont
Office of Secretary of State
1 hereby certify that according to the records of this office . . ...... . ........
.. Glenwood,.Corp•........ ...... ....... ...... ...... .,
a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Vermont by filing Articles
of Association on . Feb.ruary, 24.,. 1978
is a Vermont Corporation, and is currently so qualified.
I further certify that as far as the records of this office indicate said
Glenwood_Corp•
is in good standing at the present time.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here-
unto set my hand and affixed the official seal
of the office at Montpelier, in the County of
Washington and State aforesaid,
this 7th day of April
A. D. 19 80
cretary of State
J ames A. Guest
' Secretary of State
Jean Baldwin
Deputy Secretary of State
STATE OF VERMONT
Secretary of State
109 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
vl o
Glenwood Corp.
Carl H. Lisman
191 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Gentlemen:
ICffice: (802) 828-2363
Corporations & Records: (802) 828-2386
Professional Licensing & Registration: (802) 828-2363
February 26, 1980
I'm writing to notify you that the charter of the above -named corporation
is revoked as of t 10, as provided by law (Title 11,
Section 2063) for failure to file an annual report for the fiscal year
ending
The charter may be reinstated within three months following the date of
revocation by filing the delinquent annual report, paying a filing fee of
$2.00 and a reinstatement fee of $25.00 to this office.
After the three month period, it is necessary to petition the County Court
to obtain a Court Order. The Court Order, reinstatement fee of $50.00 and
$2.00 filing fee must then be sent to this office.
If you have any questions or require assistance in reinstating your corporation,
please write or phone me at the above address.
Sincerely,
Loris Rollins
Annual Reports Clerk
Sec'y of State
Aliscl. 2
!�q
STATE OF VERMONT
(O rr of �perrfaru of ---951atr
I herel,y certify that the foregoing is a true copy of. the Revocation Letter dated
February 26, 1980 for Glenwood Corp.
JF, I have hereunto set my
vial Seal, at Montpelier, this
cch................. A.D., 19 _80.
.r160..4�- ........
retary of State
3.
PLANNING C0MISSION APRIL 8, 1980
8. Bonding for all public improvements shall be arranged prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for the subdivision. The statement
"easements and roads to be dedicated as require " on page 1 of 4 shall be deleted.
9. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days.
10. The City Planner shall review the traffic resulting from this industrial
park after the development of 4 lots and report his findir�p to the Planner
Commission.
Mr. Ewing seconded the motion.
The Commission requested that the stop line for exiting traffic from the
development be moved closer to the road so exiting cars could see if traffic was
coming down the hill.
It was noted that, if the Commission did not find the traffic conditions
acceptable after 4 lots are developed, at the site -plan reviews of lots 5 and 6
approval could be withheld until the conditions are brought up to par. That may
involve some expense to the city or Mr. Gregory.
The motion carried without dissent.
Continuation of public heariny on application by the Glenwood Corporation
Dery Brown for Revised Final Plat approval for cluster J 20 units of phase 2
of the Stonehedge development
Mr. Spitz said the applicant had requested that this item be postponed.
Since neither the applicant, nor the neighbors, who had been told that there
would be a postponement of the hearing, were present, Mr. Spitz did not feel
the Commission should have a lengthy discussion of the item. He told the board
that the two questions raised at previous meetings had been answered by the
City Attorney, in his 2/7 memo. The Commission noted that the letter stated that
the entire PUD should be reviewed anew if the alterations would have a significant
adverse effect on the character of the PUD, and if the Commission could articulate
the ways in which it would do this. Discussion centered on the meaning of the
word "character" in this case. The residents of the area feel that the alteration
would profoundly affect the character of the area. Mr. Mona felt the concern of
the residents was for what the new units would do to those already there.
Mr. Walsh felt that the Commission should review the plan with a view to
conserving the value of the existing buildings, because he felt that was the
intent of the statutes (Vermont Planning and Development Act). Mr. Jacob felt
that if the residents had complaints, their recourse was to the courts, particularly
if what had been represented to them was being violated.
The Commission discussed whether the proposed change was drastic or not.
Mr. Woolery had some concerns about allowing units in phase 2 to be constructed
before phase 1 was completed. The Commission, if it approved the. change for phase
2, did not want to have units in phase 1 altered.
Mr. Mona did not want to approve any change unless he had a clear picture
of what would happen to the units other than in cluster J, in both phase 1 and 2.
Mr. Spitz felt this discussion should continue when the applicant and neighbors
were present, but Xr. Mona felt that no decision would be made tonight and Messrs.
Jacob and Ewing felt this discussion was to help them straighten things out in
their own minds.
Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing for the application b
the Glenwood Corporation for revised final plat approval for cluster J 20
units of phase 2 of the Stonehed a development until April 15 at 7: 0 pm at
City Hall. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.
RICHARD A. SPOKES
JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI
WILLIAM G LIVINGSTON
SPOKES 8 OBUCHOWSKI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. BOX 2325
SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401
April 7, 1980
South Burlington Planning Commission
c/o David H. Spitz, City Planner
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Stonehedge Development
Gentlemen:
1775 WILLISTON ROAD
TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857
I am writing to respond to the questions presented to this office
by David Spitz' letter of March 26, 1980.
With respect to the first question, because issues concerning the
legal status of an applicant or record ownership to real property
do not effect the obligations which the Planning Commission must
discharge pursuant to Vermont Statutes, those issues are generally
beyond the Commission's authority. More appropriate forums are
available to individuals interested in disputing an applicant's
legal status. However, because permits can only be issued to the
record property owner, the Commission is entitled to request some
assurance concerning property ownership. In the event that the
applicant is not the property owner, the Commission is entitled to
request a power of attorney or other document evidencing the appli-
cant's authority concerning the real property in question.
The second question posed requires a more detailed response. The
Planning Commission's functions in relation to reviewing a PUD
application include focus upon site plan criteria (adequacy of
traffic access, circulation and parking, landscaping and screening)
as set forth in 24 V.S.A. §4407(5) and §11.70 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission must also consider the specific standards set
forth in Section 6.302 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the gen-
eral standards set forth in Section 12.002.
South Burlington Planning Commission
Page 2
April 7, 1980
With respect to a requested alteration of a previously approved
PUD, we deem it appropriate for the Commission to review the entire
project anew if the proposed alterations result in a significant
impact upon the standards which the Planning Commission is required
to apply to PUD proposals. In other words, in reviewing alterations
to existing PUDs, the following steps would be appropriate:
1. Define precisely the nature of the proposed
alteration.
2. Determine if the proposed alterations comply
with general standards set forth in the
Zoning Regulations (setbacks, parking, etc.)
3. Determine if
criteria to
review (see
Ordinance).
there is any impact on the
be considered under site plan
Section 11.70 of the Zoning
4. Determine if there is any impact upon the
specific standards set forth in Section 6.302
of the Zoning Ordinance (special focus should
be placed upon subparagraph"c" concerning
the appropriateness of density increases).
5. Determine if the proposed alteration would
have any significant impact on the Planning
Commission's evaluation of the entire PUD
pursuant to the general standards set forth
in Section 12.002 of the Zoning Ordinance.
If after completing the process outlined above, the Planning Com-
mission is able to articulate ways in which the proposed alteration
would have a significant adverse affect on the character of the
entire PUD and its merit under site plan criteria as well as speci-
fic and general PUD standards, the Planning Commission should review
the entire PUD anew. It should be emphasized that in order to jus-
tify a review of the entire PUD concept, the Planning Commission
must find that the proposed alterations to the PUD have a substan-
tial adverse impact upon specific site plan and PUD criteria.
South Burlington Planning Commission
Page 3
April 7, 1980
I hope that the above is responsive to your questions. If I can
clarify any of these matters, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
William G. Livingston
WGL/rcw
March 26, 1980
Attorney Richard Spokes
P.O. Box 2325
South Burlington, Vermont 05402
Dear Dick:
Ir The Planning Commission has requested a written response to several questions
raised during the latest hearing on the Stonehedge application:
- 14LIf a landowner/applicant is a corporation whose charter has been revoked,
should the Planning Commission be concerned with withholding, any approval until
the legal status of the applicant has been cleared up? In general, should the
C Planning Commission be responsible for verifying that an applicant is a land-
owner or has an option to buy, is a legal entity, etc.?
2) Under State enabling legislation does the Planning Commission have the
power to review changes in design concept of a PUD? In other words, once the
layout of a PUD is approved should a change be allowed as long as it satisfies
all original review criteria; or does the fact that a planned layout has alreaay
/ been approved create a burden on the applicant to prove that a change would not
detract from the original planned unit concept?
The Planning Commission is uiii:cgg its hearing on this application on
I_ April 8, 1980. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
L'avid H. Spitz,
City Planner
DS/mcg
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next week's agenda items
Date: April 4, 1980
2) Gregory Industrial Park ;
Preliminary plat stipulations have been met: (1) water system has been
approved, (2) cul-de-sac has been redesigned, and (5)legal documents have b6en
submitted for City Attorney's review.
Since Preliminary plat road improvements at the intersection with Williston
Road have been designed (see attached report summary). One new lane will be
constructed, and another lane will be provided via restriping. There will be
a no left turn sign for trucks exiting Gregory Drive.
One hydrant must be relocated and approved by the City Fire Chief.
3) Stonehedge, Cluster J
All --Phase I construction and improvements to date - including building
locations, foundations, and landscaping - are in compliance with approved
plans and stipulations on file in the City records.
Legal questions have also been resolved and the City Attorney is providing
written responses.
Sewage disposal for cluster J is being redirected to the southeast as
per the November approval.
After reviewing all the questions that have been raised regarding this
application, some relevant to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and some
not, I can find no instance in which the applicant has not lived up to the
requirements made or revisions requested by the Planning Commission.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Next week's agenda items
Date: 4/4/80
2) Gregory & Daughters
1. Lot #4 does not have a sewer connection. If it is to be sewerd the six
inch sewer is considered a main and must be 8 inch. -
2. Pumping station shall have a paved access drive with a parking area.
3. Water service should be provided to the sewage pumping station.
4. Pumping station should be three phase power.
5. Pumping station should have a built-in ladder.
6. Catch basin grates shall be Neenah R3405-R or equal.
3) Stonehedge, Cluster J
Before additional housing units are diverted to the Laural Hill sewer than
were originally planned (92 units) I would recommend that the critical area as
defined in the Paulson report of 10-11-72 be regauged after all the units in
Phase I are built and occupied.
The gauging done by Webster -Martin 6-22-78 indicated 139 units can be
added, however, certain assumptions were made and a check would confirm these
assumptions.
In the southeasterly direction the Andrews Avenue -Imperial Drive sewer
critical length is near Shelburne Road (Paulson Report 10-26-72) where 13 add-
itional units were estimated.
3•
PLANNING COM'iiISSION MARCH 11, 1980
cleaning equipment No plantings shall occur in this area.
10. Road gravel and road aubgrade shall be approved by the city prior to
placement of road gravel.
11. the applicant shall submit to the state for review and�pproval of the
emergency sewage holding tank proposal.
12. Elevations at 100 foot intervals shall be added to the street profiles
for all proposed public streets.
13• Site detail plans shall be stamped by the project eng:Lneej, ti
14. Street lighting plan shall be approved by the City of South Burlington.
15� The applicant shall upgrade the Timberlane pumping station as reference
by the City Manager and as agreed to by the applicant in letters dated 3 11 80.
16. This approval expires if construction is not begun within 12 months or
if construction is not completed within 3 1 2 years from this date.
Mx. Jacob seconded the motion.
Mr. Jacob asked the applicant if he would allow the city to use the
recreation fee for land not in the immediate vicinity of this project and Ins.
O'Brien saw no problem with that. Because of the prevailing high interest rates,
the Commission wanted to be flexible on the timing in stipulation 16. The
applicant was given an extra 6 months on one end and an extra year on the other.
Mr. Spitz noted that the reason for the dates was the sewer plant allocations.
It was noted that the starting or completion of construction time periods could
be extended by the Commission with a reapplication for final approval only. Mr.
O'Brien wanted the record to show that the Commission understood the unusual
circumstances due to high interest rates, and that the Commission would understand
the problem if they could not start construction because of tight money.
The motion carried without dissent.
licati
y Glenwood
of Phase II
oration for revised final plat_ approval for cluster
Stonehedge development
Mr. Steve Page.said phase 2 of this project had been approved by the
Commission some months ago and that the reason he was here was for a revision of
cluster J, which is located on 2 112 acres. Total phase 2 units will number 109.
The same number of parking spaces will be provided, which is one open
and one covered for each unit. The water system is the same. The sewage plans
have been altered. Under the old plan sewage was to flow across the parkland into
the sewer line at Andrews Avenue. Now it will be piped north and connect to the
lines at Oakhill Drive. Mr. Page said that the new plan showed parking in the
center of the circle and the covered units will be attached to the dwelling units.
The new units will be flats with a common stairway for 4 units. There will be
two units up and two down. Another change is that the floor area of the new
units will be less. Existing units on the site run from 1100 to 1300 sq. ft. and
these will be 1010 sq. ft.. There is room for more open parking if it is needed.
Ms. Page said the new plan was compatible with whatever happened to the land swap
In this area.
Mr. Walsh asked why the plans were being changed and Kr. Page said that
the two main reasons were the topography of the land and the size of the units
and the market. The lower area of the site had less relief and was not as good
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1980
for construction of units in the townhouse arrangement. He also noted that the
costs of construction were increasing, so the developer wanted to scale down the
size of the units and hold the line on prices. These units will sell for about
240,000, instead of the $60-70,000 they would sell for if they Were the same size
as the old units.
Mr. Levesque noted that the Commission was limited to a discussion of safety,
access, landscaping, circulation and parking because the city did not have design
control. With that in mind, he opened the discussion.
Mr. Janes McCleary said he was the president of cluster F. He had some
reservations about the construction of these units, noting that when the present
residents of Stonehedge had purchased their units, they had paid over $60,000 for
them and now they found that phase 2 would consist of units selling for less than
$50,000. They had been told that phase 2 would consist of single family homes
on 1 acre lots and now they find that what will be built is apartment -type housing.
Mr. Levesque stated that the Commission had never seen a plan for single family
homes in that development. Another resident was concerned about sewer capacity
and the need for the road to be widened. Mr. Page responded that the lines had
been gauged by Webster -,Martin and that in the most critical link there was capacity
for well over 100 units, and there are 92 units in phase 1 of the project. Mr.
Page said that the overall size of the project would not change if the land swap
were consummated.
One resident asked if the same type of housing proposed for J would be put
in the rest of phase 2. N.r. Page noted that he could not commit the owner to
anything other than the proposal for J, but he felt it would be reasonable to
expect the same type of construction in the other clusters.
Mr. Dick Garnache said that when the development in this area started, it
was supposed to be a cluster development with an average of 1 unit per acre and
he felt the project had been downgraded consistently. He felt the Planning
Commission had to protect the property values of people who bought property, and
he said that if a person bought a S70,OW home and a $50,000 home was put up next
door, the $70,000 home had decreased in value. Mr. Levesque suggested that if
the residents were concerned, they should discuss having design control in the --
city with the City Council. Mr. Page said the current zoning of the project
was 4 units per acre and that zoning had been in place for a long time.
Mr. McCleary asked the minimum unit size allowed in the city and was told it
was 500 sq. ft.
Mr. Page said that they were planning to put 20 units on this 2 112 acre
parcel, but he noted that the common open space between the clusters and the
parkland given to the city were considered in calculating the allowed density,
so the overall density would be exactly 4 per acre. Mr. Woolery said that he
believed that all the plans for this land had shown a density of 4 per acre. He
also noted that design control and the value of the homes were not the purview of
this board.
Mr. Bruce Latelle asked if the density of J had changed since the last plan
and was told that one more unit had been added, but another one would be removed
from a different cluster to balance it. Yx. Latelle did not think topography of
the area was a factor in this decision.
Mr. McCleary asked if the loop road would be widened and was told it would.
It will be made 24' of pavement with shoulders. Mr. McCleary noted that some
units were only 20' from the road and Mrs. McCleary asked how close the road, when
widened, would be to the units in cluster H. She was told that the road would be
within the right of way, which is 50' wide and that the widening would only bring
the road 2-4' closer to the units. Yx. Walsh noted that the 11/27/79 minutes
stipulated that no unit be closer than 5' to the right of way.
5•
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH-11, 1980
Mr. McCleary felt that the change to cluster J meant a change in the character
of the entire project. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission did not discuss the
design of the building itself.
Mr. McCleary said that 4 foundations existed near cluster G and he wondered
if those would be removed. Mr. Spitz said the Zoning Board could determine if
that was a violation. :
Mr. Hartstein said that he lived in cluster C and that when those units were
sold, they were told that the view of the lake would be maintained and he did not
think it would be.
Mr. McCleary noted that there was no Stonehedge Corporation filed with the
city or state and he wondered who the city was dealing with. He was told the
applicant was Mervin Brown. Mr. McCleary was not sure that Stonehedge was al
entity. lair. Woolery said he, the Planner and City Attorney could discuss that.
Mr. McCleary also noted that $290 of landscaping had never been put in, and
he questioned how the applicant could be believed about anything if he had not
done that yet. Mr. Levesque felt that was an enforcement problem and that the
lack of a City Engineer (full-time) and other staff members delayed action on
problems like that.
Mr. Page asked if there were comments on the revised layout other than those
in the memos submitted. Mr. Walsh hoped that some of the items mentioned tonight
would be checked out.
Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the final plat application _
for cluster J of phase 2 of the Stonehedge development until two weeks from
tonight, March 25 at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion and
all voted aye. Mr. Woolery added that the Planner should be satisfied that
all documentation is complete before the hearing is resumed.
Mr. Dale Kline mentioned that there was a storm drain that was filled with
3 1/2-4' of water and was told to talk to the City Engineer about that. Mr.
McCleary felt they had a right to be sure that things were constructed to city
standards. Mr. Levesque felt that a lot of things would be ironed out with a
full-time engineer on the staff. Mr. Kline questioned how the Commission could
approve new construction when the old phase was -not built -well or- finished. Mr.
Spitz said construction had to be up to standards, or the developer would not get
his money back. Mr. Kline said the Fire Chief had" -told him that before anyone
moved into a building, clearance was needed, but it was pointed out that that was
a state responsibility, the city does not have certificates of occupancy. Mr.
Kline noted that the public was telling the Commission there had been violations,
and they were still going to allow construction. He was told to discuss it with
the Council.
One member of the audience did not understand why, when such a major change
was being proposed, the Commission could not give an opinion in judgement as to
whether this should be passed. He felt the plan was a drastic change and could be
rejected. He also felt that the change in the plan would change the traffic flow,
since the type of person buying a 340,000 unit was different from the type buying
a $60,000 unit.
Mrs. McCleary felt that the approval originally showed a typical cluster and
that thin was not a typical cluster since there was a modification in the design,
layout and the integrity -of the development. She was told the plan met all the
requirements.
The residents thanked the Commission for its patience.
Application by South Burlington Realty Corporation for sketch plan review of a new
commercial development entitled "Corporate Circle" on 40 acres of rear land behind
LISMAN & LISMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
191 COLLEGE STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402
LOUIS LISMAN
802-864-5756
BERNARD LISMAN
ROBERT E. MANCHESTER
CARL H. LISMAN March 24, 1980
ALLEN D. WEBSTER
Mr. David H. Spitz
City Planner
City of South Burlington
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05401
GLENWOOD CORP.
STONEHEDGE CLUSTER J
Dear David:
In connection with this matter, I have reviewed your
memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated March 21,
1980, regarding the agenda for the March 25, 1980 meeting.
With respect to the Stonehedge Cluster J project
and your comments, I offer the following thoughts:
1. My review of the stipulations as far back as
1973 agrees with your conclusion regarding the limitations,
if any, on the type of units to be built.
2. I do not and did not represent Henry Potter
or Adcom, Inc. I represent Glenwood Corp., of which
Mr. Brown is an officer. The permit with which I
was involved was issued to Glenwood Corp. To the extent
that the application before you has Mr. Brown's name on
it, Mr. Brown is merely an agent of Glenwood Corp. and
Glenwood Corp. is the owner of all of the property at
Stonehedge, except so much thereof as has been sold
or made subject to Declarations of Condominium.
3. I understand that the landscaping in Phase
I has been completed and you should have a memorandum
from Dick Ward confirming the completion. I,do not
understand that there is any problem with the land-
scaping map for Cluster J or the bonded amount.
4. I concur that the State does review multi -family
buildings for electrical and fire standards.
5. Please let me know what additional details
the City will require to ensure that existing draining
will not be adversely affected when the road is widened.
6. I understand that a revised plan has been sub-
mitted to you relocating the fire hydrant originally
shown at the entrance to Cluster J.
7. Please let me know whether any revisions are
required in the documents now in the hands of the City
Attorney.
To the extent that any additional information is required,
please let me know and we will try to have it prior to the
hearing.
CHL:ces
Very truly yours,
1
n�
Carl H. Lisman
cc: Mr. Mervin Brown
Glenwood Corp.
Stonehedge Drive
South Burlington, VT
Mr. Stephen Page
Dubois & King
159 Pearl Street
Essex Junction, VT
J
Stonehedge - Phase II - 15tf
The basic concept of a perimeter loop road linking
clusters of 10 to 20 units as in Phase I, has been continued
for the 109 (all 3 bedroomj units of Phase II. All applicable
conditions of the previous approval have been complied with.
Site layout considerations include building separations
and cluster drive dimensions, maintaining a 601 right-of-way
at least along the east segment of the loop road, rerouting
the loop road to avoid the only 2 significant stands of
trees on site, loop road pavement width, water system review
by Champlain Water District and Fire Chief, details on path
system, supplementary parking for trailers, and on site
recreation amenities. Impacts on major community services
have been assessed for schools and sewage treatment plant
capacity (both adequate). Traffic can be estimated but
there are no areas nearby where unreasonable congestion could
be attributed to this particular project.
MEMORANDUM
TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COi11ISSION
FROM: WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1979
RE: STOPiEHEDGE
1. Street right-of-way should be 60 feet in width.
2. Sewer manholes must be placed where they are accessible
to truck mounted cleaning equipment such as in roads and
parking areas.
3. Drainage from clusters west of drainageway must be so
designed that storm runoff is toward drainageway.
4. City Water Dept. to review water main layout.
0
' >„�i✓✓.•�L '�Co�' v"'i:'YM, ` �;1'�� '���r� `� ` ? /T �� L% =/`"� f"�'�li'�%a hG'`n� r;!
J 7)
Id')1411yar �� Pw , pl-414,111J
L'
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next Week's Agenda
Date: March 21, 1980
2) Cottage Grove. Existing parcel is approximately 1 acre to be divided into
4 parcels, all with adequate frontage and square footage. Entire property is
traversed by a "minor stream" or "drainageway". Since areas above and below are
already culverted and since most of the surrounding area is developed, this does
not seem to be the most valuable area in which to apply potential CO -District
provisions. Area is fairly wet, though, in normally wet seasons. If property
is to be filled, it will be necessary to insure that adequately sized culverts can
be installed.
Existing street may require some improvements to adequately serve four new
houses. City right-of-way is very narrow (38 feet).
3) Victory Drive. Entire parcel is approximately 7.5 acres with frontage on
Williston Road and Victory Drive and a rear right-of-way to Pine Tree Terrace.
One lot was subdivided in July at which time the applicant said he had no plans
for the rest of the land. Now two more lots are proposed for subdivision - a
definite piecemeal development pattern. It might be useful to ask applicant to
show options for future development of remaining land. Also, rights of access
through rear right-of-way should be verified.
4) 'Stonehed e. A number of issues were raised by residents of Stonehedge Phase I
at the ast Commission meeting:
1) I have researched stipulations as far back as 1973 and have found no
Planning Commission limitation on the type of unit to be built.
2) The name of the project owner has changed a number of times - from Henry
Potter to Adcom to Glenwood Corporation and now to Mery Brown. No approval has
been given to "Stonehedge", but in any case the approvals run with the land and
any new owner would be subject to previous conditions of approval.
3) Landscapingin Phase I has not been completed. A bond for $3500 was
provided and none of that money has been released yet. A new landscaping map
with the previously required amount of $292 per unit, has been provided for
Cluster J.
4) Although the City has no building code the State does perform various
inspections including a fire code review for any multi -family building and an
electrical inspection for any building with four or more units.
5) Road widening in Phase I will have a minimal effect on setbacks to existing
buildings. The City will require details to insure that existing drainage is not
adversely affected when the road is widened.
!•
Memorandum
March 21, 1980
Page 2
Other issues remaining from last meeting include the following:
6) A fire hydrant is now shown at the entrance to Cluster J. The understanding
is that the hydrant may be moved to the location indicated on the 11/79 approval
when that portion of road is built.
7) Legal documents have been provided and are now being reviewed by the City
Attorney.
8) On site road and sewer details have been provided to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer, but there is some question as to the adequate capacity of
certain off -site sewers (see City Engineer's memo).
9) Walkways are now shown.
10) A landscaping bond in the amount of $5800 will be required.
5) Other Business. Findings of Fact sheets have been accumulating for several
mnnrFls and should be signed.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Next Week's Agenda
Date: March 21, 1980
2) Cottage Grove
1. This property is primarily a low swampy area with a drainage ditch that carries
runoff from a large area. Before approval is given for piping and filling thik
area detail studies should be made of the effects it will have on the drainage
basin especially upstream, It appears this area serves as areservoir for excess
runoff and eliminating it may cause problems upstream and Williston Road.
2. The street R.O.W. is 38' and should be increased to a minimum of 50'.
3. Curbs with drainage should be constructed along the side of the development 15'
from centerline and the widening paved.
3)�, Stonehedge
1. Before sewer flow is divided to the Laurel Hill sewer system, the units already
approved for connection to the system must be gauged to see if the addition units can
be accomodated.
2. Loop road sub -grading work shall be approved by the City prior to placement of
the road base gravel.
3. Road gravel shall be approved by City prior to placement in road bed layout.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer
Re: Landscaping - Stonehedge
Date: March 21, 1980
This office inspected the landscaping completed at cluster G & F and also discussed
landscaping with Mr. Brown.
Attached are invoices from North County landscaping and Harsford Nursery, the
total of which indicates that the average cost per unit is $291.00. The
Planning Commission granted approval setting forth a condition that landscaping
average $290.00 per unit. The bonded amount on file with this office is $290.00
per unit for twelve units. The planting completed includes mount work, locating
large rocks and some transplanting which is an additional cost.
My inspection revealed that in the future more evergreens should be planted.
.. ... fir:.^..._ _.
HORSFORD'S NURSERN 11C.
Route 7
Ch• ARL OTTL , VERMONT 05445 N2 1112
1.O (802) 425-2811
01ery Bro�un/Valiant Const. Inc.
STONEHEDGE Spear Street
So. Burlington, Vermont 05401
- 1
rr.RMs: Net 30 days. 11/2% service charge on balance over 30 days. Our guarantee void on
all accounts not paid in 30 days.
"'I!AIIIIATY f DCSCRIrTION
d
7F
may 30, 1979
STOMER ORDER NO.
SAZESMAN
VIA --._-.
Lan scaping project (Sales Tax 51.06)
Additions to Contract:
Flowers - petunias, marigolds installed
Replacement of stolen plants
Sales Tax
I
' TOTAL DUE
1�V 2 q l
OL104AC r Iqq • q G
ORIGINAL �~ '
E,RIc77
i
29773.06
200.00
15.00
�ti 1h 6.a5
t � .4
29994,51
YORTH COUNTRY LANDSC-APING INC.
' BOX 196
ESSEX JUNCTION, VT 05452
802*87906662
a
October 11, 1979
Valiant Construction (Vermont) Inc.
Stoneh^dge Drive
South Burlington, Vermont 05452
1�e: Planting and maintenance for the month of September
Planting around Transformer
3 white pines
3 wintercreepers
2 woodbines
1 cottonea,ster
1 bittersweet
Price of shrubs: $ 121.34
Labor & Materials: 100.00
Total _
Sign_ Planting
5 selkirk crabs
6 potentillas
6 hetzi junipers
2 suon;mus altus comiameta,
2 may ho pines
16 mums
2 saxgont junipers
Price of shrubs:
Labor & Materials:
w A SL APz�
z 3
3 u
f z
7
$ 341.11
!!Pis 00
L� r� 0,5c k1 LP
6 -5', 3y
Sy .� .
SS
$ 221.34
$ 746.11
967.45
- ,CAl ING INC.
LJOX 196
.65EX JUNCTION, VT 0345E
8020879.6662
September & October Billing - continued
HP'
Planting around new townhoumes
8 euonymus fortunes
4 potentilla fruticosa
6 taxus denifor►nis
2 junipers
6 hydrangeas
9 viburnum casanoties
6 spirea japonica.
5 norKay raples
9 honeysucbcles
1 shademaster locust
Total:
Lawn Installation
Approximately 15,493 squars feast
Price: $ 775.00
Stakes & twine
Price: $ 30.00
Maintenance
August 16 - 3 men 1/2 hr
28 - 3 Caen 1 1/2 hrs.
September 5 - "
13
20
27 - 3 men 2 hre.
27 - repair Mork
3 men 3 hrs.(plus weed)
'
6 1- Z�' 3"1
16.U0
48.00
48, oo
48.00
48 oo �1
64.00
6.00
1/1
17.36 (eeed)
541
JOT
?p
<
Awe
P11*1 ook
"..'4k / ezl C7/
\
t
ijeti�r� �� rry" v/Jr
_ _.___..__—._-__
�V-�"`wl� Uv � � I �� _ W J �.Y�J+M,� �����(�c_..4���.�j� � • �r—(�`-- /i/� �---
«" a U 2. ✓" �C �'T .> Yl LiAJ!/ "Y /ice J�v /•�/C
������s�
���
3A � �� — Fv, ale � ��?
,
�/ 11 i { �!"UM") `
if R _ tALA 74-51
/?in y - vIr ,� �;,.:. ✓ /F) jl
(1
�v� i�l✓,LElrv� .�4�f, G .,w' � C LLL/;,� / / J . ✓ � � �, .
.
2.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 1980
Sketch plan application by Emery Victory, for a 2 lot subdivision on Victory Dr._
Mr. Ray Ploof represented Mr. Victory. He said they would like to subdivide
2 lots, each greater than 18,000 sq. f t. and each with 100' frontage. Both have
access to Victory Drive.
Mr. Poger noted that this parcel had been before the Commission at least
6 times. It is a large piece with access to Williston Road, Victory Drive, and
Helen Street and the Commission would like to see some kind of overall plan for
the acreage. Mr. Ploof said he had nothing to do with the rest of the land, which
is open. Mr. Poger did not want pieces of the land being subdivided a few at a time.
Mr. Mona added that that method of development was creating jagged lines, which
would lead to peculiar boundaries later. The Commission wanted to see a plan for
the rest of the land. Mr. Ewing disagreed, saying that the proposal was tolay out
2 lots on Victory Drive. The applicant will have to come back to develop the
land in the rear. Mr. Poger felt Mr. Victory should talk to the Commission at the
subdivision stage about his plans for the rest of the land. These two lots will
be large enough for duplexes. When asked what would be built, Mr. Ploof wanted
to leave it open but noted that there was a 2-apartment home nearby. It was noted
that that had not' been constructed for that purpose. Mr. Mona noted that if the
two lots were set off that would eliminate any possibility for a road off Victory
Drive at right angles to it.
Continuation of public hearing on application b Mery Brown for revised final plat
aovroval for cluster J 20 units of phase_ 2 of e e
Mr. Carl Lisman and Mr. Steve Page represented the developer. Mr. Lisman
reviewed what had happened on this application to this point. He said a lot of
issues had been raised which were not material to the hearing and which were not
true. The developer is here to obtain approval for a change in the configuration
of the units in cluster J and because the sewage flow is being redirected.
Mr. Page went over the proposal again. The building in cluster J nearest
to cluster F is 320' with a vertical separation of 10-15'. The previously
approved 19 townhouse units for J are now proposed as 20 condominium units. There
are 20 units because they are constructed in buildings of 4 units each. Mr. Page
said they had received memos from the city staff and would agree to the suggestions
regarding the placement of the gravel and the sub -base work on the loop road. The
same is truefor gauging sewage flow as units are added on line.
Mr. Page said topography and economics were the most important reasons for the
proposed new layout. The new units are constructed with a common stairway and are
on one floor. The existing townhouse units are on 2-3 floors and have private
stairs. The new units are smaller. Mr. Page noted that there was more relief
on the eastern half of the site than on the west. There is only one good area by
which to gain access to the land on which cluster J will sit, and with the new
arrangement of the units they will not need separate driveways and duplicate
utility services, as they do in some of the existing clusters. He felt that the
topography dictated a more economical development pattern.
Mr. Poger asked if the new units would be much more expensive than the old
ones if they were built as townhouses but Nir. Lisman did not think that was a
consideration of the Commission. He told the Commission, however, that the cost of
money was such that if the topography allowed townhouses in cluster J, to build
them that way, and the same size as the existing units, would make their sale
uneconomical. He said the developer was scaling down the size but not the quality
of the units at least in cluster J so that when they were sold the monthly payments
would be about what residents of the previous units were paying.
PLANNING COMMISSION
3•
MARCH 25, 1980
Mr. Poger wondered if there was any advantage for the city if it amended its
previous approval. Mr. Lisman did not think that was a standard that should be
applied. Mr. Poger responded that planned unit developments (PUDs) had certain
things waived for the good of the community and he did.not believe that the changes
proposed would gain the city anything. Mr. Mona noted that PUDs were areas to be
developed as single entities and added that the Commission did not know totally what
it would be asked to change. Asked if it was the developer's intention to continue
to build units in the configuration of cluster J, Mr. Lisman responded that the
developer had applied only to change J. He did not know the developer's intentions
on the rest of the units, but noted that if he had wanted to alter the rest of the
project, he could have asked to alter the rest of it.
Mr. James McClary said he was present as an interested resident, not as
president of his association. He said he would like to see the project constructed
as originally approved. He noted that some buildings in cluster E were not
constructed in the positions shown on a previous map of the area. err. Poger said
Zoning Administrator Richard Ward was the man to see about that. If Mr. Ward
decided that what was to be built was what was approved, he issued building permits
for it.
Mr. McClary felt the project had not been built out as it was represented to
people in the project. He said that if the buildings had been constructed as
originally represented, they would be different from the way they were in cluster E.
He said Act 250 was looking into that now. Mr. McClary also said that a right of
way was never obtained or granted from cluster C for the sewer line in that area.
He was told that was a matter to discuss with cluster C.
Mr. McClary said that the new design of the units with 2 apartments up and 2
down would have a direct reducing effect on the sales price of the units, and that
would affect the prices of the existing units. He said the residents understood
that the developer had only one constructed unit left unsold, which indicated to
them that the developer was not having trouble selling the units as previously
approved. Mr. McClary thought highly of the construction of the phase 1 units but
did not think the quality of the cluster J units would be as -high, and said they
objected to that. They felt it would affect the value of their homes and reduce
their ability to resell.
Mr. McClary brought up the matter of the poured foundations. He wanted them
removed, or built on.
Mr. Joe Bauer represented the McClarys and he stated that, after checking with
the office of the Secretary of State, he had found out that Glenwood Corp.'s charter
was revoked recently, so that corporation had ceased to exist. It was his position
that the Commission had no authority to give any permits to an entity which did not
legally exist. He gave a copy of a letter stating this from the Secretary of State's
office to Mr. Lisman, who noted that Glenwood Corp was a legal entity and that he
had not yet received a letter of apology from that office stating thus. Mr. Poger
asked that the City Attorney be consulted on the question of whether permits could
be issued to a corporation without a license in the State of Vermont.
Ms. Barb Stevens asked about the widening of the loop road and was told the
Commission had requested it at the November hearing.
The question of the sewer lines was brought up. Mr. Page explained that an
existing sewer line ran west to Oakhill Drive. As originally planned, sewage from
the 92 units in phase 1 was to go into the Oakhill sewers and sewage from the 109
phase 2 units was to go into the system at Andrews Avenue. At preliminary hearings
on the development, concern was voiced over the adequacy of the sewers in Laurel
Hill. Gauging of the lines both to the north and south was done and a report is
on file with the City Engineer. Mr. Page thought the north line had capacity for
139 more units (92 were proposed) and he thought that 50-70 units in the south system
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 1980
was the threshold and after that, more gauging would be needed. The new plan
shows these 20 units flowing north into the Oakhill sewers. Mr. Page said the
developers did not object to the suggestion that there be further gauging (made
by the City Engineer). Mr. Spitz noted that the Engineer's concern was that the
sewage flow would change from what was approved in November. He has made some
inupections on the site and has observed a high volume of sewage flow from the
units existing now. He does not want to recommend any additional units from phase
2 going on line at this time. He feels that phase 2 should only start after phase
1 is built -out and has been gauged. There are a lot of units left to build in
phase 1 and he is concerned that there may be problems. Some members of the
Commission had not read the Engineer's memo that way and asked that it be rewritten
in more detail. Mr. Page said 43 units had been finished in phase 1 and there
are 49 left to build. Yx. Lisman said the developer did not object to a stipulation
that only 92 units be allowed to flow north. Mr. Poger noted that approval had
been given for phase 1, but if phase 2 were now constructed and there were problems,
he was not sure the city could stop phase 1 development later because of inadequate
flow. Mr. Page, in response to a question, paid that the developer hoped to
construct in fiscal 1980 25 units in phase 1 and 40 in phase 2.
Mr. Spitz suggested several ways to handle the sewer question in an approval
motion. Mr. Mona asked why the proposal was now to go to Oakhill Drive. He was
told that the city was interested in some land in the area across which the line south
might run. After that line is in, locations for parkland improvements might be
curtailed, since certain things cannot be built over sewer lines. Mr. Page admitted
that the developer had not been asked specifically to do this, but he felt the
message had been to try to develop the units to the south and west last, to allow
the city flexibility in its plans for the parkland.
Mr. Mona asked about the associationin this development and Mr. Lisman
explained it.
Mr. Bruce Latelle felt that the proposed change from townhouse units to apartment -
type units would have an effect on both residents in the immediate area, and in
the region and he asked the Commission to take that into account in its deliberations.
Mr. Woolery had a series of questions he wanted answered before the nest meeting.
These are: 1) is the legal status of the corporation a problem, 2) the Commission
needs clarification of the City Engineer's 3/21 memo (can part of phase 2 be
sewered through phase 1, and if that gets the developer to the maximum number of
units, how will the rest of phase 1 be constructed), 3) does the city have a
deadline for completion of phase 1, 4) when are the amenities to be constructed,
5) is the sewer right of way to Oakhill Drive a problem, and 6) does the city have
any recourse regarding the foundations in the ground?
One other point Mr. Woolery raised was regarding the layout of the buildings.
He noted that the layout should not differ substantially from what was shown on me
original plan, and he said that if the concept of the cluster was totally changed,
perhaps there was a problem with the PUD concept. He asked what a typical cluster
meant. Mr. Poger added that the,City Attorney should be asked what, under the
Vermont Municipal and Regional Planning and Development Act, Title 24, paragraph
4407, PUDs, the Commission's powers were regarding approval or disapproval of
changes which change the concept of a project but not necessarily the number of
units, drainage, etc.
Mx. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the revised final plat
plan for cluster J phase 2 of Stonehedge until two weeks from tonight at City Hall
at 7:30 pm. Air. Walsh seconded the motion and all voted aye.
Mr. Mona asked that the developer make a statement to the Commission regarding
his future intentions on clusters not constructed.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH'11, 1980
Mr. McCleary felt that the change to cluster J meant a change in the character
of the entire project. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission did not discuss the
design of the building itself.
Mr. McCleary said that 4 foundations existed near cluster G and he wondered
if those would be removed. Mr. Spitz said the Zoning Board could determine if
that was a violation.
Mr. Hartstein said that he lived in cluster C and that when those units were
sold, they were told that the view of the lake would be maintained ard he did not
think it would be.
Mr. McCleary noted that there was no Stonehedge Corporation filed with the
city or state and he wondered who the city was dealing with. He was told the
applicant was Mervin Brown. Mr. McCleary was not sure that Stonehedge was axe
entity. Mr. Woolery said he, the Planner and City Attorney could discuss that.
Mr. McCleary also noted that $290 of landscaping had never been put in, and
he questioned how the applicant could be believed about anything if he had not
done that yet. Mr. Levesque felt that was an enforcement problem and that the
lack of a City Engineer (full-time and other staff members delayed action on
problems like that.
Mr. Page asked if there were comments on the revised layout other than those
in the memos submitted. Mr. Walsh hoped that some of the items mentioned tonight
would be checked out.
Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on the final plat application
for cluster J of phase 2 of thq Stonehed e�,develo ment until two weeks from
tonight, March 25 at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion and
all voted aye. Mr. Woolery added that the Planner should be satisfied that
all documentation is complete before the hearing is resumed.
N.r. Dale Kline mentioned that there was a storm drain that was filled with
3 1/2-4' of water and was told to talk to the City Engineer about that. Mr.
McCleary felt they had a right to be sure that things were constructed to city
standards. Mr. Levesque felt that a lot of things would be ironed out with a
full-time engineer on the staff. Mr. Kline questioned how the Commission could
approve new construction when 'che old phase was --not built well or -finished. Mr.
Spitz said construction had to be up to standards, or the developer would not get
his money back. Mr. Kline said the Fire Chief had" -told him that before anyone
moved into a building, clearance was needed, but it was pointed out that that was
a state responsibility, the city does not have certificates of occupancy. Mr.
Kline noted that the public was telling the Commission there had been violations,
and they were still going to allow construction. He was told to discuss it with
the Council.
One member of the audience did not understand why, when such a major change
was being proposed, the Commission could not give an opinion in judgement as to
whether this should be passed. He felt the plan was a drastic change and could be
rejected. He also felt that the change in the plan would change the traffic flow,
since the type of person buying a S40,000 unit was different from the type buying
a 360,000 unit.
mrs. McCleary felt that the approval originally showed a typical cluster and
that this was not a typical cluster since there was a modification in the
design,
layout and the integrity -of the development. She was told the plan et
requirements.
The residents thanked the Commission for its patience.
Application by South Burlington Realty Corporation for sketch plan review of a new
commercial development entitled -Corporate Circle' on 40 acres of rear land behin
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David H. Spitz, City Planner
Re: Next Week's Agenda
Date: 3/7/80
2) Berard Speculative Building
Paved portion of Berard Drive needs to be extended to driveway and new
temporary turnaround provided.
This is a speculative building. Conditional use approval may subsequently be
required by the Zoning Board. Building location and landscaping are adequate.
Parking appears adequate but number of spaces should be stipulated for review
by Administrator (if permitted use) or by Zoning Board (if conditional use).
3) Townhouses at Timberlane
All legal and engineering data for the project has been provided and has
passed through an initial review. All fire protection and water -related data
has been approved. Legal data is complete except for the details of a bonding
arrangement for public improvements.
Bill Szymanski has raised a number of engineering questions, mostly on specific
details (see memo). Questions to be resolved include sewer manhole locations and
maintenance, drainage systems, and perhaps most important, any upgrading will be
required for the Timberlane sewage pumping station. Additional information to be
provided includes road calculations for the extension to Twin Oaks and drainage
calculations for a culvert on Hayes Avenue and for the end of Hayes Avenue. The
applicant and City Administration will attempt to resolve these issues by Tuesday's
meeting.
The recreation fee is $3525. Landscaping fee is still being determined.
Applicant has requested to be allowed to provide landscaping details at a later
date when they can more appropriately be tied in with the chosesn building designs.
If permitted, the Administration can review landscaping plans prior to issuance of
building permits. However, applicant should address at this time whether any
landscaping or screening should be provided between a large stormwater detention
basins and adjacent buildings.
4) Stonehedge, Phase II, Cluster J
Applicant is now submitting details for the first cluster in Stonehedge,
Phase II. The cluster has been increased from 19 to 20 units; 1 unit will be re-
moved elsewhere.
Water review is complete. Fire protection is adequate as long as the first
hydrant beyond cluster J is installed at this time. The applicant may wish to
install the hydrant temporarily just beyond the entrance of cluster J until the
possible•relocation of the loop road is determined. (NOTE: The State has approved
and forwarded to the Feds the proposed recreational acquisition of a portion of the
Stonehedge and Nowland properties).
Legal documents have not yet been reviewed. Some engineering data must be
Memorandum
Re: Next week's agenda
3/7/80
Page 2
be provided for the road and sewer. The Phase I loop road is expected to be
widened prior to issuance of building permits for Cluster J.
Connections to the walkway system as shown on the original Phase II final
plat will be added. Landscaping fee remains to be calculated.
5) Corporate Circle
No significant changes on map from the one presented during informal discussion
with Planning Commission last December. Some water and sewer lines have been in-
cluded.
Applicant has retained Traffic Engineering Associates for review of traffic
flow. No substantial data has been generated, however, preliminary indications
are that the rotary design may be feasible (see attached letter). More detailed
review will follow at subsequent meetings.
r
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Stonehedge Cluster J
Date: March 7, 1980
1. The 6 inch sewer pipe serving 3 buildings should be 8 inch terminating with
a manhole in paved area.
2. Make transition in road width in short distance (50') on north traveled
side, stub other side.
3. Water Department to review watermain layout.
4. Sewer pipe to be bedded in 3/8 crushed stone.
5. Road gravel to be approved by City prior to placement.
6. Road subgrade to be approved by City prior to placement of road gravel.
7. Furnish road and sewer profiles.
March 7, 198o
Mr. Stephen Page
Dubois & King Inc.
159 Pearl Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05404
Re. Revised layout, Cluster
at Stonehedqe
Dear Steve:
I have reviewed the above referenced plan and have
approved it as presented.
Sincerely,
Robert I_ Gardner
Sub erintendent
RG/sy
CC: Dave Spitz..-
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Roomri i 175,
Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday,
Marc1980_. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following:
1. Final plat application of O'Brien Bros. Agency, Inc. for (1) a one -lot sub-
division of 17.25 acres at the end of Timberlane, and (2) a 120 unit condo-
minium complex, entitled "Townhouses at Timberlane", to be located on said parcel.
The proposed development is bounded by Twin Oaks on the west; Forest Park,
Woodlawn, and Briarwood on the north; lands of Daniel and Leo O'Brien and
O'Brien Bros. Agency, Inc. on the east; and Interstate 89 on the south.
2. Revised final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for cluster
i
(20 units) of Phase II of the Stonehedge development. Property is bounded on th--
west by lands of the City of South Burlington, on the north by Phase I, on the
east by lands of Campbell, Blanchard, Mellish, Lawlor and Koplewitz, and on the
south by lands of Nowland.
Copies of the are available
for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall.
Sidney B. Poger
Cha i rma n
South Burlington
Planning Commission
February 23, 1980 _
� ut4 Nurlington Nire DeVaJulent
f � 575 Dorset #treet
0* Nurlington, Vermont 95481
Mr. Dave Spitz City Planner
City Of So. Burlington
1175 Williston Road
So. Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Spitz,
11
OFFICE OF
JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR.
CHIEF
MARCH 7,1080
Plans were reviewed by the fire department for phase
II cluster J Stone Hedge Development. Over all I feel the
changes will not effect the department in giving proper
fire protection. Before they start building the following
must be done.
1. Water main extended and the next hydrant installed.
2. Road base extended to location of hydrant to be
installed.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely
es W. Goddette Sr. Chief