HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1055 Williston Road2.3
SAN REMO REALTY CORPORATION
One of the Pizzagalli Companies
50JOV DRIVE/SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
802/658-4100
March 21, 1978
Mr. Stephen Page
City of South Burlington
1175 Williston Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Page:
Your opinion is requested as to whether a Subdivision Permit, or other
City approval, is required in connection with proposed conveyances from the
estate of Raphael Victory to San Remo Realty Corporation and Earl B. and
Kathryn Greer.
I enclose a plan showing property which is presently owned by the estate
of Raphael J. Victory located on the southeast corner of the intersection of
Williston Road and Dorset Street. At the present time, the northerly parcel
is under lease to San Remo Realty Corporation pursuant to a lease dated
April 23, 1963 of record at Vol. 63, Pg. 308 et seq of the City of South
Burlington Land Records. The southerly parcel is under lease to Earl B.
and Kathryn Greer by instruments dated November 30, 1967 and July 2, 1969,
of record at Vol. 69, Pg. 467 et seq and Vol. 117, Pg. 408 et seq respec-
tively, of the City of South Burlington Land Records.
It is proposed that the parcel currently leased to San Remo Realty Cor-
poration would be conveyed to us in fee simple, and, similarly, the two par-
cels leased to Mr. and Mrs. Greer would be conveyed to them.
In connection with the proposed conveyances, it is possible that there
would be a slight relocation, not exceeding fifteen feet of the boundary line
dividing the Greer and San Remo parcels.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
s
f
Ve truly y urs
J es Pizzagalli�
President
JP:d
enclosure
March 27, 1978
Mr. James Pizzagelli
San Remo Realty Corporation
50 Joy Drive
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Your letter of 3/21/78
Dear Jim:
Dick Ward and I both concur that it would serve no useful
purpose to require subdivision review for your proposal. There-
fore, we do not consider it to be a subdivision based on the in --
formation suxmitted and the following provisos:
(1) we assume the property line relocation will be in a
southerly direction.
(2) the existing wood frame building must be removed.
(3) a plot plan should be recorded.
The basis for our judgement is (1) both affected lots are
conforming in terms of size and frontage. (2) the proposed change
will possibly make the service station a conforming structure.
(3) the present Greer's building is unaffected and (4) no new
developable land or lots will result. we do have some reservations,
however, about the status of the existing wood frame structure
if it is not removed or demolished, it would become more non-
conforming by such a change, not to mention the possibility
suggested by its setting on a separate lot.
Please call if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Stephen Page
Planner
SP/mcg
/I