Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Southview DriveCITY COUNCIL 3 MAY 2004 PAGE 7 g. Consideration of Aceeptance A Southview Drive as a public street: Mr. Hafter said everything is in order for the acceptance. Mr. Sheahan moved to accept Southview Drive as a public street. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Road Opening Permits: Mr. Condos stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Sheahan assumed the Chair. Mr. Hafter presented a revised fee schedule. The previous fee for cutting into green space was $5 per sq. ft. The recommendation is $2.25 which is more in line with the rest of the County. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the amendment to road opening permits as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Condos resumed the Chair. 10. Review Development Review Board Agenda for 4 May 2004: No issues were raised. 11. Review Minutes of 19 April 2004: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 19 April 2004 as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with 2 abstentions. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: CHUCK HAFTER, CITY MANAGER / FROM: RAYMOND J. BELAIR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER `� �J SUBJECT: SOUTHVIEW DRIVE STREET EXCEPTANCE DATE: 4/28/04 The City has been asked to accept as a City street the remaining portion of Southview Drive as depicted on the attached tax map. Attached are memos from both Public Works Director Bruce Hoar and South Burlington Water Department Superintendent Jay Nadeau indicating that the street and the infrastructure are acceptable. City Attorney Tim Eustace has reviewed the legal documents and found them to be in order. Please ask the City Council to accept this portion of Southview Drive and let me know when that has taken place so I may record the legal documents. Ray Belair From: Jay Nadeau Uayn0cwd-h2o.org1 Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:58 PM To: Ray Belair Subject: Mike Dumont Project- Southview Ray - This is to inform you that all needed corrections within this project have been completed to the satisfaction of the SBWD. Jay Nadeau SBWD Superintendent South Burlington Public Works 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802)658-7961 FAX: (802)658-7976 OFFICE IN LANDFILL RC April 5, 2004 To: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator From: Bruce K. Hoar, Public Works Director RE: SouthView Southview is acceptable by this department SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 April 9, 2004 Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Michael Dumont Southview Development Dear Ray: We have received a copy of the As-Builts for the above referenced project and performed another inspection on the area within those plans. We inspected the following infrastructure items during the course of our inspection: 1. Main line gate valves and boxes 2. Fire Hydrants and auxiliary valves 3. Service connections on lots that have had construction completed 4. General appearance At this time the only problem remaining from our original punch list dated July 31, 2003 is a leaking hydrant located at the corner of Lot #44. This hydrant has been raised as required in my July 31 letter, but appears to have been damaged during the raising process, such that it leaks when it is opened. This hydrant must be repaired prior to final acceptance of this development by the SBWD. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, South Burlington ter Department 4? Jay Nadeau Superintendent South Burlington Street Department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 August 27, 2003 OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD. To: Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator From: Bruce K. Hoar, Director of Public Works Re: Acceptance of Dumont Project Road Ray there is a discrepancy in the property line on this project. The way the line is now part of the sidewalk is on the private property. This should not be and does not give us our required right of way distance in this corner. This needs to be addressed and corrected before we accept this road. Attached is the corner in question. SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 July 31, 2003 Mr. Ray Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset St South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Michael Dumont Southview Drive Dear Ray: The Specifications And Details For The Installation Of Water Lines And Appurtenances For All Water Distribution Systems Owned By The Champlain Water District The City Of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1 And The Village Of Jericho requires that "Water System As-Builts be prepared and submitted to the CWD Retail Superintendent at the completion of the water system construction. For one year from the date the new system is placed into service, the applicant, developer/contractor will be responsible for any necessary repairs or corrections as part of the project warranty. At the end of a one-year period, an inspection will be performed by the CWD Retail Department to develop a punch list of deficiencies pertaining to the water system. Ownership by the appropriate water system shall not take place until all deficiencies have been corrected." We have received a copy of the As-Builts for the above referenced project and performed an inspection on the area within those plans on July 29, 2003. We inspected the following infrastructure items during the course of our inspection: 1. Main line gate valves and boxes, 2. Fire Hydrants and auxiliary valves, 3. Service connections on all building lots that, 4. General appearance. The South Burlington Water Department finds the following water infrastructure inadequacies in this project area: 1. The curb box to each lot must located and raised to final grade. After being raised to grade, this Department shall return to determine the status of each curb stop by placing a curb stop wrench on each rod to ensure accessibility and function. Incomplete work on any lot shall be inspected and approved on a case -by -case basis. 2. The fire hydrant located at the corner of Lot 44 must be raised approximately 12" to meet the above referenced Specifications. The gate valve box to this fire hydrant must also be raised to grade prior to final acceptance. 3. The area on the west side of Lot 39 has not been brought to grade as of this date. Prior to acceptance, final grading must be completed to ensure the water line is at the proper bury depth of 6'. 4. The As-Builts indicate a water line teeing off the water main on the south side of Lot 39 and terminating at an iron pipe at the corner of the Douglas Brent property. The As-Builts must be corrected. 5. Main line gate valves shall be added at the ends of the water mains shown on the As-Builts. 6. As-Builts are to include ties to each curb stop and gate valve. These As-Builts need to be corrected to include those ties. Until such time as the above corrections are made, this Department does not approve final acceptance of this project. The project owner should contact this Department after the corrections have been made to schedule another inspection. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, South Burlington Water Department Jay Nadeau Superintendent Plan Reviews: Southview Drive -final inspection MEMORANDUM TO: BRUCE HOAR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ,JAY NADEAU, WATER DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDENT FROM: RAYMOND. J. BELAIR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATE: JULY 25, 2003 RE: SOUTHVIEW DRIVE EXTENTION ACCEPTANCE REQUEST The City has been asked to accept the new section of Southview Drive. Attached, is a copy of the "as -built" plans. Please inspect this street and let me know if it is acceptable. DIVISION IN, dj O w L INE ) Z o O O IP SET 60 Oft O ✓ IP FpL N b Ljj 1G W o n O o WATI ,— co N/F GAULIN o r'5 Z p 39 N z GAS MAIN 83• CONCRETE N ,242 IP SET 85. �2•�2, S g ; w 75., S RE T LIGHT DRILL HOLE SIDEWALK N/F_ D❑UGL o co 10.Oft . T. 0.56 ACRES 245 POWER AND sq, feet TELEPHONE POLE I N PIPES SET N 78°S0, P LE 2s3 3, , �V THIS LINE WAS ABANDONED IN NOV. OF 2002 S WHEN A HOUSE WAS BUILT AND THE SEWER WAS / DIVERTED EAST �J/ ON SOUTHVIEW DR, SANITARY SEWS o �v 2 -% s .-... 2 0 2 3 So c y! .a,,�,1 / Z O o 3 + �� J a.,,� d G. o' 4 5 e,4 !,,-,t� ,J�t p 5 6 Z 6 7 7 Q = 11 11 Wm 12 cze 12 w 131 / a 1f o / 13 14 57o z;uA �s c 14 /Y!�-� 16 2 (. o / 16 _ ZZ.t,jpt 17 8 Z z 18 19 /�oLd qLo :, Go 19 20 S,3 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 � � 24 25 1 ii-25 26 rJ" U 2 a' 's o o a 27 !�' w �ficA+ 2f 1t lay 27 Y 30 1 30 31 n---,E W v,ele 31 33 33 3+ f b D i 34 35 35 %S /iu £' l4 - 37 38 38 39 / jaym 39 40 +0 O © O 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 %Baru., 2 % G 4 5 �%; 3 b 5 6 FNa•� (> 6 7 r.E % v 7 8 e 9 t 3,f 9 - 00 10 ft 60 10 an 11. a o 12 12 W� 13 @ IL i 13 14 14 15 15 16 (r 16 17 19 % v-ac '�' / a S� 19 20 20 �O S c-a 21` 22 22 23 % f O ° 23 24 lei 24 25 25 26 I z f h174 L r—.. T t! s' 26 27 27 28 O Jv 'L j 28 29 29 30 30 31 p 31 32 32 33 3 2 3-v [ 33 34 34 35 35 6 36 37 38 38 39 J 39 40 40 f JOHN T. EWING RICHARD A. SPOKES LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 October 11, 1971 AREA CODE 802 863-2877 William J. Szymanski, Acting City Manager South Burlington City Offices Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Bill: I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Leon Latham. Can you supply Leon Latham with the infor- mation which is blank in the enclosed Agreement form? JTE/d Enclosures Very truly yours, Q'/ ohn T. Ewing LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Octo-je'r li, 1971 Leon D. Latham, Jr., Esq. Latham, Eastman & 7letzlaff 15S Bank Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Dumont Development Dear Leon: I discussed on the telephone with you the Dumond Development which received Planning Commission approval several years ago. Recently, Mr. Dumont has cormneenced work on this development. j "�s is standard in such cases, the City requires an Agreement with the developer, detailing his obliga- tions, which Agreemnt must be secured by a surety bond or sufficient funds in escrow to secure the r-erforriance of the work (installation of streets, etc.). I am enclosing samples of an Agreement, and Escrow Agreement (the latter to be used only if a surety bond is not to be filed). Normally, the attorney for the developer prepares these forms. Since you will need further informa- tion to do so, I am asking Bill SzNmanski to supply you with the information. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, John T. Ewing JTE/d a LAW OFFICES OF EWING & SPOKES 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Leon D. Latham, Jr., Esq. Latha,m, Eastman & Tetzlaff 158 Bank Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Dumont T)evelopment Dear Leon: I discussed on the telephone with you the TYumond ,Development which received Planning Commission approval several years ago. Recently, Mr. Dumont has cormueenced work on this development. As is standard in such cases, the City requires an Agreement with the developer, detailing his obliga- tions, -which Agreement must be secured bi y a surety bond or sufficient funds in escrrAi to secure the performance of the work (installation of streets, etc.). o I am enclosing samples of an Agreement, and Escrow Agreement (the latter to be used only if a surety bond is not to be filed). 'Normally, the attorney for the developer prepares these forms. Since you will need further informa- tion to do so, I am asking Bill Szymanski to supply you with the information. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, John T. Ewing JTE/d A G R F N T THIS AGREEM3N'," made this day of 1� , by and between the TOW': OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the ' OW4, and , hereinafter referred to as the DEVELOPER. WHEMA6, Developer has applied to they Town for subdivision nuproval for a desv::lopsTiont to be known as located on the side of Street in the 'Down, and WH-EPI_A,S, the Tow;-;, act4n,4 through its Planning Commission, is willing to accept said application, subject to certain oondi- tions hereinafter net firth. 111,10W :REiLFOR::, it is liereb:f agreed as follows: 1. Tae Developer .,,i I) comply with the "General Subdivision 11equiremunts" and the 4 ubd.ivision Improvement Requirements" and any other applicable provisions contained in the Subdivision Regulations of the Town, f+ffective September 23, 1963, unless exj�resaly waiv*sci -y action -of the Planninq Coemission or otherwise set forth in this Agreement. 2. In addition, Developer will complete the following imiprovemants in connection. with said development: (a) (o) (c) 3. Developer will submit to the Town, by properly executed Warranty Deed free of all ��ncum'lra.ntx--s, its proposed conveyance -- 2 - of they streets in said development, together will all easements designed for acceptance as public easements, as shown on the final subdivision plan submitted to the Planninq Commission on , 19 4. The conveyance of streets and easements shall be accomplisne3d forti►ws t1! , the corpletion of the improvements specified ar referred to herein shall be accomplished within wonths from the date hereof. ror the= guarantees of the performance of all requirements seat forth or referred to herein, Developer shall deliver to the Town a bond as resquirec. by the Subdivision Regulations of the Town, in the principal amount of $ VJ WTIMESS WaEREOT, the parties have executed this Agreement they date above recited. "OWN OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 1;Y `Duly autKo-ri-aeZ"`agent Draft ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1971 by and between BRISSON'S MARINE SALES & SERVICE, INC., (hereinafter referred to as the "DEVELOPER"), the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), and the MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK of Burlington (hereinafter referred to as the "BANK"). WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an application for the development -of a parcel of land at --the interse-ction of Allen Road and Shelburne Road in the City of South Burlington, am to the City Planning Commission, and in order to comply with the ordinances and regulations of the City, has executed simultaneously with this Escrow Agreement, an Agreement with the City for the ampiatio txofx performance of certain requirements of the City. WHEREAS, all the parties to this Agreement wish to establish an escrow account to secure the obligations of the Developer under said Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein and other lawful consideration, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Developer and the Bank agree that funds in the amount of Four Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($4,200.00)shall be available and be paid over to the City, upon the demand of the City in the event of a default of the Developer, in accordance with the terms set forth hereafter. 2. In the event the City shall file with the Bank a statement that the Developer is, in the judgment of the City, in default under the terms of said Agreement executed simultaneously herewith and providing for the performance of certain requirements by the Developer, the Bank shall pay from time to time to the City, in amounts not to exceed Four.Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($4,200.00), as requested from time to time by the City, for the sole purpose of completing the improvements and requirements set forth in said Agreement. The City agrees that it -will promptly notify the Developer that it has filed such a statement with the Bank, but the consent of the Developer to such payments by the Bank shall not be required, and the Bank shall incur no liability to the Developer on account of making such payments to the City, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim of default by the City, nor the use of such funds by the City in completing such improvements. 6 DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONI' September 8, 1966 SURVEY DESIGN QUANTITY CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION CONCRETE CONTROL Henry LeClair Town Manager Town of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont Ref: Dumont Subdivision - Hinesburg Road Dear Henry: We have received a copy of your letter dated August 24, addressed to Leo Dumont in which you state your feeling �+�tV =,t1* Dumontrs ash&K.kd pay $9,000 to the Town and deed "over right -oaf -way to make up for the increase length of sewer construction. While we agree there is a $9,000 differential in construction costs, we believe that the Town of South Burlington is overlooking two important factors which must be considered. The first is, that no mention of any consideration for the purchase of right-of-way for the sewer as designed from Hinesburg Road to Elson Parkway nor a value for the new highway curve right-of-way was given in your letter of August 24. I would call your attention to the fact that at the inception of this subdivision it was generally agreed by the Town and the Owners that the sewer line should be constructed through the streets of Sunny View East at no cost to the Dumonts providing they would cooperate in making provisions in their plans for the new Hinesburg right-of-way. It is the opinion of this office that any other action by the Town at this point is demonstration of bad faith and contrary to what I feel was the tone of our original discussion. Very truly yours, Donald L. Hamlin DLH : meg 7 LINCOLN ST. Tel. 878-3956 cc: Dumont Construction Co. August 29, 1966 Tovu Manager board of select yen South 11"rlinptou, Verment GentIC-4,1eu: Tacre is a projoae4 plan for ao-callixi Area A and Area l' to bf revieved by the PlAmiag 14>ard. There ins considerMble r-oacarn Ly Lae Ilome ouluera of Par'kway about tile Proposed plot platts. Therefore, a statement of Positioa to 6e Conveyed to the towel officials has '46eri Circulate4 A 3 and signed by the people most directly affecte, b Y tbeUe Pl4n - it is our coasensus that to utake Llsoyri 1'arkway a through street would uot he to the advantage of anyone, iucludiog the Iuilder. I" fact, will VrobulAy aegrsd* the property tam values ir. the future. A survey of taxpayers il., tjae other sections of South BurlinR,,tou jn(Ucat�as similar concern, but tuore from the ASPeCt Of the CILALinZ tax rates whIeL, will result from the prcmuixed large developments. Therefore, this protc6t east be said to be. a re-AjestaltativO sample Of time fseling!&gAAa*-t tax iacreasc6 fr(pa, all parts of 5outo 11,1urlinatou. The origirals Are iiereby respectfully subsitted to the Selectmen, witj copie* to tile plaulli1W. Sc moo ittee and Zoning board, for conaidoration in resolution of this provoaa4 Constructiolt and future plazuiinc,. 4 The undersL}nad Elsom Parkway homeowners are opposed to developmL.nt of Lhc Dumont irroporty as indicaLed in the proposed plot Plan for the. 1.ollowiiry; rcrrsurrs: 1. No Evidence of Planning for Large Developments of Low-CoHt Ilous hl& There Ls no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been Integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base: Insufficient The present tax base is insufficient to support school, water utilities and protection services. Additional services, without expansion of tax base, will mean increased home owner taxes. 3. Traffic Planning and Control Insufficient The proposed plot plan indiciates that the greater portion of traffic will be rputed up Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due to the narrow street width, on Elsom. Some trees would have to be cut to make the street compatible with a 40'f.00t right-of-way. 4. Minimum Housing Will. Degrade i lsom Parkway House Va.l uvs Minimum housing will degrade values in the o.l.der established area. The proposed dame for this new street is also Elsoni Parkway. 5. Destruction of Valuable Water Shed Potash Brook is the main drainage for the airport area as well as Mayfair Park - any Interference will certainly create drainage problems in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. y Name Address G 3 '� t .2 Q S The undersigned Elsom Parkway home owners are opposed to development of the Dumont property as indicated in the proposed plot plan for the following reasons: 1. No Evidence of Planning for Large Developments of Low -Cost Housing There is no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base Insufficient The present tax base is insufficient to support school, water utilities and protection services. Additional services, without expansion of tax base, wi.1.1 mean increased home owner taxes. 3. Traffic Ilanning and Control. .-Insufficient The proposed plot plan indi.ciates that the greater portion of traffic will be routed up Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due to the narrow street width on Elsom. Some trees would have to be cut to make the street compatible with a 40 foot right-of-way. 4. Minimum Housing Will Degrade Elsom Parkway House Values Minimum housing will degrade values in the older established area. The proposed name for this new street is also Elsom Parkway. S. Destruction of Valuable Water Shed Potash Brook is the main drainage for the airport area as well as Mayfair Park - any :interference will certainly create drainage problems in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Address /i ,� _ ice.-,■r«�,"4 P3 om Parkway home ownErs are opposed to development of tii` The undersigned Els Dumont property as indicated in the proposed plot plan for the following reasons �. NofEvidence of P.lanriin for Lar e Developments of how -Cost Housing dence that the proposed use of this area has been There is ,no evi integrated with the long-range town planning,•recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base Insufficient rt school, water utilities The present tax base is insufficient to suppo and protot.tion services. Additional services, without expansion of tax base, will mean increased home owner taxes. 4. 5. f i.c�ient 'irn�' E"1�.1z1.ri � aa.nct Control. lnyui' The. proposed plot: plan ind Lc.iute;-,. that the grc.atc.r fort i.U1] of O traffici will he routed clp l;l nn►Lllsum aySomeatreesting awouldthafve LodbeUCut c)toilmake narrow street width the strOOL comfrztible with a 40 foot right -of: -way• Minimum jious in Will De •r.ade L.lsocn Parkway lLou cc.. Values Minimum 1l0using will degrade values in thelderParkwayL-ihed area. Lhc• proposed name for this new street is also Llsom f Destruc ion of Valuable Water Shod for t Potash Ar.00k is the main drainage c►re airport a drainage problems c� Mt`ilt Park - any interference will certainly planned. total South Burlington area uness properly p ,3 , �S_ gin,-• �k ``" �— The undersigned Elsom Parkway home owners are opposed to devu.1opment of Lhe Durriont property as indicated in the 'proposed plot plan for the following reasolis. L. No Evidciicc of Planning for karjge Developments of 1,ow-Cost Ifousia& 'I'llork., is no evidonce Uizit the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the Long-range totfn planning, recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base 111SUffiCient The present tax base is insufficient to support school, water utilities and proLeCtion services. Additional services, without expansion of tax wi,'.l mean lncrease(, aome owner taxes. I 3. Trziffic 111-ainLng and Control Insufficient Tho proposed plot plan indi4ates that the greater portion of traffic will be routed up Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due to the narrow street width on Elsom. Some trees would have to be cut to make the street compatible with a 40 foot right-of-way. 4. Minimum iiousii-ig Will. Degrade Elsom Parkway lion Values Min.imum housing, will degrade values in the older cscablishcd area. Th proposed name For this new street is also EA,som Parkway. 5. DesLrUCL1011 Of V,'11UUblQ Water SheC' Potash Brook is the main drainage for the airport area as well as Mayfair Park - any interference will certainly create drainage probl-ems in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Address FA Z so/s The undersigned Elsom Parkway home owners are oppor;c-(I t.o deve;c,i>InOnt Ot the Dumont property as indicated in tide proposed plot plan for tIW following reasons: 1. No Evidence of Plannin for Large Develo ments of Low -Cost It ousin There is no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. l'ax:Lnsul`fici.ent ' The present tax hose is insuffi cient to support school, water and and l. prorecti.un uti.liti.esr services. Additional services, Without.: base, expansion of tax wi 1.l nw.an increased home owner taxes. 3. !'rairi'Innni.nt:, r111(.l Cc;n! t,Ioa. zn5ufficient 1'lac pr<apocd 1.;_tot plan indieiat0s that the greater i.)orLiuu of tr�3l fic w".1 bu routed up Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due Lo the narrow 5tree'L width on Elsom. Some trees would have to be cut to make the street compatible with a 40 foot right-of-way. 4. Minimum iiousira , Will Degrade E1som P__j_, Iiotise Val(jos Minimum iiousi.ng will degrade vrl.l ues .in the older est ah l lshc d area. proposed name for I'h� Lhi.s now street is also l?l.som Parkway. 5. Des trucLion of Valu,ahl(! Watc•r Siied Potash Brook is the main drainage for the airport, arva .:as wall. as Maytaiz Park - ;.any intE.rferunce wi1.1 cNrtain.ly cr.eaCu drainage problems in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Address Town manager Board of Selectmen; South ;<urlington, Vermont Gentleuke"; August 29, 1966 Sut)ject: h1som Parkway Lxtei'Lsion. There is a proposed plan for so --called Aree. A and Area is to Le revieved by the Planning Board. There is considerable concern by the hone ownera- of Elsaml Parkway about th(:_- proposed plot plans. Therefore, a statevent of position to be conveyed to the town officials has beer, circulated and signed by the people most directly affected lby these plans. It is our consensus taat to make Elsom Parkaaya through street would not be to the n(�vantage of anyone, including the builder. In fact, will probably degrade the property tax values in the future. A survey of taxpayers in t1he other sectious of South Burlingtou indicates similar concern, but raore frota the aspect of the cli2wbing tax rates which will result frcnr. the proposed large developments. Tilierefore, t4is protest can be, said to be a relpresentative sample of the feelings agaiast tax increases frotti all parts of Soutil Burlington. The originals are liereby respectfully submitted to the Selectmen, with copies to the Planning School Connittee arA Zoning .:oard, for consideration in resolution of this propose6i construction and future planning. 0 cnlder,;I};ned 1"'Isom Parkway Home owners cart, oIq-m. ed t() dovcIf) pnu ttl t,l I_I,c• Utunt)tat. Pt-<,l,c•t-t: y JS i I'd is atcd i r1 t:Iw proposed plot pa;atl I of t.l,t• l o l I4twi tty'. t t•;n;,,tt;;: I. No t~ me ol I?yiclt,ucc� ul. I'lnnnli� for L,ar Development of kow-Cost- Ilt,u:+itt� ..-. -- - --- - 8...- __...__ �.._ _ . _ Thera is no evidence that the prolposed usC of LhIs urea liar been integrated with the long-range town plannLng, recrcrnt.iora, or sc Itc,<,15. 2. Tax Base. '[nsuffi.c .ent The present tax base is insufficient to support school, w�ttcq- ttti.l ities ,Anil protect.ic�u services. Additional services, witln)ut eXp;msic)n of trax base, wi.L.1 nu•aap increased home owner taxes:. 3. Traffi-c- Rlanuii_ Z4 and Control Insufficient The proposed plot plan indi.ciates that the greater portion of traffic will be routed up Llsom Parkway 'creating a Rafety hazard duc to the narrow street width on Elsom. Siome trees would have to be cut to make the streut compatible with a 40 Moot right-of-way. 4. Minimum�l:iousing Will Degrade lls'gm Parkway house Values Minimum 11,busing wi.I.L degrade values in the older est..thlishe(i area. TItc• proposed name for this new street is also El.som Parkway. t 5. Destruct `on of Valuable Water Shed a, Potash B>^ook is thu main drainap for tlae airport area as well :a,-; Mayfair Park - any Lnterferenc:e will certainly create drrtlnage problems in tllc• total South Burlington area unliobs properly planned. } �1 Name Address pr �1 ti t The undersigned Elsom Parkway 'home owners are opposed to development of the Dumont property as indicated in the proposed plot plan for the following reasons: i. No Evidenge of Planning for Large Developments of Low -Cost Housing There is no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base Insufficient The present tax base is insufficient to support school, water utilities and protection services. Additional services, without expansion of tax wj.il mein increased home owner taxes. 3. Tral fic PlanLiLiig and Control. Insuff icient They proposed pIoL plan in(ILciates that the greater portion of traftic will be. routed tip Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due to the narrow street width on Elsom. Some trees would have to be CUL to make the street compatible with a 40 foot right-of-way. 4. Minimum Housing Will Degrade Elsom Parkway House Values S. Minimum housing will degrade values in the older established area. The proposed name for this new street is also Elsom Parkway. Destruction of ValuableWaterShed Potash Brook is the main drainage. for the airport area as well as Mayfair Park - any :interference will certainly create drainage problems in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Address n. Z ;z_ Je� Lo Of The undersigned Eisom Parkway home owners are opposed or thedfollowingtreasons: Dumont property as indicated in the proposed plot p lan 1, No'r Ev idenc o f I? I anziin , for Large Developments of I.ow-Cos t lious in Tliere i.s,no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the long-range to planning, -recreation, or schools. 1 2. Tax Base .`nsuf f icient waLer The present tax base is insufficient service,,twitheut,uxpun�autlolttax ant.l pr<,t,,ctiou-,er.v.ices. uar;e , will nx an i nc re:ascal Dome owner taxes. 'rr_ >>_^i�.� 1"l.a;�nii� nn�l Concrui l.nyul'fi.ricnt. the l,riil�c>std plat plc.n.1 :iud iczate4 that the groatt'Y• l,ort ir,n ()I tr.il will, be routed ui, L;lSom i'arkwayl�crc�ating a ;;,afety 11}lZ.ard clue. to tilt' t<be cut. to make ncarruw street width on l?1 Qom. Some trees would h;jvc , tile street compatible with ca 40, foot right-c,l:-way. 4. M in imum llous my Wi 1 1 I)el�rade L:lsom Y�irkway iiuu� c Va I uc: Minimum huus:inl will degrade values in the: crl.dcY e5t:cil,.l i5hecl area. I'i,cr proposed name for this new street is also El.som Parkway. 5. Destruc ion of Val.uabl c waiter Shed Potash Onook is the main drainage for t�cl,drainay;c prohle.m e airort area as WLIII�a111rlty`.� .r Park - any interference will certainly re.ate perly planned. total S,Quthe Burlington area unless pro The undersigneci E:lsom Parkway home owners are opposed to developr>tenL of L.i7e Dumont property as indicated :in the'proposed plot plan for the iol.lowitig rcasoas: I. No of PIaimiii> for Large Devclonments ()l 11(misirig r Thom" is; no ev.idonc•e that the proposed use „f Lhis, area hrars bva+rt integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. ?. Tax Luse lnsuff ici.ent The presont tax Lase is insufficient to support School., WILer utiliLieS and prot:uCL1.011 5erv:i c oS. Additional services, w.i Lliout c,xpaznsion ol. Lax ba.su, wi.11 MUJII incrcr sc.c. dome owrier taxes. :. Trrji lc• 111anrting amd Co:iLro Insui'.l'icic+nt Thr: proposed plot plan indict.atesS that the greater I,urt i.un of. Lral f ic• will be routed up Elsom Parkway creating a safety hazard due to the• narrow street width on Llsom. Some trees would have to bo cut to make the street compatible with a 40 foot right-of-way. 1 4. ,Minimum liTgUS' i [Ig Will Degrade Elsom Parkway llou.so Va l ljori f; Minimum hpusing will. degrade. values in the older o sLahl iahod area. Tili• proposed name Iur Oils new Street .is also 11:l5om Parkway. Al 5. llesLrucLipn of Valuable Water Shred Potash iirpok is the main drainage for the airport area ;is wol.l as Mayfair Park - any interference will certainly create drainage problems in the. total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Name l S/i Address t./ Thu unacrsigneu t l.;som Parkway home owners are oppor;ud to cluvu_1 opine ut 01 We Dumont property as indicated in the proposed plot plan for We f of Lowing; reasons: 1• No Evidence of PlanninY for Lar e Devel- ments of Low -Cost housing There is no evidence that the proposed use of this area has been integrated with the long-range town planning, recreation, or schools. 2. Tax Base Insufficient The present tax base is insufficient to saapport school, water uLi l itieh , and prowc:tiun services. Additional services, without expansion of .tcax b"ne , will mean a nc: cuascd home owner taxvs . 9. :!'ru;i'ia..� i'I:�nraiia: and Cuaatr'ua Tnvuffi<'icant The propor,("d I.;.lot p:I.an indicidItcs that thv groaLor por'tjon of tr"I f:i.0 wi Ll he routed up HI.SUraa Park, creating :a safety hazard duce Lu Lhu narrow 'Meet width on 21sum. ISOMO trees would have to be cuL to make the Street compatible with a 4P Lout right-of-way. t 4. Minimum iiou5iaay WiL1. i)F rack Elsum Parkway House V;al",s Millimullk housing will degrade yplucs .in tho older vstahl Whod area. I'h,. proposed name for this new strtaet is also k1som Parkway. `i. I)V ;trucL ion of V<a iunhly W<aLyr Shad Potash A100k is the main drainage for the ra.irporl area .as well an M,ayL:,ij- I'ark - }any interference will cOrLainly crenate drainage prob.lomH in the total South Burlington area unless properly planned. Name Address _. c Augnist 214, 1.966 Mr. Leo Dumont Dumont Construction Company 14 Duval Street South Burlington, Vermont Dear 1+Sr. Dumont: I presented the sewer line questio owe --Board of Selectmen August 16, 1966, and they feel t ou were ,tQ construct the sewer line it would cost y in th "vicinity\A $14,000 or $15,000. If the town. sha reloea its line, flit is estimated that the town would spend ddi.tional $9,000. They feel, therefore, that it w u my be fair and equitable for you to deed the r;ght--tof-waX question to the town and pay also the townl4elmreased ex iture of $9000. I will appreeiate'hearing fro r you your earliest convenience with respect to #4e above. �1 ery truly yours, Henry LeClair Town Manager HL/b August 19,, 1966 Mr. Leo IH. Dumont Dumont Construction Company 14 Duval Street South Burlington, Vermont T ,.)ear Mr. Dumont: This is to notify you that the South au' Planning Commission will hold a public he n t the Office L- , P r. 4' Building, 555 Dorset Street,,on da Septembe 1966 )u .5 .t �Pro"o at 7:30 P.M. to consider you equest or a prop " Ojd subdivision. Please plan to attend the lie truly yours, y LeClair Mana�,-er 9M August 19,, 1966 Burlington Free Press Association College Street Burlington, Vermont Gentlemen: Will you please insert the fol (2 col.by 2") in your issue of SOUTH SUR As required by law the S Commission wil Residential S vision 1' '" v is lo '4'v n located On t easterly a southerly 81 of St. Joh I S with aziL entr c a by Hines owned by De he requ I "L of Du on tion Con otion G Display TYGAL NDTTCT,7, h$k-Burlington Plinning 1N\hearin-?; on a proposed 1%.-"z C, tlee\-,Nunny View -East, e otnesburg Road, and Vianney Church property, rg Road, on land formerly t Is made by Leo H. Dumont pany of South Burlln,;rton. ;'hearing will be - hold on September 12, 1966 at i�P30 P.M. at fte Town Office Building, 555 Dorset St., 6puth Burlingt6n, Vt. William D. Kellner, Chairman Plizining Commis -.*on Ploase *and bill and two tear sheets to thiz office. MM Very truly yours, Henr,-,! LeClair Town Manager 0 August 110, 1966 R7m,: Rrviei� ' r -imd -7cccpt�, -nc e of Sunnyvie-v E,-.tst Subdivision Town Mamager To-m Hn.11- So. Burlin^ton, Vt. Friend Henry, As per conversrition nt your office Aurrust Q,, 1966, C� we heroby apply for n, henrina and decision on above Subdivision. Enclosed please find -. check- in the nmount of (.S,50.00) fifty to cover section 203 of Subdivision regulat- ions. Thank you, Dumont Const. Co. r ,$Zs �e,,,o;&rre� b� haw-, 7-4,e 5a. , P.C- 4eo-y )-g v cr phof o Sledl ! �_ fdS�dQ .ia! G�Qldts[o►7 r`/lel 5'e, I " yoke � � 4r/ Q� - �' Y_"_[•�c"�j�r`O� Vl QI1 c/ 5oi�?��QYf �(7. tJ �e i s� Z VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HFALT i r 131UP-EA11 OF Sty N,t'iA:"!�i►� 115 COLCHESTER AVE. !lURLIMt3Tp}I, 1r1`. June 22, 1966 Mr. Donald L. diet 7 Lincoln Street Essex Junction, Velr"aat Dear Mr. Hamlin: The plan for the 49 lot development of the Dumont property on Hinesburg Road in South Burlington has been exsmined. The average tut size is about 10,000 square feet. Water will be supplied from the South Burlington public system. The soil has an average percolation rate of about 3 minutes per inch by your statement of Hey 19. The State Department of Health approves a 1,000 gallon &optic tank installation for each house selvage disposal system. In the soil having the percolation rate you reported, a typical 3 bedroom house would creed a leaching field with 140 feet of perforated pipe laid in 24 inch trenches with crushed stone under and around the pipe. No leaching pipe line should be more than 100 feet long so these installations should consist of two or more lines of pipe. Very truly yours, Edward L. Tracy, Director Bureau of Environmental Sanitation ELT/1bk cc Mr. LeClair, Two Meager }Jar. Charles M. Cluck, Health Officer • r PETITION We, the Undersigned, Leirg Tax Pt Y6rs of So. Burlington, do earnestly petition the Tovn Planning Cununissi.on to reject the sub- division proposal entitled "Sunny View E,ast.11 Our reasons for urging this action and similar action regarding further extension of resi- dential bui.ldiiig are as follows: 1. Recent residential growth has outstripped the capacity of our schools. Projections basad on existing and already approved new housing show the schools overcrowded, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion ofjthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of new housing will drastically compound this problem.. Part A of "Sunny View East" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is well known, the taxes on a house evaluated under $30,000. does not even pay the cost of educating its children, much less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property owner that it was a major factor in the defe-ri- of the Niddle School Bond issue, despite a sincere interest in proviet- ing good education for our children. Approval of new housing would again compound this problem. 3. Although for the past several years the growth of our grand list has kept pace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year with sewers and fire protection, this will no longer be true. Our town officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to pay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achicved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. Adcir o s s g1` fTION Tap, the Un srs4gned, tcirg "�'.�x �';:jr4?rs of So. Burlington, do earnest4y ve:titi(n the Totm Vlan ii.ng, CcmiUssi.ozl to reject the L--lb- division i,rcpo :al en titled "Su,-1rY 4iew Our reasons for u�:•?;ing this ace. -ion and si;zi.lar act:icn rery;,rdixlg furtk:her extension of rCSI- dentiai building are as follows*, 1. Recer)_b resident -.? growth has cuts ripped the capacity of o,lr schools. Frojections basod on existing and alrcAady approved nec.,7 housing shod the schools ov,,)rcrcwd�;d, even with the addi .-Lon (if aPP—G'STed) of t110 Middle .S'Ch001.,. `xpalaaioll ofjthe E iementary schools will soon be reedcd. ApproiYrtl of new housing will drastically compound this probl.em.. Part A of IuSu-�ny View East" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is well knoFmn, the taxes on a houso evaluated under $30,000. does not :_-von pay the cost of educating its children, much less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so h a4ry on the; pr(.-,Verty oi;aner that it was a major factor in the defeat of the i iddle School Bond issue, despite: a sincere interest in Priv9 d- ing good education for our children. Approval of new housing would a.gain compoun�J this problelr. J. A.l.thou8h for tlae past several years the growth of our grand list has kept pace with the needed increases in oth r municipal ser- vices, beginning next year T-7ith sewers and fire protection, this will no longor 1�� true, O:;r townefficiais tell us that Tac can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to pay for these needed so?n ices. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. Add,, es s FZ r : ION Wev the Undersigned, Leing 'lax Payers of So. Burlington, do earnestly petition the 'To-vm Planning Comirissi.on to reject the sub- division proposal entitled "Striry V:Ie,,a Ea.<;t," Our reasons for urging this action and similar action regare.ing further extension of resi- dential building are as follows 1. Reeent residential growth has outstripped the capacity of oixr schools. Projections basad on existing and already approved new housing show the schools overcrowded, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion ofjthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of new housing will drastically compound this problem.. Part A of "Sunny Jiow East" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is well known, the tars on a house evaluated under $30,000. does not even pay the cost of educating its children, Much less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property owner that it was a major factor in the defeat of the P,:iddle School Bond issue, &.spite a sincere interest in provid- ing good education for our children. Approval of new housing `6uld again compound this problem. 3. Although for the past several years the growth of our grind list has kept pace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year t-Tith sewers and fire protection, this is*all no longer be true. Our town officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to pay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtsilod until commercial and industrial d volopmelit has ach4 cved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. Name PZT 1`"1ON �'v�Fy the: Ui:1dsrs gned, heir g rA,.'ia"s: p,-y"', 8 of So. Burlington, d0 earnestly vet:.ition the Tovm 1'lana ng Ca;rmi,ission to reject thn sub- cli,,rision pa:oj:,osal_ entitled "Sunny View Ea.,;t." Our .seasons for urging this action and similar ac'Lion re3ardtag furtber extension of resi- dential buil.diug are as follows 1. Recent rosi.dential si'owth has outstripped the capacity of our schools. Projections based on existing and already approved ne,.a housing show the schools ovorerawde:L, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion of jt:he elementary schools will soc-n be needed. Approval of new housing will drastically compound this 4 '; I r �.. Part A :f "Sunny View Last'' would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is woli knoem, the taxes on a house: evaluated under $30,000. dues net ovr..n pay the cost of educating its children, much less for other municrypal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property of-,,ner that it was a major factor in the defeat of the k iddlo School Bond issue:, dosoite a sincere interest in provid- ing good educat:Aon for our children. Approval of new housing would again compound this problom. 3. A14-hough for the past several years the growth of our grand list has kept ;;ace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year with sewers and fire protection, this will no longer_ be true. Our toTrn officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to pay for those needed services. 4 Thus, we feel further residcz tial growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the h6me otmer and commercial property tax base. Name Address PET.'ITION lie, 9 the Undersigned + fined, L• Pirg Tax Payers of So. Burlington, do earnestly oetitlrn the Ton I'lanni.ng Cc;mmission to reject the, sub- division proposal entitled !'Sunny sic-u Our reasons for urging this action and similar action re3areli.xig kur Cher extension of res:-- dential bui.ldi,Ds are as foll-ows 1. Recent residential gv owth has outstripped the capacity of olir schools. Projections based on existing and already approved ne-,q housing show the schools ov:�rcrowde I, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion ofjthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of new housing will drastically compound this problem.. Fart A of 7°Sunny View Last" would add 100 to 150 children by itself, 2. As is well known, the taxes on a house evaluated under $30,000. does not even pay the cost of educating its children, much I for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property otncr that it was a major factor in the defer of the `-fiddle School Bond issue, despite a sincere interest in provid- ing good education for our children. Approval of new housing would a3ain compound this problem. 3. Although for the oast several years the growth of our grind list has kept pace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year with sewers and fire vrotec}ion, this w*zll no longer be true. Our town officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to vay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. Name Address WA, the Undersigned, Lei,rg T'a-.,o� 1'• .yex of So. Burlington, do earnestly pe t:.t:'v ­;n ti.a ov.m V U;, � iing Culaur,:lssi.on to reject th _ sub- division propo,,.j exit tlet:l 87 S'MrI ' Y LQw Eat ,t." Our reasons for urging this action and similar action regarclkng fin.-tIaor e.�tension of resi- dential building are as follows n 1. R;_iciest: resident: Un l grecTf:h has outstripped the capacity of our schools. Frojections basad on existing and already approved new housing show the schools ovorc owde,l, even with the addition (if approved) of tiie Middle School. Furthor expansion of jthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of ne' w housing will drasticalz_y compound this problem.. Fart A of "Sunny View fast" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is vicli knobm, the taxims on a house eva.luatod under $30,000. de -es not oven pay the cost of educating its chi.l.d.ren, much less for oth r municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the properry oE:zzer that it was a major factor in the defeat of the k iddlc: School Bored issue, despite a sincere intorest in provi.d- ildren. Approval of new housing would i_ng good education for our ck again compound this problem. 3. Although for the past several years the growth of our ,grand list has kept pace with. the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year vvyith sewers and fire protection, this E>3i.11 no longer be true. Our totan officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to pay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residenr al growth must be: curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. Name :dd oss 31 CLi � PETITION We$ the Undersigned, being TaK Payars of so. Burlington, do earnestly petition the Totm Planning Cemirission to reject the sub- division proposal entitled "Sirnny View East.11 Our reasons for urgin- this action and similar action rerardling further extension of resi- dential buildIng are, as follows: 1. Recent residential growth has outstripped the capacity of our schools. Projections basod on existing and already approved new housing show the schools overcrowded, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion ofjthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of now housing will drastically compound this problem.. Part A of "Sunny View East" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is well known, the tars on a house evaluated under $30,,000. does not even pay the cost of educarting its children, much less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property ovmer that it was a major factor in the defeat of the k,,iddlG School Bond issue, despite a sincere interest in provid- ing good education for our children. Approval of now housing would again compound this problem. 3. Although for the Past several years the growth of our grnnd list has kept pace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year with sewers and fire protection, this will no longer be true. Our town Officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to Day for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the hdme owner and commercial property tax base. X/ 7 IT ION Jethe Undsrs i gned. L:eing Tax Fay-,�r s of So. Burlington, do earnestly nct'i ti can the Toxvm ill nio nG Commission to reject th:--- sub- division propo.".al enti.ticd I'Suskny V:i.cw ii-3.!;t.11 Our reasons for urging this action and sim"Jar actic a reparding f-urthor extension of resi- dential building are as follows 1. Rrc:eni: res.identi_<i1 ga:ovl:h has cutstrri,pped the capacity of ottr schools. Fcojcct ions basod on e%i.sting and already approved necy housing shots the schools ov::rcrowdc3 even with the addition (if approved) of the Pliddle School.. Furth( —.,a expansicn of jthe elementary schools will soc.��n be needed. Approval of new housing; will drastically compound this problem,. Fart A of "Sunny View Last" would add 100 to 150 children by itself, 2.. As is well knr.�m, the tat_Rs on a house evaluated under $30,000. does not c:von pay the cost of educating its children, much less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so heavy on the property owner that it was a major factor in the defeat of the Viddle School Bond issuL, desni.te a sincere interest in provid- ing good education for our children. Approval of new housing would a,-;ain compound thi's problem. 3. Although for the cast several years the growth of our grond list has kept pace c•Tith the needed increases in other~ municipal ser— vices, beginning next year tv7ith sewers and fire protection, this v1, 11 no longer be true. Our town officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to vay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the hdme o-:mer and commercial Property tax base. We,, the Undsrsi _gnedll LPivg F,'Y�-Cs of So. Burlington, do earr.estly petition the Tnmn Vlannin,-, 0cmmission to reject the sub- division propo.s.al en.titicd "SUnny Vioroy Our reasons for urging this action and similar action re3ardixig fi.rthr�r exteusion of resi- dential building are as follows: 1. Recent residential gi.,cwth ha i outstripped the capacity of otir schools. FvoJections basod on existingc3and already approved new housing show the schools ov,,)rcrowde,1, even with the addition (if approved) of the Middle School.. Further expansion ofjthe elementary schools will soon be needed. Approval of now housing will drastically compound this problem.. Part A of I°Sunny View East" would add 100 to 150 children by itself. 2. As is wall knoT-m, the taxers on a house evaluated under $30,000. does not even pay the cost of educating its children, much .Less for other municipal services. Currently, the tax burden is so h(avy on the property*ovaier that it was a major factor in the defcri- of the kiddle School Bond issue, &)sDite a sincere interest in provid- ing good education for our children. Approval of now housing would a!;alri compound this probleir. 3. Although for the past several years the growth of our grand list has kept pace with the needed increases in other municipal ser- vices, beginning next year with sewers and fire Droteccion, this Tv7i 11 no longer be true. Our town officials tell us that we can anticipate a greatly increased tax burden to vay for these needed services. 4. Thus, we feel further residential growth must be curtailed until commercial and industrial development has achieved a balance between the h6he owner and commercial property tax base. Add ess w WE ft 0 orAnddlemu, FBI -�--�v ���JJ .� / � � � � %� .r � � i � � / � r / �;' /�'f/' � ,, ` � /�� ,I ,, � � / � ,,. ��/ �� r / /j/ � / W (!✓ I�,, -� ,. M MIA