Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0435 Dorset Street
00002506 g0� F�; 1116/ 2 C, 09g�O t19: 39 p� IaO2E221695 CITY k Y CLERK'S S OFFICE Received Mar 24f2OO9 W:27H Recorded in VOL: 847 PG- 163 - I V 5 OF So. eurlinston Land Records Att --st: Donna Y,inville tits Clerk VT JUDICIARY PAGE 02 FILED MAR 16 2009 STATE OF VERIv1;ONT ENI VIRO;vMENTAL COURT VERMONT . ENVIRONMENTAL COURT N RE; Appeal of Veve Associates, LLP State File No. 64-4-08 Vtec Fm'A.L ORDER The above captioned mat.tcr is before the Court by the parties on their stipulation to a Final Order. The stipulation is hereby approved, and in accordance with its tcmis, it is hereby ordered as ,follows: Appellant may use and maintain the roadway areas designated on. Schedule A attached as "Gravel Roadway Area" and "Asphalt Roadway Area" for roadway purposes and motor vehicle an.d equipment storage purposes, except that rnotoj• vehicles and equipment may not be stored within the area on Schedule A, designated "20' Utility Easement Area ("Municipal Sewcr")." This shall u.ot be construed to prohibit Appellant from plowing snow onto and westerly of the Utility Easement Area. 2. By July 1, 2009, Appellant shall return to vegetation, in accordance with the planting plan included on Schedule- A, the two areas westerly of the "20' Utility Easement Area ("Municipal Sewer")" designated on Schedule A as Areas "A" and " A," Appellant shall also by that date plant Area "C" shown on Schedule A with eight Dennstaedia,puntiloba (hay scented fern), two Hmttamelis virginicana (common witchhazel), and one Isuga canadensis (Canadian hemlock). I.fany of the required plantings fail to survive and thrive, Appellant must promptly restore them when climactic conditions permit. In the event the required plantings fail after they have survived and thrived for more than two growing seasons after planting, Appellant shall not be required to restore them if the cause of failure similarly Schedule A rE • , �, rtwsrr�b�a�rt�� 't y ` //%%f/// . • .. GRAVEL ROADWAY AREA 20' VTI-ITT `• Cr?(,3) .' + 1 . f, EASEMENT 4. (MUNICIPAL SEXEiR) AGO AREA / G TC(3) DP(4) TC ��• AeEA A OP TC I Noyes, C3v) GO `COt15ERVATIOt4 AND .P,-Axr f.ocAT(ONS 54OHN uaE AFrPF XMTs 4 OPEN SPACE PLANTS hYLF, 13E FICLO LOCATED W(7N PLANTING CJ>TrRACtOP ' e tNTS ARE £YPSLTED TO SPREAD BY 'SEED TC(2) PLA_ riV 48.0 sYVD-IOY SI=C5510N WILL QCLUR OVM- TII'1EAREA E53 • a ; :< �ew•axn.__ — ._}4��s�:i+.. _ ..cam Tr, :� :1+ t_:axEY is:lpeF•n!<. :.hy1s'—4.r�:�y;;eO Rtl:Ciu �"" "Y`:qt;{(ca':. _. 2q1 ! Iy . ca c-[�seo�au i�.-s., ate: .zccs .0 1 1L fA :En-�•..IPC,W':iiJ _ +S�r EiKkl �1!r..- .. .r 4Y+. _ ._.. �� 1 et IF . •�)::•'?'. L•[�rl...ta _ .. ... xSY: to .. +'�"!... _, .'fiats- r n1-Te .. —• �..<: t ciY • .. .. rcr.�]trw-fir, _ SJn :a�4� +.[S�� - � f T, J. Boyle Associates, LLC I•i - ';:FS4 v�xstcus +:a_�_res.%_i_ s-s -;6 r'rie '�� ' 'C� iatlo � t-:nf: J:�ra ;c.no.r. m S-» �a< /t-•r,� � t 'i.y it4iJF..vy, a-hn:r caa..�,r•rnt e!�i � 36'. 'ai6.1`•_� �`.i >:e.enrt:�IrIr"ur >„vtea,aaces-a�-tg^^^•..•.• sy �esc3 • DorxtCoura:ocsAlmev ..."•� t� V,,...�•.rxrr�yesu.•s:.ex.a.•Q-..d,�a.>�cDt �:..t6e.sss ZQ .I�3>xivcnP-.\SitiSon.Pfan �• , 'fir 103" e� 0 h�l {A CI Cs 9 V n 847 PG: 165 133l16l20E�3 09:39 16020281E,95 VT JUDICIr^;RY PAGE 03 affects other surrounding vegetation and is unrelated to artificial surface or subsurface conditions such as pavement or gravel, or the remains thereof, in the: revegetated areas. 3. Appellant shall not be required to post the landscaping bond to secure the landscaping requirements of Development Review Board Decision SP-08-87 dated October 7, 2008 (the "DRB Decision"),. notwithstanding anything in the DR13 Decision, In the cven.t Appellant fails to comply with the requirements of the DRl3 Decision, Appellant shall pay the City's reasonable attorney's Pecs for enforcement thereof: 4. The Administrative Officer's Notice of Violation ("NOV") dated October 10, 2007 (#NV-07-18) .is dismissed, The City shall mark the recorded notice thereof in the City Land Records "Discharged by Environmental Court Final Order in Docket No, 64-4-08 Vtec," 5, This Final Order shall be recorded in the City Land Records and shall survive the NOV dismissal and discharge, and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of Appellant, and its successors acid assigns. 't-1k DATED at Vermont this (6 day of 2009. ) nvironmcntal Court Ju e .I♦. ° , �[ �4 F i } 01 CREATIVE LANDSCAPING INC. 113 ROUTE 15 JERICHO, VT, 05465 RE: Dorset Commons Apartments/ Veve Associates Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby certify that the planting required by the Final Order of the Enviromental Court in the matter entitled In Re Veve Associates, LLC, Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec, and dated March 16, 2009, recorded at Book 847, page 163-165 of the South Burlington Land Records, was completed in Areas A, B, and C by July 1, 2009 in accordance with the terms and conditions of Said order. Schantz Pres a April 28, 2009 Rafael Veve PO Box 2361 South Burlington TV 05407 Re: 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed, please find copies of the Findings of Fact and Decisions rendered by the Administrative Officer on April 28, 2009 (effective 4/28/09). Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Jana Beagley Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com ( r ' Site Plan Application ® MON NI southburfington PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SP- O ? - APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as sh wn on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): /33 !�VlD - 5�0� 3. APPLICANT iName, mailing address, pho e and fax #): Co = s �5nrz(,�". r Jg5k ko e, ftr 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): (iRF l V (;v� b 0 ,i fllhy' fs� y-�6� a. Contact e-mail address: 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:. 15�1v. 0(; Wfi - 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): 6�0 00 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fa Site Plan Application b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Al d. Total building square footage lon property (propose�uildingsexistin buildings to remain): a,, GIB/ qy � , e,�i�11.�� nAJ�'j: - � f }- e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed puildin s an existing buildings to remain, specify if as ent and mezza ine):, w- Ni f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): / g. Number of employees & company vehicle (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): ,y�ir h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: 6 63 ,9�Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing A 0 % / A W sq. ft. Proposed a % / 09 sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, arking, outside storage, etc) Existing l % / sq. ft. Proposed % / sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing w % / ti sq. ft. Proposed % u sq. ft. 2 ( Site Plan Application d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) A4No() * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ U b. Landscaping: $ c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): �� d_ 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): V& I b. A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): /} c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): AL# 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: " / 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: I/ h 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: -5d �`/ t do oj 14. ABUTTERS (please list all abutting landowner. Include mailing address. Also include those across a street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet if necessary) 3 Site Plan Application 15. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). 4 Site Plan Application I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 4111, ll SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY rNER _ PRINT NAME Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: �G REVIEW AUTHORITY: ❑ Development Review Board Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: n I - [ -.L. 5 RUG-14-2008(THU) 14:23 T. J. Boyle Rssociates. LLC (FRX)l 802 863 1562 P.002/007 Site Plan Application Permit Number SP- d� - v APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW All information requested on this application must be completed in full_ Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. :K 1. OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): 12—a l n�, v� �! Q. / 1%l�l) d% 4-t CA, 1 �-'r=i th) /_ !% ** 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #)- _133 I}Ni) jkq3- !� 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): _� - I 1 C-cM e— f_T2,L2 H I A L1,�LT fo551--?aSSS 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone Max #): Tex-" Sol (Qs$ � 3555 a. Contact e-mail address: 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: `'65' 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office):__ 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 on "MAM IBM= II RUG-14-2008(THU) 14:24 T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (FRX)l 802 863 1562 P.003/007 Site Plan Application b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): 'P �.s��� c.l . 3 •,� Qp.S c1 e,,nAr,a I awn r4-vv% % ,-,e nv, c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain)- 4A of posed c.ses . d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildin s to remain): 1Vo c-kc- nmr . - o tfri::�sol Cove,,n6 e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): _2 -rary b.ji 4;.la *1,1avI 3 f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): g_ Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): "A, h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): A S. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: G5S �qqZ sq. Ft_ a. Building: Existing % / -_- S�, eno sq. ft. Proposed o % / sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing 2A- oq % / __ 1 "39 t-:Z 8 sq. ft. Proposed 0 % / h sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing Nh % / n/r4 sq. ft. Proposed Aim % A16 sq. ft. 2 AUG-14-2008(THU) 14:24 T. J. Boyle Associates. LLC (FAX)] 802 863 1562 P.004/007 Site Plan Application d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) L. AlmA ZOO{�-Z Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ rb b. Landscaping: $ 2 , 44b �r'v� 5cr�euni a� (\ol`�A, prop. a e. c_ Other site improvements (please list with cost): 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): A)A b_ A,M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): /vA c. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): NA 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: N A 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: NA, 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: T � 14. ABUTTERS (please list all abutting landowner. Include mailing address. Also include those across a street or right-of-way. You may use a separate sheet if necessary) �6 jT)CAS NGROCK SPERRY & WOOL T.T. STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Veve Associates, LLP State File No. 64-4-08 Vtec CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 24th day of April, 2008, I, Mark L. Sperry, attorney for the Appellant, served a copy of Appellant's Notice of Appeal upon the following persons and entities listed in a letter of the Zoning Administrator dated April 21, 2008 by mailing a copy of the same certified mail, return receipt requested to them at: State of Vermont Agency of Transportation National Life Building, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 Oakwood Homeowner's Association c/o Ryan J. Daley, Director 124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington School District 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 456278.1 Deborah Wehrlin 119 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Town Square Condominium Association c/o Martha Lyons, Director 425 Dorset Street, Condo 98 South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 DATED at Burlington, Vermont this 4day of April, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. Sperry PO Box 721, 2 0 College Street Burlington, 05402 (802) 864-0217 RUG-ld-2008(THU) 14:25 T. J. Boyle Hssociates, LLC (FRX)l 802 863 1562 P.005/007 Site Plan Application 15. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the site plan must be submitted. A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the site plan application (see Exhibit A). 4 RUG-14-2008(THU) 14:25 T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC (FAX)] 802 863 1562 P.006/007 Site Plan Application I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. IGaTRE iP SIGNATIAE 0 PROPORTY OWNER CANT' Do not write below this line PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: `❑ Development Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer I have review d this site plan application and find it to be: Complete ❑ incomplete Planniffig'& Zoning or Designee 9 Dorset Commons Apartments Plant Cost Estimate Prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS - PLANTING SCHEDULE Trees Qty. I Code I Scientific Name I Common Name == Size I Sec Notes Ultimate Size 1 1 AFAB JACER x f. 'Autumn Blaze' jAutumn Blaze Maple 12 1/2" cal. I B&B 14' ht. 50'h,40's. Shrubs August 5, 2008 Qty. Code I Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes Size 3 AM ARONIA melanocarpa'Autumn Magic' Autumn Magic Black Chokeber T - 4' Cont. 8-9' 21 TON THUJA occidentalis'Nigra' Dark American Arborvitae 6-7' Ht. B&B Maintain 20' Ht. at 8' Ht. 4414 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 10, 2009 Terry Boyle TJ Boyle Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Expiration of Site Plan Approval #SP-08-87 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Boyle: Please be advised that Site Plan Approval #SP-08-87, issued on 10/7/08 for after -the -fact approval to revise the landscaping plan by removing trees at 435 Dorset Street, has expired. This approval expired due to the failure to obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of the approval as required by condition #4 of said approval. You should reapply as soon as possible so that the replacement trees can be planted this year. Sincerely Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Cc: John Klesch, Esq. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLWGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PAM R. PAGE WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 WILLIAM E. FLENDER December 18, 2008 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Appeal of Veve Associates, LLC Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec Dear Jacalyn: OF COUNSEL JOHN H. KLESCH DINA L. ATWOOD I am writing to advise the Court that the parties are planning to meet in early January to discuss possible resolution of the remaining issues in this case. I therefore ask, with the consent of counsel for Appellant, that the Court place this matter on inactive status until January 23, 2009 to allow for this meeting and any follow-up resolution efforts to take place. Included within this request is that the Court continue the Status Conference currently scheduled for December 22, 2008. Thank you. JHK/mw cc: Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Raymond Belair, Admin. Officer Paul Connor, Dir. of Planning son08-130 12-17-08 JHK Itr E-Court re Veve.cor.doc PLANNING COMMISSION 8 AUGUST 1995 PAGE 4 addition. Post-ir Fax Note 7671 ZZ Date 1 of # of 00. ages To �v / (• From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # 8. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. 9. As expressly represented by the applicant, there shall be a maximum of two trailers parked on the site at any time. Mr. Teeson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch plan application of Veve Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development for 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of'1) construction of 4 dwelling units in 2 buildings and 2) allowing a portion of the property to be used for a parking area for an adjacent nursing/convalescent home and senior center, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Veve said the piece of land is.594 acres and was acquired a number of years ago. It abuts land with apartments. The plan is for apartments on this lot D. It is zoned R-7. There would be a quad of 4 buildings. The entrance would be through Dorset Commons, and there is a right-of-way through the property. The Pines developers have asked to use a portion of the lot for parking. Mr. Veve said he then decided to move the units into the rest of the property and have units in 2 buildings as duplexes. The new piece of land would be for parking for the senior center. This gives rise to issues of density, etc. They are short .42 acres in order to have what they want with this scenario. Mr. Weith said they are actually short .235 acres. In addition, the Planning Commission can't approve more than 107 units. Mr. Veve said they are requesting a variance for the additional units. He felt it would look better visually with more green space. Mr. Burgess asked if there are any issues with the leasing of parking. Mr. Austin said he doesn't have enough parking for the development. Mr. Burgess said the Commission won't allow a bad situation to be made worse. Mr. Veve said there are no parking problems. Mr. Weith said there are many more cars than spaces. People park along drives and technically the drives are not wide enough for that. Mr. Burgess said he wasn't ready to accept that with illegal parking everything is OK. Mr. Sheahan felt it was impossible because of the parking. Mr. Austin suggested the possibility of making the road 3 ft. wider or otherwise adding parking. Mr. Burgess summarized by saying the applicant would get a lot PLANNING COMMISSION 8 August 1995 page 5 more sympathy from the Commission if he attempted to add some parking. 6. Sketch plan application of Pines Housing, L.P., to amend a previously approved planned commercial development consisting of 88,740 sq. ft. of medical and general office use and a 124 unit nursing/convalescent home, 421 Dorset Street. The amendment is to: 1)convert 6,000 sq. ft. of basement area in the nursing/convalescent home to a senior center, and 2) expand the parking area to accommodate the senior center partially on the w applicant's property and partially on an adjacent property: Mr. Brush reviewed the history of the project. He noted they have gotten a block grant to finish the lower level of the Pines for a senior center to be managed by Champlain Senior Center. There will be all -day program for seniors with a meal served. They are asking for approval of this use. They will go to the Zoning Board for expanded approval of their conditional use approval. Mr. Burgess suggested solving the additional parking needs with some parking on this site, some on the Veve site. A neighbor expressed concern for additional traffic. Mr. Brush said they won't come in on Oakwood. The question of a traffic light on Dorset St. was also raised. Mr. Burgess said the applicant will have to provide data on this, but he added that his best guess is that it won't be required. Mr. Brush said they don't meet the warrants for a light yet. 7. Public Hearing: Revised Final Plat application of MBL Associates to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 121 single family lots and 60 multi- family units, Dorset St. The amendment consists of adding berms and landscaping to conform with the State Environmental Board's approval: Mr. Milot explained the berm will be between the development and Dorset St. to screen the development along the public corridor. He added that they have removed trees from the public right-of- way as required by the Public Works Dept. No issues were raised. Mr. Austin moved the Planning Commission approve the revised final plat application of MBL Associates to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 121 single family lots and 60 multi -family units, Dorset Street. The amend- ment consists of adding berms and landscaping to conform with the state Environmental Board's approval, as depicted on a 3-page set PLANNING COMMISSION , 25 February 1997, page 6 13.2 acres. She felt a development of this density is a violation of the beauty of the environment. Mr. Kane of Dunn Associates said they were asked by Friends of Muddy Brook to look at visual impacts of the development on the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the goals of the Southeast Quadrant include encouragement of open space, protecting views, protecting wildlife, supporting agricultural use, and promoting well planned residential use. Mr. Kane then said the visual character of the quadrant is composed of elements such as a contrast between open land and densely wooded land. There is also an order and harmony of -the land. Dense development occurs at the northern end of Hinesburg Rd. and is in stark contrast to the southern end of the road which is dominated by large, open fields, woodlands and low - density rural community. It was the feelings of Dunn Associates that the proposed high density nature of the development would impact the character of the area in many ways including the elimination of important open space, the disruption of wildlife corridor, and a compromise to the visual order and harmony of the existing landscape. Mr. Burgess noted that fewer compromises are being asked for with the revised plans. He said the Commission would want assurances that a Homeowners Association would maintain the proposed connector road. Mr. Teeson said his main concern is traffic. He felt the project was laid out to preserve open space and had adequate buffers. Mr. O'Rourke agreed. Mr. Teeson then _moved _to continue the application until 25 March. Mr.. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4* 4. Sketch plan application of Veve Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing four dwelling units in two buildings,. and 2) constructing two carports, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. O'Rourke noted he has a conflict of interest in this ap- plication and would therefore not participate in the discussion. Mr. Carroll noted the development is served by a single access across from the school. In a property settlement, the applicant acquired a piece of land adjacent to the existing development. They had originally PLANNING COMMISSION 25 February 1997 page 7 planned to put the 4 units on the newly acquired land; however, after discussions with the city, they decided to merge the properties and add the units near the other multi -family buildings. They got a variance from the Zoning Board allowing the transfer of the units to the original piece'of land. Nine parking spaces are required for the addition. They will add 19. They will also take down one old carport and add two new ones. The new buildings will be similar in style and design to the existing multi -family buildings. The main issue is whether a development of this size can have only one access. Mr. Carroll noted there are a number of areas where there could be a second access; however, the Planning Commission has always felt it would be safer not to open them. Mr. Weith said the city is now in court over denying an application because of the maximum 50 units with a single access rule. He felt it would not be wise to waive the requirement for a second access in this instance. Mr. Carroll said they could provide an emergency access and showed a possible location which would access onto Oakwood. They could also go over Pines property. Mr. Burgess encouraged having an access over property owned and controlled by the applicant. Other members didn't have any preference for a location but agreed it would be easier if it were on property owned by the applicant. No other issues were raised. 5. Sketch plan application of Wiemann-Lamphere Architects, Inc, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a commercial complex consisting of two buildings totaling 27,750 sq. ft.. The amendment consists of: 1) merging a 24,750 sq. ft. lot into the adjoining lot creating a 5.3 acre PUD, 2) creating two lots within the PUD of 2.4 acres (lot #1) and 2.9 acres (lot #2) and 3) constructing a 2560 sq. ft. addition to the auto sales and service facility on proposed lot #2, 1085, 1089, and 1095 Shelburne Road: Mr. Webster showed the location of the existing Saturn and Chrysler -Plymouth buildings and where the proposed addition would go. He noted that the existing tennis facility building has been taken down. The applicant is proposing to create two abutting lots with a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 7, 2008 Ms. Quimby noted that the field hockey field is adjacent to the football field and asked if speakers would be used for that. Mr. Young said speakers would only be facing south. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-08-46 and Final Plat Application #SD-08-47 of South Burlington School District subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8.' Site Plan Application #SP-08-87 of T. J. Boyle & Associates to amend a site plan for a 104-unit multi -building residential complex. The amendment is for after -the -fact approval to revise the landscaping plan by removing trees, 435 Dorset Street (Dorset Commons Apartments): Mr. Boyle noted that they had a forester come in and identify all trees on the site. There is an issue of an opening on the north side. A proposed landscaping plan addresses that. No issues were raised. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-08-87 of T. J. Boyle & Associates subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-08-89 of F&M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 74-unit multi -family dwelling (Eastwood Commons II). The amendment is for after -the -fact approval to: 1) construct a berm with 75 cubic yards of material, and 2) install a 12-foot high fence to enclose an existing cooling tower, 410 Farrell Street: Mr. Farrell said they installed the berm to block lights shining into Eastwood Commons Il. New plantings were placed on the berm. The 12-foot fence has been propped up around the cooling tower. This will be permanently attached and painted to address issues raised by the residents. Mr. Dinklage asked if there have been any other complaints from residents. Mr. Farrell said there have not. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-08-89 of F&M Development Co., LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued Sketch Plan #SD-08-26 of South Burlington Realty Co. for a planned unit development consisting of. 1) razing the existing 1000 sq. ft. building, and 2) constructing a two-story, 15,880 sq. ft. missed use building, 2040 Williston Road: M October 22, 2008 Terry Boyle TJ Boyle 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 Re: Minutes — #SP-08-87 Dear Mr. Boyle: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved October 7, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, etsy M &onough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 C.nas t 5trnet SsutiN Burling' mq, YT 054491 tal 502..84 . 'M 1'xx 9 2_84 .4901 waww.sburt..co MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, Associate Planner 0 RE: Agenda #8, Site Plan application #SP-08-87 DATE: October 2, 2008 TJ Boyle & Associates LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a site plan for a 104 unit multi -building residential complex. The amendment is for after -the -fact approval to revise the landscaping plan by removing trees, 435 Dorset Street (Dorset Commons Apartments). The site was previously placed in violation based on cutting of trees on the property without site plan approval from the Development Review Board. The property owner appealed the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Notice of Violation #NV-07- 18 and the Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. The Board voted to uphold the decision of the Administrative Officer and this application is to remedy a portion of the violation. The applicant has submitted an existing tree inventory as as -built documentation, as well as a landscape screening mitigation plan between the subject property and the neighboring property, known as Town Square Association, where the trees had been removed. The proposed planting plan includes 1 Autumn Blaze Maple (tree), 3 Autumn Magic Black Chokeberry (shrubs) and 21 Arborvitae (shrubs). No other changes to the property are proposed, and staff does not have any concerns or issues with the remainder of the property at this time. As such, staff has abbreviated the site plan review standards included in this memo as there is no need to comment Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Site Plan application #S P-08-87. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403.0 Trees Qty Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes Ultimate Size AFAB ACER x f. 'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Ma le 2 1i2" cal. B&B 14' ht. 50'h 40's. Shrubs Qt . Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec Notes Size 3 AM ARONIA melanocar a 'Autumn Magic' Autumn Magic Black Chokeber 3' - 4' Cont. 8-9' Maintain 21 TON THUJA occidentalis 'Nigra' Dark American Arborvitae 6-7' Ht. B&B at 8' Ht. 20' Ht. P� DECI DUDU Touin Sauare Assoc. REMOVE -<RE ®,a, EXISTING D Vv C�°I ° ,�EP'6 2 L CEDARS 'RAL NOTES: �O � 0(0 \61ty of So uhirtgt®n dNTAIN CEDARS (TON) AT 8 -�T 2' TON(14) \v�\\\ 125 ' 132• AFAB \ �l 128 EXISTING • 134• TON(7) � 12= EXISTING A1"1(2) 135 NIXED i � • 12c DECII DOCfUS 130 DDT 203 204 D � x • 0' 202 \0° 200 • \\v 0\0qq 201 /0 0000 205 I CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON 15 ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT WITH GOOD SURVEY PRACTICE LYNN M. RIBOLINI, VT L5 556 07/22/ I CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS AS AND SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT ARE IN WITH ALL PERMITS AND APPROVALS ISSL JOHN H. STUART, VT PE 3018 07/. CP �0 \\ \ IdD G0YETTE-h1E14RLIN \•`\ '` \ u�nro a�rw+� \ NOTE: 1. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS t OTHER /N FROM .44 STUART ASSOCIATES SURVE SURVEY BASPROPRED BY PROPERTY ✓c— MONTPELIER, VT., DATED I7ARC14 2009. 7. ALL UTILITY LOCATION MUST BE CHECKED VIA DIG SAFE, CERTIFIED LOCATOR AND/OR ACTUAL BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION. Veve Associates LLP 435 Dorset Street South Burlinqton. Vermont' Zoning lnformotion __ -_ -_._ rn+n�,,,,. E�•s`svr D. 10-55-09 T. 64.14' L• 127.88' CANOPY Stote of Vermont 301.78 - - -- DENNYy ••��___ - 25-30% landscape architects . planning consultants I�© 301 college street . budington . vermont . 05401 802 .658 .3555 http:/h—Qboyle.mm W ceer BAR SCALE /"s 5o'-o L08-0508 Dorset l 1";.w' Tree Plant 6 ngton �)o! CEIVED T p 2 2VU3 So. Burlington nter Line inter Grote p Trmsformer 0 Light Pole 11.115 x Collector 0 Coble T.V. Trmsfor— Q Trash Receptacle T offic Light ins Apartments T _ O' and Mitigation Plan L Andrew Fritz 135 Main Street Apt B Winooski, VT 05404 Re: Site Plan #SP-O8-O7 435Dorset Street Dear Mr. Fritz: Pursuant 0o24\/8A44O4(b)(3).enclosed please find acopy ofthe Development Review Board decision regarding the above referenced matter. You are being provided acopy 0fthis decision because you appeared orwere heard 8t the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, '(eve -�l� CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Interested Persons Record and Service List Under the 2004 revisions to Chapter 117, the Development Review Board (DRB) has certain administrative obligations with respect to interested perve sonsinterested p. At any hearing, erson there must be an opportunity for each person wishing to achie status to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. ve V.S.A. § 44 person The DRB must keep a written record of the name, address and participation of each person who has sought interested person status. 24 V.S.A. rendered by the DRB must be mailed to eve § 4461(b). A copy of any decision been heard by the DRB. 24 V.S.A. § 4461(b)(3). person or eipt appears of a tl having the environmental court, the DRB must supply a list of interested persons to the peal to appellant in five working days. 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c). HEARING DATE. Q67?7r —j NAME MAILING ADDRESS „� f- vy-' �94V'ao' 3 9 Co wj-�y ,CW C 6P L �A Zy —/' z%y? r� a;!�' IVJ, td/ e, 40'r v) nla1�eje IS:14 U/ �� ✓VI �15 IY on v1--©5-14 c� V7—o Uzi U3 CfdIze-svC., V/ "vSV,/,c \/T- cT3�4Cxi 9,0 S'b ® IL fig,, PROJECT OF INTEREST Mr SC App(icr fia4 '- MS -0�'-10 9XI2 c5'c�i�vm9 v- c8iZ��r��. s6Ws VQ,rl-nar�� viddo� i, llnve 3 September 25. 2008 Veve Associates c/o Eugene Ward III, Esq. 3069 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 435 Dorset Street Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is the draft agenda for the October 7, 2008 South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public meeting is being held regarding the proposed development. The official agenda will be posted on the City's website (www.sburi.com) by the Friday prior to the meeting. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, stop by during regular office hours, or attend the scheduled public meeting. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. cc: Terry Boyle 575 DU*t. .'4rflet south flarl nggtoll, r OW23 1a.1 902 146,006 fax �I_ 4,6,Ci1 W aay.r, rsrt.CaR1 e4 /, south4urlington PLANNING & ZONING October 3, 2008 Terry Boyle TJ Boyle Associates 301 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Veve Property 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Boyle: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, Betsy M onough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tell 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com Dorsot Commons Apartments Plant Cost Estimate Pr"aed try T.J. B:ye Associa'es, LLC x s DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS - PLANTING SCHEDULE sr4aa August 20, 2009 Q€ . Code Scientific Name I Comma Name Sire I Spec I Notes tl19nate Size I $lTma I Total 1 1 AFAR JACER x f.'Aulumn Blaze' lAutumn Blaze Maple 2 1J2" cal. I B&B 14' ht. 1 501,478. $ 400.00 $ 400.00 C hn hhe 01 . Code I Scientific Name Common Name Size Sec I Notos Size $!Tree Testa; 3 AM AROMA meianocar a'Autumn Magic' Autumn Mg is Biack Chokebe 3' - 4' Cont. 8-9' $ 70.00 $ 210.00 21 TOM THUJA occidentalis 'Nigra' Dark American Arborvitae $-r Ht. B&B Maintain 20' Ht. $ 125.00 $ 2,625,00 at B Ht. Total $ 3,235.00 OCT-06-2008(MON) 11.51 T. J. Bode Associates, LLC (FAX)l 802 863 1562 P.001/002 Boyle* * " fandscope orchiteWs + planning consultants 301 college street • burlington • vermont • 05401.- FANG COVER SHEET To: Ray Belair Date: 10/06/2008 Firm: City of South Burlington Phone Number. From. T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC Fax Number. ($D2)846-4101 Re: Dorset Commons Plant Cost Estimate pages: 2 (Induding cover page) ITEMS SENT: Item 1) Plant cost estimate. COMMENTS: Dorset Commons Apartments plant cast estimate. phone ($02) 658-355S fax (802) $63-1562 www.tiboyle.com DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS - PLANTING SCHEDULE Trees Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes Ultimate Size 1 AFAB ACER x f. 'Autumn Blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 2 1/2" cal. B&B 14' ht. 50'h,40's. Shrubs Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Notes Size 3 AM ARONIA melanocar a 'Autumn _Magic' Autumn Magic Black Chokeber 3' - 4' Cont. 8-9' 21 TON THUJA occidentalis 'Nigra' Dark American Arborvitae 6-7' Ht. B&B Maintain 20' Ht. at 8' Ht. Touj EXISTING NIXED --� DEC F)06uS 5SOC '��) I 0\0� REMOVE EXISTING CEDARS EXISTING I IIAL.LJ DELI DUQ&S' Veve Associates LLP 435 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT landscape architects • planning consultants 301 college street • burlington • vermont • 05401 802.658.3555 www.tjboyle.com atf 08-20-08 Dorset Commons Apartments sneer no: drawn b date 1 of= 20' Screening Mitigation Plan L- I U I scale Dorset Common Apartments - Screening Mitigation Area and Phase II Courtyard and Frontage T. J. Boyle Associates, Plantings Page 1 landscape architect planning consultants PHOTO # 2008-07-29 Aerial from Google Description: Aerial view. PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terry's Description: Screening mitigation area. Description: Screening mitigation area. Description: Screening mitigation area. PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terry's PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terrys Dorset Common Apartments - Screening Mitigation Area and Phase II Courtyard and Frontage Plantinas Paae 2 Description: Screening mitigation area. PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terrys PHOTO# 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terrys landscape architect planning consultants Description: Screening mitigation area. Description: Phase 11 frontage planting. Description: Phase 11 frontage planting. PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terry's PHOTO # 2008-07-31 Site Visit Terry's «a , • I' + _ f _ Oro fix. ♦. T. J. Boyle Associates, LLC ' , ffi -4rk s , Y Dorset Common Apartments - Screening Mitigation Area and Phase II Courtyard and Frontage T. J. Boyle Associates, Plantings Page 4 landscape architect planning consultants PHOTO # 2008-08-07 Site Visit Dorset Description: Phase II courtyard planting. t'19a�.s � Co M 1 ok-5 3 60x� Cr SO . ro V7� C, 4,� - � + # Type of Tree Dist. From Bldg. Cir. of Tree 1 Clump Maple 3 ft., 8 in. 7 ft. 2 Maple 15 ft. 3 ft., 3 in. 3 Maple ---- 3 ft., 2 in. 4 Maple 9 ft., 2 in. 4 ft. 5 Oak 14 ft. 7 ft., 7 in. 6 Blue Spruce ---- 1 ft., 5 in. 7 Large Triple Oak 15 ft., 4 in. 12 ft.,1 in. 8 Oak 15 ft. 5 ft. 9 White Pine ---- 4 ft., 6 in. 10 White Pine ---- 3 ft., 7 in. 11 Maple 5 ft., 5 in. 3 ft., 5 in. 12 White Pine ---- 3 ft., 3 in. 13 White Pine 9 ft., 5 in. 3 ft., 3 in. 14 Oak 8 ft. 6 ft., 4 in. 15 Maple 2 ft., 9 in. 14 ft., 1 in. 16 Oak 14 ft., 4 in. 7 ft., 10 in. 17 Oak ---- 5 ft., 8 in. 18 Large Double Oak 14 ft., 2 in. 10 ft. 19 Maple ---- 6 ft. 20 Maple 18 ft. 3 ft., 6 in. 21 Oak ---- 7 ft., 9 in. 22 Maple 18 ft. 4 ft. 23 Maple ---- 3 ft. 24 Maple ---- 5 ft., 2 in. 25 White Oak 12 ft., 7 in. 9 ft., 9 in. 26 Maple ---- 2 ft., 7 in. 27 Maple ---- 4 ft., 6 in. 28 Maple ---- 5 ft. 29 Double Maple ---- 6 ft., 3 in. 30 Double Maple 9 ft. 5 ft., 4 in. 31 Maple 15 ft. 5 ft., 8 in. 32 Maple 15 ft. 2 ft., 8 in. 33 Maple 2 ft., 9 in. 5 ft., 10 in. 34 Double Maple 8 ft., 10 in. 6 ft. 35 Cedar ---- 3 ft., 5 in. 36 Maple 12 ft., 5 in. 4 ft., 3 in. 37 Maple ---- 3 ft., 6 in. 38 Maple 16 ft., 2 in. 3 ft., 10 in. 39 Three Clump Maple 21 ft. 5 ft., 7 in. 40 Maple ---- 4 ft., 9 in. 41 Three Clump Maple ---- 5 ft. 42 Large Oak ---- 11ft., 10 in. 43 Maple ---- 3 ft., 5 in. 44 Oak ---- 10 ft., 9 in. 45 Maple ---- 2 ft., 11 in. 46 Clump Oak 24 ft., 6 in. 12 ft. 47 Three Clump Oak ---- 10 ft., 8 in. 48 Double Oak ---- 13 ft. 49 Oak ---- 12 ft. 50 Oak ---- 9 ft. 51 Maple 18 ft. 5 ft., 4 in. 52 Maple ---- 2 ft., 7 in. 53 Oak ---- 11 ft. 54 Double Oak ---- 11 ft. 55 White Pine ---- 5 ft. 56 White Pine ---- 4 ft. 57 Oak ---- 11 ft. 58 Maple ---- 3 ft., 9 in. 59 Maple ---- 3 ft., 6 in. 60 Maple ---- 2 ft., 9 in. 61 Maple 36 ft., 7 in. 3 ft., 5 in. 62 Maple 35 ft., 8 in. 3 ft., 5 in. 63 Tluee Clump Maple 28 ft., 2 in. 10 ft. 64 Oak ---- 5 ft., 10 in. 65 Shad ---- 3 ft., 6 in. 119 66 Maple 16 ft., 6 in. 4 ft., 7 in. 67 Maple 20 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 4 in. 68 Double Maple 15 ft. 7 in., 4 in. 69 Clump Maple 11 ft., 2 in. 8 ft., 8 in. 70 Maple 13 ft. 4 ft., 10 in. 71 White Pine 31 ft. 5 ft., 7 in. 72 White Pine ---- 8 ft. 73 Maple ---- 5 ft., 10 in. 74 Maple ---- 6 ft. 75 Maple ---- 3 ft., 5 in. 76 Maple 26 ft., 3 in. 3 ft., 11 in. 77 Oak 14 ft., 5 in. 10 ft. 78 Maple ---- 5 ft., 5 in. 79 Oak ---- 7 ft., 8 in. 80 Maple ---- 5 ft. 81 Maple ---- 3 ft. 82 Shad ---- 3 ft. 83 Oak ---- 8 ft., 5 in. 84 Double Shad ---- 4 ft. 85 Maple ---- 4 ft. 86 Maple ---- 4 ft., 7 in. 87 Maple ---- 5 ft., 2 in. 88 Maple 3 ft. 5 ft. 89 White Pine ---- 2 ft., 11 in. 90 Crab Apple 11 ft. 2 ft., 8 in. 91 Maple 10 ft., 3 in. 6 ft., 9 in. 93 Maple 6 ft., 7 in. 3 ft. 94 Oak 8 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 6 in. 95 Maple ---- 6 ft., 8 in. 96 Double Oak 5 ft., 2 in. 14 ft., 7 in. 97 Double Maple ---- 5 ft., 10 in. 98 Maple 17 ft., 3 in. 3 ft., 8 in. 99 =White Oak ---- 7 ft. 3 100 Double Maple ---- 4 ft., 9 in. 101 Shad ---- 2 ft., 2 in. 102 Shad 17 ft., 3 in. 2 ft. 103 Maple ---- 3 ft. 104 Clump Maple 10 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 3 in. 105 Maple 8 ft. 3 ft., 3 in. 106 Maple 14 ft. 6 ft., 4 in. 107 Maple 5 ft., Tin. 5 ft., 9 in. 108 Maple 5 ft., 7 in. 4 ft., 8 in. 109 Maple 5 ft., 7 in. 3 ft., 6 in. 110 Oak 12 ft., 3 in. 7 ft., 9 in. 111 Oak 8 ft. 10 ft. 112 Blue Spruce 15 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 10 in. 113 White Oak 17 ft., 7 in. 6 ft., 1 in. 114 Crab Apple 7 ft., 3 in. 1 ft., 9 in. 115 Red Oak ---- 5 ft. 116 Oak 7 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 2 in. 117 Maple ---- 5 ft. 118 Clump Maple ---- 4 ft., 8 in. 119 Oak 7 ft. 8 ft., 5 in. 120 Maple 6ft., 2 in. 5 ft. 121 Crab Apple 12 ft., 2 in. 1 ft., 9 in. 122 Oak 7 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 10 in. 123 Crab Apple 18 ft., 4 in. 2 ft., 8 in. 124 Blue Spruce 20 ft., 6 in. 3 ft., 1 in. 125 White Pine ---- 4 ft., 2 in. 126 Oak 1 ft., 7 in. 7 ft., 7 in. 127 Three Clump Shad 3 ft., 3 in. 5 ft., 5 in. 128 Maple ---- 5 ft. 129 Oak ---- 7 ft., 8 in. 130 Shad ---- 1 ft., 4 in. 131 Shad ---- 1 ft., 7 in. 132 Maple 13 ft., 7 in. 4 ft., 4 in. 133 Double Maple 2 ft., 6 in. 6 ft. 134 Three Clump Oak ---- 11 ft., 8 in. 135 Maple 20 ft., 5 in. 3 ft., 3 in. 136 Shad 11 ft. 2 ft., 8 in. 137 Maple 1 ft., 7 in. 4 ft., 10 in. 138 Oak 10 ft., 6 in. 9 ft., 10 in. 139 Three Clump Maple 20 ft. 6 ft., 9 in. 140 Double Maple 16 ft., 6 in. 6 ft., 4 in. 141 Maple 24 ft., 3 in. 2 ft., 11 in. 142 Maple 23 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 2 in. 143 Maple ---- 3 ft., 2 in. 144 Maple 5 ft., 5 in. 5 ft. 145 Maple 9 ft. 5ft., 3 in. 146 Maple 14 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 5 in. 147 Maple 4 ft. 4 ft., 7 in. 148 Maple 16 ft. 4 ft., 9 in. 149 Maple 7 ft. 4ft., 7 in. 150 Double Maple 5 ft., 3 in. 5 ft. 151 Maple ---- 3 ft., 8 in. 152 Maple 14 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 4 in. 153 Maple 16 ft. 5 ft., 6 in. 154 Maple 2 ft., 3 in. 4 ft., 1 in. 155 Four Clump Maple 5 ft. 6 ft., 8 in. 156 Crab Apple 7 ft., 7 in. 2 ft., 4 in. 157 Maple 14 ft., 5 in. 4 ft., 10 in. 158 Crab Apple 15 ft. 1 ft., 6 in. 159 Cedar 8 ft. 2 ft., 6 in. 160 Cedar ---- 1 ft., 7 in. 161 Cedar ---- 2 ft., 5 in. 162 Maple 13 ft. 4 ft., 7 in. 163 Oak 5 ft. 7 ft., 2 in. 164 Maple 9 ft., 2 in. 2 ft., 6 in. 5 .165 Maple ---- 4 ft., 3 in. 166 Double Maple ---- 4 ft., 8 in. 167 Blue Spruce ---- 3 ft., 7 in. 168 Maple 4 ft., 3 in. 4 ft., 6 in. 169 Crab Apple ---- 1 ft., 10 in. 170 Maple 13 ft., 2 in. 4 ft., 5 in. 171 Blue Spruce ---- 3 ft., 9 in. 172 Maple 15 ft. 4 ft., 2 in. 173 Blue Spruce ---- 3 ft., 9 in. 174 Crab Apple 15 ft., 4 in. 2 ft., 5 in. 175 Maple 15 ft. 3 ft., 9 in. 176 Maple 9 ft., 6 in. 7 ft., 10 in. 177 Maple 18 ft. 3 ft., 9 in. 178 Maple 8 ft., 4 in. 4 ft., 8 in. 179 Maple 8 ft., 2 in. 5 ft., 3 in. 180 Maple 8 ft., 10 in. 4 ft., 6 in. 181 Double Maple 15 ft. 6 ft., 5 in. 182 Clump Cedar 13 ft. ---- 183 White Pine 18 ft. 5 ft., 6 in. 184 White Pine 11 ft. 4 ft. 185 Double Maple 9 ft., 3 in. 6 ft., 6 in. 186 White Pine 15 ft. 4 ft., 9 in. 187 Clump Cedar ---- ---- 188 Clump Cedar 23 ft. ---- 189 Maple 6 ft. 5 ft. 190 Maple 4 ft. 4 ft., 6 in. 191 Three Clump Maple 12 ft., 2 in. 6 ft., 5 in. 192 White Pine 18 ft. 3 ft., 10 in. 193 White Pine 14 ft. 4 ft., 11 in. 194 White Pine 21 ft. 4 ft., 6 in. 195 White Pine 14 ft. 5 ft., 4 in. 196 Maple 16 ft., 6 in. 4 ft., 3 in. 197 Locus 15 ft., 4 in. 3 ft., 7 in. 101 198 Norway Maple 11 ft., 4 in. 3 ft., 11 in. 199 Three Clump Cedar ---- ---- 200 Four Clump Cedar 2 ft., 6 in. ---- 201 Crab Apple 12 ft., 2 in. 2 ft. 202 Maple 11 ft. 4 ft. 203 Maple 5 ft., 2 in. 4 ft., 6 in. 204 Norway Maple 9 ft., 3 in. 3 ft., 2 in. 205 Maple 27 ft., 8 in. 3 ft., 8 in. 206 Maple 27 ft., 5 in. 4 ft., 8 in. 207 Oak 8 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 10 in. 208 Maple 4 ft., 10 in. 2 ft., 7 in. 209 Cedar 18 ft., 2 in. 1 ft., 8 in. 210 Double Shad ---- 2 ft. 211 Maple ---- 2 ft., 6 in. 212 Maple 28 ft. 5 ft., 5 in. 213 Maple ---- 4 ft., 2 in. 214 Maple ---- 5 ft. 215 White Pine ---- 4 ft., 10 in. 216 Five Clump Maple 13 ft., 2 in. 9 ft. 217 Maple ---- 2 ft., 7 in. 218 Maple ---- 3 ft., 4 in. 219 Maple ---- 3 ft., 6 in. 220 Double Shad ---- 4 ft., 8 in. 221 Maple ---- 3 ft. 222 Maple ---- 3 ft., 7 in. 223 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 224 Maple ---- 3 ft., 2 in. 225 Maple ---- 4 ft., 1 in. 226 Maple ---- 4 ft. 227 Maple ---- 5 ft., 6 in. 228 Double Shad 27 ft. 4 ft., 9 in. 229 Maple ---- 4 ft., 6 in. 7 230 Maple ---- 4 ft., 5 in. 231 Three Clump Maple 17 ft. 8 ft. 232 Maple ---- 3 ft., 7 in. 233 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 234 Maple ---- 5 ft. 235 Maple ---- 3 ft., 6 in. 236 Maple ---- 2 ft., 7 in. 237 Three Clump Maple 28 ft. 7 ft., 10 in. 238 Maple ---- 4 ft., 9 in. 239 Maple 21 ft., 5 in. 4 ft., 3 in. 240 Maple ---- 2 ft., 7 in. 241 Double Maple 18 ft. 5 ft., 8 in. 242 Maple 16 ft. 4 ft., 3 in. 243 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 244 Maple ---- 4 ft., 8 in. 245 Maple 17 ft., 6 in. 5 ft., 2 in. 246 Three Clump Maple 19 ft. 9 ft. 247 Maple 18 ft. 5 ft., 11 in. 248 Maple 11 ft. 4ft., 7 in. 249 Maple 17 ft., 6 in. 4 ft., 3 in. 250 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 251 White Pine ---- 7 ft., 6 in. 252 Maple ---- 4 ft. 253 Maple ---- 5 ft., 4 in. 254 Double Maple ---- 7 ft., 6 in. 255 White Pine ---- 7 ft., 7 in. 256 Maple 35 ft. 3 ft., 7 in. 257 Maple 34 ft. 6 ft., 6 in. 258 Maple ---- 2 ft., 2 in. 259 Maple 33 ft. 4 ft., 10 in. 260 Maple ---- 3 ft., 11 in. 261 Maple ---- 3 ft., 2 in. 262 j Maple ---- 3 ft., 11 in. 263 Maple ---- 4 ft., 6 in. 264 Three Clump Maple 28 ft., 6 in. 8 ft. 265 Maple 25 ft., 6 in. 6 ft., 7 in. 266 Maple ---- 3 ft., 3 in. 267 Hemlock ---- 4 ft. 268 Maple 10 ft., 6 in. 3 ft., 7 in. 269 Cedar 4 ft., 9 in. 1 ft. 270 Cedar 3 ft., 5 in. 1 ft., 4 in. 271 Cedar 4 ft., 6 in. 1 ft., 4 in. 272 Maple 23 ft. 3 ft., 11 in. 273 White Pine ---- 6 ft., 3 in. 274 Four Clump Cedar 13 ft. ---- 275 Maple ---- 4 ft., 5 in. 276 Maple ---- 4 ft. 277 Maple ---- 5 ft., 2 in. 278 Maple ---- 2 ft., 6 in. 279 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 280 Maple ---- 3 ft., 10 in. 281 Maple ---- 3 ft., 4 in. 282 Maple ---- 1 ft., 11 in. 283 White Pine ---- 6 ft. 284 Maple ---- 3 ft., 3 in. 285 Maple ---- 4 ft. 286 White Pine ---- 8 ft., 3 in. 287 White Pine ---- 3 ft. 288 Double White Oak ---- 9 ft., 1 in. 289 White Pine ---- 6 ft., 7 in. 290 White Pine ---- 2 ft., 10 in. 291 White Pine ---- 2 ft., 8 in. 292 Maple ---- 5 ft., 10 in. 293 Maple ---- 3 ft., 8 in. 294 Ash 21 ft., 3 in. 4 ft. 295 Three Clump Cedar 16 ft. ---- STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE' WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2555 a FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) April 21, 2008 Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: Notice of Appeal - 435 Dorset Street Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec Dear Jacalyn: OF COUNSEL JOHN H. KLESCH WILLIAM E. FLENDER° ('NOT YET ADMITTED) Enclosed for filing with the Court, please find my Entry of Appearance in connection with the above -referenced matter. bin erely, J h H. Klesch Enclosure CC: Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Raymond Belair son08-061 EOA.doc STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: VEVE ASSOCIATES, LLP ) Docket No. 64-4-08 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE NOW COMES JOHN H. KLESCH, of the firm of. Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and hereby enters his appearance in the above - referenced matter by and on behalf of the City of South Burlington. DATED at Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, this 21st day of April, 2008. son08-025 veve.lit STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, PC. ATTORNEYS A'[' LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P0. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VE.RMONT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. By: -- Johvi P. Klesch 17 flattery Street P 01 Box 1507 B nlington; VT 05402-1507 STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURL,INGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F. STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R. PAGE WWW.FIRMSPF.COM ROBERT E. FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2555@FIRMSPF.COM) JOSEPH S. McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 WILLIAM E. FLENDER September 10, 2008 Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641 Re: Appeal of Veve Associates, LLC Docket No. 64-4-08Vtec Dear Jackie: OF COUNSEL JOHN H.KLESCH DINA L. ATWOOD Enclosed for filing with regard to the above -captioned matter is Stipulation as to Portion of Appeal Respecting Alleged Landscaping Violation. Sincerely, 6I �` John'H. Klesch JHK/gmt Enclosure CC: Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Raymond L. Belair, Administrative Officer / STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Appeal of Veve Associates, LLP State File No. 64-4-08 Vtec STIPULATION AS TO PORTION OF APPEAL RESPECTING ALLEGED LANDSCAPING VIOLATION The Appellant, Veve Associates, LLP, by its attorneys Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, and the City of South Burlington, by its attorneys Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., hereby stipulate as follows: By September 30, 2008, the Appellant shall file with the South Burlington Development Review Board ("DRB") an amended landscape plan for its Dorset Commons property at 435 Dorset Street in South Burlington (the "Project"), and an application (the "Application") to amend its site plan approval and other applicable permits for the Project to approve the amended landscape plan. 2. By September 30, 2008, the Appellant shall pay the City $500 for its enforcement costs on account of Appellant's alleged violation by removal of vegetation at the Project property. 3. Upon the Appellant's filing of the amended landscape plan and the Application as required by paragraph 1 above, and the payment of the sum of $500 as required by paragraph 2 above, that portion of the City's October 10, 2007 Notice of Violation alleging that Appellant "altered the existing approved site plan by removing vegetation" shall be deemed cured except as provided in ¶ 5, infra. 4. The DRB shall hear and decide the Application under applicable landscape L,n.. c3azocK SPERRY ; w,<i, LLP i provisions of the Cit 's Land Development Regulations, without application of the three part "Stowe Club Highlands test" set forth in In Re: Hildebrand, 2007 VT ¶12, 181 Vt. 568, 570, C L,ANCsROCK SPERR'Y & Woor, LLP 917 A.2d. 478, 482. Appellant shall have appeal rights as to any decision under 24 V.S.A. 4471. 5. In the event that the Application is denied after exhaustion of appeal rights, nothing herein shall prevent the City from issuing a new Notice of Violation alleging that Appellant altered the existing approved site plan by removing vegetation without a permit. All defenses and claims that Appellant now, as of the time of execution of this Stipulation, has available to it regarding the currently pending Notice of Violation or shall have in the future shall be available to Appellant to raise on an appeal of any such new Notice of Violation. 6. Statements of questions 7-11 of Appellant's Statement of Questions dated April 11, 2008 shall remain for decision by the Court in this appeal. DATED at Burlington, Vermont this day of September, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. SpAy PO Box 7Z 1, 210 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802)864-0217 G r . '.�A DATED at Burlington, Vermont this � day of September, 2008. SO ORDERED: Superior Court Judge S_,t:;"C:L:OCK SPEk:KY I i Wool_ LLY i STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. JohViIjKlesch PO o 1507, 171 Battery Street B rligton, VT 05402 r (8i02) 660-2555 Date 3 STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE ROBERT E.FLETCHER JOSEPH S. McLEAN AMANDA S. E. LAFFERTY WILLIAM E. FLENDER STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 W W W .FIRMSPF.COM E-MAIUFIRM2555 @FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S E-MAIL (JKLESCH@FIRMSPF.COM) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-9119 June 19, 2008 HAND DELIVERED Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street, 4th Floor PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Appeal of Veve Associates, LLP Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec Dear Mark: OF COUNSEL JOHN H. KLESCH DINA L. ATWOOD Enclosed are copies of the following plans I have received from the Town: • "435 Dorset St. - Feb 21, 1977 - Phase I 48 Unit" (1 sheet) • 11435 Dorset Common - Veve Associates - Planting Plan" (2 sheets) • "Proposed Site Plan - Dorset Common Apts. - December 3, 1996" • "Partial Site Plan Shown South West Corner of Property - February 1984" If you have any other plans, please provide me with copies. I do not have in my file a "marked up" site plan delineating Appellants' views on the issue of Interstate Highway Overlay District encroachments. I will check with Ray Belair but, in the meantime, if you could send me what you have shared with him (and any other information you wish to share) on the subject, please do so. I may issue some brief discovery requests on the issue as I think Judge Wright indicated she would expect that to be Mark L. Sperry, Esq. June 19, 2008 Page 2 done by the next conference. S}/nc�rely, John/H. Klesch Enclosures l cc: Raymond Belair, Admin. Officer (w/o enclosures via mail) son08-078 veve.doc BURLINGTON MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Peter F.Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble April 24, 2008 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Veve Associates, LLP To Whom It May Concern: Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office Pursuant to the Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, I am enclosing a copy of a Notice of Appeal to the Environmental Court in connection with the above matter. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Spe MLS:mns Enclosure 456297.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com MIDDLEBURY - BURuNGTON LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Peter F. Langrock ATTORNEYS AT L A W Michael W. Wool Ellen Mercer Fallon Mark L. Sperry William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift A Limited Liability Partnership Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Emily J. Joselson Including a Professional Corporation Susan M. Murray Mitchell L. Pearl Alison J. Bell Kevin E. Brown Lisa B. Shelkrot Frank H. Langrock Eric M. Knudsen Beth Robinson David W. M. Conard F. Rendol Barlow Thomas J. Sherrer Devin McLaughlin Sarah Gentry Tischler Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin Miller Heins Erin E. Ruble Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office April 10, 2008 Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 Re: In Re: Veve Associates, LLP Dear Jackie: Enclosed for filing, please find a Notice of Appeal and a check in the amount of $225 to cover the filing fee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns Enclosures c: South Burlington DRB (c/o Ray Belair) Ralph Veve 455178.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388-6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864-0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com I STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Veve Associates, LLP State File No. (not yet assigned) NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Veve Associates, LLP, by and through its attorneys, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, hereby appeals the City of South Burlington Development Review Board's Findings of Fact and Decision dated April 1, 2008 related to Appeal No. AO- 07-04. A copy of that decision is attached. Statutory provision as to party status is 24 V.S.A. 4465(b)(1). Address of property is 435 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont. 455132.1 .ANGROCK SPERRY & WOOE LLP DATED at Burlington, Vermont this _,�Z day of April, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. Spe PO Box 721, 210 College Street Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING VEVE ASSOCIATES, LLP - 435 DORSET STREET APPEAL #AO-07-04 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Veve Associates, LLP, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, appeals the decision of the Administrative Officer in Notice of Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. Mark Sperry represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant appeals the decision of the Administrative Officer contained in Notice of Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Veve Associates, LLP. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 7 (R7) Zoning District. 4. In early October of 2007, the Planning and Zoning Office received a phone call from an individual who reported that trees were being cut at 435 Dorset Street. Administrative Officer Raymond Belair investigated and took a series of photos on October 4, 2007. 5. On October 11, 2007, the Administrative Officer mailed via Certified Mail a Notice of Violation (#NV-07-18) to Veve Associates, LLP, informing them of the Administrative Officer's determination that the following zoning violations existed on the subject property: Alteration of the existing site plan by removal of vegetation and the removal and placement of fill in several areas on the property and encroachment into a wetland and wetland buffer, all without a zoning permit. 6. On October 25, 2007, the appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal, appealing the determinations in the Notice of Violation. 7. The final plat approval for 104 residential units on this property was approved by the Planning Commission on May 24, 1977. The last City approval for this property was on April 9, 1984, when the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance to exceed the density and allow a maintenance building with an office and apartment on the second floor. 8. The 1977 approved plans include a landscaping plan. One of the purposes of the landscaping was to screen the structures and uses on the subject property from neighboring properties. The approved Phase I landscaping plan proposed that certain existing trees on either side of the pedestrian path through the middle of Phase I be saved and required that appellant plant at least 45 pine trees along the shared boundary line with Town Square Associates. The final plat approval also required that appellant submit a landscaping plan for Phase II of the project. The City does not have any record that appellant complied with this requirement. Therefore, appellant's Phase II landscaping plan is that which existed on the property at the time that appellant obtained the last Certificate of Occupancy for the subject property. When appellant removed trees from areas where the site plan required that the trees be saved or removed proposed trees that are depicted on the approved landscaping plan, he changed a site plan without first seeking approval, in violation of the Land Development Regulations. 9. The zoning violation is the result of the appellant cutting trees on the property, thereby altering an approved landscaping plan without site plan approval from the Development Review Board. The cutting and removal of trees also involves encroachment into the Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) along the property's westerly boundary. The City has never approved an encroachment into the IHO district. 10. The appellant submitted a plan for approval in 1996 which was never approved. This plan allegedly shows existing site conditions, but appellant failed to include the IHO district encroachments. Therefore, appellant did not encroach into the IHO district until after 1996. 11. The Administrative Officer agrees that appellant did not encroach into a wetland or a wetland buffer. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Section 13.06(B)(6) of the Land Development Regulations reads as follows: "Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season". The trees which have been cut are no longer in a "vigorous growing condition" and have not been replaced. These trees were either required as part of the Phase I Landscaping Plan or were in place at the time that appellant obtained a certificate of occupancy for the last constructed building on the property. Section 14.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations states that "[s]ite plan approval shall be required prior to issuance of a zoning permit ...for... (3) Any alterations or change to an approved site plan". The Board concludes that appellant's removal of trees and vegetation, without site plan approval, was a violation. 2. Section 10.04(C)(1) of the Land Development Regulations prohibits the encroachment into the Interstate Highway Overlay District unless approved by the Development Review Board. Since no approval for the existing encroachments has ever been obtained, said encroachments are in violation of the Land Development Regulations. /,,,, DECISION Motion by ����!\ �� G��Au seconded by 6ALC �l �� to uphold and affirm the Administrative Officer's determination contained in Notice o Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street that appellant altered the existing site plan by removal of vegetation, without obtaining site plan approval. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain not presen Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay abstain not presen John Dinklage nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — ea ay/abstain/not r sent Eric Knudsen — yea/ ay/abstain t rese Peter Plumeau - nay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — e nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of I D - 0 Signed this / day of April 2008, by John Dinklage, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). southburlington PLANNING &ZONING April 21, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Veve Associates, LLP — Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec Dear Mr. Sperry Pursuant to Rule 5(b)(4)(A) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, (also see 24 V.S.A. §4471(c)), the following is a list of "interested persons" for the above proceeding. You are instructed by that Rule to serve a copy of your client's notice of appeal upon all the people or entities listed below, by certified mail. The following persons appeared at the hearing held by the Development Review Board (hereinafter referred to as the DRB) on this application: Rafael Veve 44 Kendrick Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 When the DRB sent out it's notice on the above referenced application, the following additional people or entities were provided a copy of the DRB notice (this list does not include the people noted above who appeared at the DRB hearing): State of Vermont Agency of Transporatation National Life Building, Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 Deborah Wehrlin 119 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Oakwood Homeowner's Association c/o Ryan J. Daley, Director 124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Town Square Condominium Association c/o Martha Lyons, Director 425 Dorset Street, Condo #8 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington School District 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Lastly, I recommend that you consult the statutory definition for "interested persons" contained in 24 V.S.A. §4465(b). If you believe that our list is missing someone who has interested persons status in the proceeding, you should consider sending them a copy of the notice of appeal, so that you can be confidant that all persons or entities who are entitled to notice have received it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincer o dJ. B R Administrative Officer cc: Vermont Environmental Court Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT ---------------------------------------- City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 ---------------------------------------- (802) 828-1660 2418 Airport Road, Ste.1 Barre, Vermont 05641 - 8701 April 11, 2008 VeVe Association LLP NOV Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec The above -referenced appeal from a municipal panel, district commission, agency of natural resources or agency of agriculture was received at the Environmental Court on 04/11/2008. Environmental Court docket number 64-4-08 Vtec has been assigned to this appeal. Please use the Environmental Court docket number and the above case name when filing any documents or asking any questions concerning this case., Please note, this case name may not be final if we are missing necessary information from the appellant. All documents should be filed with the Environmental Court at the address at the top of this letter. Also, if you have not provided the Court with a telephone number where you can be reached during working hours for the purpose of telephone conferences, please do so as soon as possible. The Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings (V.R.E.C.P.) set out the procedures to follow for this appeal. Enclosed is a copy of those Rules, minus Rules 3 & 4 which are not applicable in this type of action. I have also omitted some of the Reporter's Notes. You may obtain a full copy of the Rules and Reporter's Notes at www.vermontjudiciary.org. 1. The person filing the appeal is called "the appellant." The appellant must take certain actions in order to assure that this appeal is not dismissed. Consult the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings to see what those actions are. For requirements regarding the appellant's responsibility to notify interested parties, see V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A); see also Form 900 available on the Court's web site at www.vermontjudiciary.org or by calling the Court at the above number and requesting that one be sent to you. 2. This case will be ready for hearing or other appropriate disposition when the time for filing the appellant's statement of questions has expired, or 20 days after the notice to interested parties has been sent, whichever occurs later. To complete service of appeals, the appellant must do as follows: From an Appropriate Municipal Panel, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). The clerk of the appropriate municipal panel must provide the appellant with a list of interested persons within five working days of the municipality's receipt of a copy of the notice of appeal. April 11, 2008 -Page 2- 64-4-08 Vtec From a District Commission, District Coordinator or the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resource, follow V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(B): Take special notice that no list of interested parties will be provided by the tribunal, other than the service list on the decision appealed from. The Court may extend that time if a request is made by written motion filed with the Court before the deadline has expired. If this case is set for a hearing on the merits, the hearing will take place in or near the county in which the case originated. Please note that pursuant to V.R.E.C.P. 5 (b)(4) (g), these appeals are de novo, unless the municipality has adopted procedures to make certain appeals on the record. 3. Faxing a copy of a document is not sufficient to meet deadlines for filing documents with the Court. Faxed copies may be authorized by the Court in certain circumstances, but the Court will not accept Faxed documents unless the sender has first telephoned the Court and obtained permission to do so or and unless the judge has authorized it in a scheduling order. 4. The person filing any document (including letters) with the Court must also send a copy of that document to each of the other parties. The Clerk of the Environmental Court will contact the parties to arrange for a pre -hearing conference in person or by telephone with a judge or with a case manager. Sincerely, Jacalyn M. Fletcher, Court Manager CC: FYI, City of South Burlington (No appearance yet filed) Mark L. Sperry, Attorney for Appellant, VeVe Associates, LLP r PrIMMOM _', bq4p southburlington PLANNING & ZONING April 18, 2008 Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. Stitzel Page & Fletcher PO Box 1507 Burlington, VT 05402-1507 Re: Notice of Appeal — 435 Dorset Street Docket No. 64-4-08 Vtec Dear Amanda: Enclosed, please find a copy of a Notice of Appeal of a DRB decision at the above referenced address. Please enter an appearance on behalf of the City. Thank you. air Officer Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble April 10, 2008 Jacalyn Fletcher, Court Manager Vermont Environmental Court 2418 Airport Road Barre, VT 05641-8701 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Re: In Re: Veve Associates, LLP Dear Jackie: BURLiNGTON Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Popick REPLY TO: Burlington Office Enclosed for filing, please find a Notice of Appeal and a check in the amount of $225 to cover t ie filing fee. Please let, le o w=if`y ii haOe any questions. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns Enclosures c: South Burlington DRB (c/o Ray Belair) Ralph Veve 455178.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 (802) 864-0217 • Fax (802) 864.0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT IN RE: Veve Associates, LLP State File No. (not yet assigned) NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Veve Associates, LLP, by and through its attorneys, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, hereby appeals the City of South Burlington Development Review Board's Findings of Fact and Decision dated April 1, 2008 related to Appeal No. AO- 07-04. A copy of that decision is attached. Statutory provision as to party status is 24 V.S.A. 4465(b)(1). Address of property is 435 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont. 455132.1 LANGROCK SPERRY &r. WOOL EEP DATED at Burlington, Vermont this / day of April, 2008. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP Mark L. Spe PO Box 721, 210 College Strc;t,t Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 17, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock, Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Veve 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Sperry: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, Betsy M Donough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 8, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Veve Associates, LLC Dear Mr. Sperry: I am in receipt of your letter of January 3, 2008. In order help me determine whether the cure your are proposing is appropriate to the violation, would you please inform me as to: 1) how many trees were cut down, 2) how large were they (DBH or height), 3) the species of trees cut down, and 4) the size of the replacement trees. Once I receive this information, I will be in a better position to evaluate your proposal to cure the violation. Adm zrm j. cseiair istrative Officer ray From: Mark Sperry [msperry@langrock. com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:49 PM To: ray Cc: Maralee Sanders; dorcom@sover.net Subject: RE: Veve As we just discussed, please reschedule for Jan 22, 08. This date is ok with Ralph. I will get you and the Board a written cure proposal by then. Mark Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide >>> "ray" <rbelair@sburl.com> 12/11/2007 12:28 PM >>> I don't think you need to be there before 8:00. I have no idea at what time your appeal will be heard. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 802-846-4106 -----Original Message ----- From: Mark Sperry [mailto:msperry@langrock.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:45 AM To: ray Cc: dorcom@sover.net Subject: Veve Hi Ray What time should Ralph and I be there for the DRB hearing tonight? IyJ Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any disclosure, 1 Xoet_M it-'? ray IAvc From: Mark Sperry [msperry@langrock.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1 OA9 AM To: ray Cc: dorcom@sover.net Subject: Dorset Commons Dear Ray: As we discussed, this is to request a rescheduling of the November 20 hearing date to December 11, 2007. Thanks for your help. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any disclosure, forwarding, copying, printing, or distribution of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 14, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Veve Associates, LLC — Notice of Violation Dated Oct 10, 2007, Appeal Now Pending with DRB — Proposed Cure Dear Mr. Sperry: I am writing in response to your letter of 1/3/08 proposing cures in connection with the above referenced Notice of Violation. I do not have jurisdiction to consider or approve alternative cures to the violations other than that which was listed in the Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation required as the remedial action, "restore the property to its original condition" within 7 days. The proposed cures listed in your letter propose changes to the site plan for the property, which only the Development Review Board may review and approve. If your client wishes to submit a revised site plan to the Development Review, please review Article 14.05 of the City Land Development Regulations for the list of application requirements. t . air Administrative Officer MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble January 3, 2008 Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Re: Veve Associates, LLC — Notice of Violation Dated October 10, 2007, Appeal Now Pending With DRB — Proposed Cure, Dear Ray: Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Popick Of Counsel: Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler REPLY TO: Burlington Office In accordance, with our discussion on December 11, Veve Associates, LLC wishes to propose to you the following cures in connection with the above Notice of Violation: 1. With respect to the clearing of approximately 40 feet on the north side of the property (Town Square line), Veve will plant by May 21, 2008 eight evenly spaced cedars a minimum of six feet high. 2. There are two "pocket" areas along the westerly side of the Dorset Commons property off the existing road. These have existed, in a graveled state, and have been in continuous use since 1977 or 1978. 24 V.S.A. 4454(a) would therefore apply. Veve believes the addition of gravel to these areas constituted routine maintenance. However, the westerly six feet of one area, and the westerly fifteen feet of the other area, although continuously used since that time, were not so graveled. Veve will cover these six foot and fifteen foot areas with mulch to a depth of six inches. 3. You are withdrawing the violation related to encroachment Within a wetland and wetland buffer without a zoning permit: 4. This leaves about sixty feet of the road along the westerly side of the property which was widened in the middle section only by between two to four feet. This road has always existed and been in continuous use since at least 1977-1978. Again, 24 V.S.A. 4454(a) would apply to this use. Veve believes the widening by two to four feet in the middle area of the 60 foot section MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388-6149 • Email: attorneys Llangrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864-0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com Ray Belair January 3, 2008 Page 2 would be a "de minimus" extension under In re Scheiber, 168 Vt. 534, and, is at "a point where the violation is so insubstantial that it would be unjust and inequitable to require the removal.. through a mandatory injunction" (Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 155 Vt. 126). Nevertheless, without waiver of this position Veve will also lay mulch, likewise to a depth of six inches, along the westerly edge of the road in the widened area. The above mulching will be done by May 15, 2008. Please let me know if these cures are acceptable. Sincercly yours. Veve Associates, LLC by Mark L. Sp y, Esq. MLS:mns c: Ralph Veve 445331.2 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 I/ 1/ � � � ► � IL TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer k#--7 RE: Agenda #13, Appeal #AO-07-04, Veve Associates DATE: December 6, 2007 Background 1. In early October of 2007, the Planning and Zoning Office received a phone call from an individual who reported that trees were being cut at 435 Dorset Street. Administrative Officer Raymond Belair investigated and took a series of photos on October 4, 2007. 2. On October 11, 2007, the Administrative Officer mailed via Certified Mail a Notice of Violation (#NV-07-18) to Veve Associates, LLP, informing them of a zoning violation. Exhibit A. 3. On October 25, 2007, the appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal, appealing the issuance of the Notice of Violation, Exhibit B. 4. The final plat approval for 104 residential units on this property was approved by the Planning Commission on May 24, 1977. 5. The last City approval for this property was on April 9, 1984 when the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance to exceed the density so they could build a maintenance building with an office and apartment on the second floor. Exhibit C. 6. The 1977 approved plans included a landscaping plan (This plan is too large to be copied and no reduced copies are available and so will be submitted at the meeting). 7. The zoning violation is the result of the appellant cutting trees on the property, thereby altering an approved landscaping plan without site plan approval from the Development Review Board. Exhibit D. 8. The zoning violation also involves the encroachment into the Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) along the property's westerly boundary. No encroachment was ever approved into the IHO district. Exhibits E, F, G, and H. It is recommended that the Board conduct a site visit to see the encroachments. 9. The appellant submitted a plan for approval in 1996 which was never approved. It shows existing site conditions, but does not show the IHO district encroachments. Exhibit I. 10. Section 13.06(B)(6) of the Land Development Regulations reads as follows: "Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. " The trees which have been cut are no longer in a "vigorous growing condition" and have not been replaced. The tree cutting which is the subject of the Notice of Violation is a violation of the above section. 11. Section 10.04(C)(1) of the Land Development Regulations prohibits the encroachment into the Interstate Highway Overlay District unless approved by the Development Review Board. Since no approval for the existing encroachments has ever been obtained, said encroachments are a violation of the Land Development Regulations. A, :J'Al/ -") - /o CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 10, 2007 Veve Associates, LLC c/o Eugene Ward, Registered Agent 3069 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation — 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Ward: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. Altered the existing approved site plan by removing vegetation and removing and placing fill in several areas on the property without a zoning permit. Encroached within a wetland and wetland buffer without a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Restore the property to its original condition. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Vioiation from the City before the City rnId ,�rsues further enforcement rnroceeingc. You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and one hundred eleven ($111) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincer y Ra m d J4elair Administrative Officer Encl. CC: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, Esq. Certified Mail Receipt #7007 0220 0001 5883 9747 10/1.5/07 14:40 FAX 802 863 4587 Ward & Babb Ia 004 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 f-z'NII3iT A ' Application #AO - U o11 i I NOTICE OF APPEAL I All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information on this notice will! result in rejection of your application and delay - in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. i understand: • the presentation procedures required by State Law.(Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. • l agree to pay a fee of $111 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S): Veve Associates, LLP, c/o Raphael Veve, P.O. Box 2361, S. Burlington, VT 05407 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: Dorset Commons Apartment_building!on Dorset Street . I 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Notice of Violation dated October 10, 2007 10/15/07 14:40 FAX 802 863 4587 Ward & Babb IM005 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Section 17.02(a) - no zoning permit required for maintenance activities 5) WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? Reversal of decision of Administrative officer issuing Notice of Violation 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE, IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? The term "land development" does not include routine maintenance activities 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON.A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). See attached list I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. i � SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT DATE -2- 10/15/07 14:40 FAX 802 863 4587 Ward & Babb 0 006 Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- Abutting operty Owners State of Vermont Agency of Transportation National Life Bldg., Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 Jeffrey Guyette and Deborah Wehrlin 119 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Oakwood Homeowners Association c/o Ryan J. Daley, Director 124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Town Square Condominium Association c/o Martha Lyons, Director 425 Dorset Street, Condo #8 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington School District South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 440849.1 No Text i�Oih tT ag I r F ry v-:,,k�jPjT C-7- '�-xNilS i -I f{ web site: www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup by clicking on "District Commis- sion Cases" and entering the case number above. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 29th day of October, 2007. By: /s/ Peter E. Keibel Peter E. Keibel Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802.879.5658 E/ peter.keibet@state.vt.us ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION 10 V.S.A. H 6001-6092 On October 19, 2007, Den- nis Demers, filed application #4C0770R-3A for a project gener- ally described as: the creation a two lot subdivision for construction of a single family residence on each tot. The project is located on Bishop road in the Town of Shelburne Vermont CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMIS- SION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Title 24 Chapter 117 V.S.A. and the Charlotte Land Use Regulations, the Charlotte Planning Commission wilt meet on Thursday November 15, 2007 at the Town Halt to hear the follow- ing application: 7:05 PM Final Plan Hearing of a subdivision amendment by Sam & Priscilla Spear to a condition of prior subdivision approval PC-05- 53 to move an existing barn at 1501 Ferry Road. Application material can be viewed at the Planning and Zoning Office. Participation in the hear- ing is a prerequisite to the right to appeal any decision related to these applications. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW BOARD I The South Burlington Development The District 4 Environmental Review Board will hold a public Commission will review this ap- hearing at the South Burlington plication under Act 250 Rule 51 City Hall Conference Room, 575 - Minor Applications. Copies of the Dorset Street, South Burlington, application and proposed permit Vermont on Tuesday, November 20, are available for review at the 2007 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the Shelburne Municipal Office, Chit- following: tenden County Regional Planning % Commission located at 30 Kimball 1. Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Asso- Avenue, South Burlington, and the ciates, LLP appealing the issuance office listed below. The application of Notice of Violation #NV-04-18 and proposed permit may also be by the Administrative Officer for viewed on the Natural Resources zoning violations at 435 Dorset St. Board's web site (www.nrb.state. vt.us/lup) by clicking on "District 2. Conditional use permit applica- Commission Cases," selecting tion #CU-07-08 of Gary & Irene "Entire Database," and entering Bourne to convert 2850 sq. ft. of the case number above. space to social services use, 31 Swift St. No hearing will be held unless, on or before November 13, 2007, a party notifies the District Commis- sion of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shall be in writing to the address below, shall state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearing request by an adjoining property owner or other interested person must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the dis- trict coordinator at the telephone number listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commission must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by November 13, 2007. 3. Conditional use permit applica- tion #CU-07-09 of L.E. Farrell Co, Inc to change the use of a 94,900 sq. ft. manufacturing facility to warehousing, processing, storage & distribution use, 20 Karen Dr. 4. Preliminary plat applica- tion #SD-07-72 of Catamount/ Middlebury, LLC & JWJ Realty for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a boundary line adjustment between 1785/1795 Shelburne Rd and 68 Nesti Drive, 2) expanding the parking lot for auto sates & service use on 1785/1795 Shelburne Rd, and 3) creating a new access for 68 Nesti Or through 1785/1795 Shelburne Road. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. October 31, 2007 PARCEL NO. 2: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr., by War- ranty Deed of Peter C. Holmberg and Marilyn D. Holmberg, dated April 7, 1995, and recorded at Book 84 Pages 553-554 Charlotte Land Records. PARCEL NO. 3: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr., by War- ranty Deed of Peter C. Holmberg and Marilyn D. Holmberg, dated April 7, 1995, and recorded at Book 84 Pages 557-559 Charlotte Land Records. Nature of the Interest: Oil and Gas Lease from Henry Dike and Beatrice Dike to Peter Hender- son Oil Company dated September 28, 1957, and recorded at Book 27 Page 396 Charlotte Land Records. Name and Address of the Person Giving Notice Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. 286 Prindle Road Charlotte, Vermont 05445 It is presumed that the above Oil and Gas Leases are abandoned. Dated a Vergennes, Vermont, this 29th day of October, 2007. Submitted by: Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. PUBLIC NOTICE VERMONT STATE HOUSING AU- THORITY Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA) will be closing its waiting list for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program at 4:30 p.m. on October 31, 2007, except that applications will continue to be accepted from individuals applying to the Section 8 Project - Based program, and individuals applying to the Section 8 Family Unification program. This Notice is provided in accor- dance with VSHA's Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which mandates the agency provide a thirty (30) day notice prior to closing the list. 802-828-3295 (Voice); 800-798-3118 (TTY); 800- 820-5119 (Messages) VSHA will provide free interpreta- tion services to clients who have Limited English Proficiency. Equal Housing Opportunity STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S0045-07 CnC Ameriquest Mortgage Company, as the Company and Servicer in trust for the Purchaser and various Mortgagors, Fixed and Adjusted Rate Mortgage Loans, CitiGroup Global Markets Realty Corp, with - mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purposes of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auc- tion at 11:00 A.M. on November 7, 2007, at 38 Maple Street, Essex Junction, Vermont all and singular "the premises described in said mortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to Simon Blucher and Catherine Blucher by Warranty Deed of Sandra Lane dated May 16, 2006 and recorded in Volume 686 at Page 639-640 of the Land Records of the Town of Essex. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Essex Junction. Other terms to be announced at the sale or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlington, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. Ameriquest Mortgage Company By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S946-07CnC Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Plaintiff Jessica T. Lacey, Dean R. Lacey, Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB And Occupants residing at 7052 Main Road, Huntington, Vermont, Defendants SUMMONS & ORDER FOR PUBLICA- TION TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: Jessica T. Lacey and Dean R. Lacey sucn claim in any other ac YOUR ANSWER MUST STATE A COUNTERCLAIM WHETHE NOT THE RELIEF DEMANDEI THE COMPLAINT IS FOR DA AGE COVERED BY A LIABIL, INSURANCE POLICY UNDER THE INSURER HAS THE RIG OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT i DEFENSE. If you believe th plaintiff is not entitled to part of the claim set forth Complaint, or if you believ you have a Counterclaim a the plaintiff, you may wisF consult an attorney. If you that you cannot afford to I attorney's fee, you may asl clerk of the Court for infon about places where you m< Legal assistance. Plaintiff's action is a Comp in Foreclosure which allege you have breached the terr a Promissory Note and Mor Deed dated November 14, ; Plaintiff's action may effec interest in the property de: in the Land Records of the of Huntington at Volume 8; Page 626. The Complaint al seeks relief on the Promiss. Note executed by you. A cc the Complaint is on file am be obtained at the Office o Clerk of the Superior Court County of Chittenden, Stati Vermont. It appearing from Affidavit filed in the above entitled that service cannot be mad with due diligence by any ( methods prescribed in V.R.( 4(d) through (f) inclusive, hereby ORDERED that servi( the above process shall be upon;defendants, Jessica T. and Dean R. Lacey by publi pursuant to V.R.C.P. 4(g). T der shall be published once for three consecutive weeks 10/24/07,10/31/07 and 1' in the Seven Days Newspap copy of this Order shall be i to defendants at their adds their address is known. Dated at Burlington, Vermo 15th day of October, 2007. Hon. Matthew I. Katz Presiding Judge Chittenden Superior Court DON'T SEE A SUPPORT grou that meets your needs? Call mont 2-1-1, a program of Ut Way of Vermont. Within Verr dial?-1-1 or 866-652-4636 free) or from outside of Verr 802-6524636. Monday-Frid; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4io6 October 31, 2007 Veve Associates, LLP c/o Mark Sperry Langrock Sperry & Wood, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development on your property. This is being sent to you and the abutting property owners to make aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that "Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." Please call our office at 846-4106 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. cc: Ralph Veve MIDDLEBURY Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble January 3, 2008 LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator, i . • : City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 ' Re: Veve Associates, LLC Notice of Violation Dated October 10, 2007' Appeal Now Pending.With DRB - Proposed Cure . Dear Ray; BURLINGTON Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Popick Of Counsel: Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler REPLY TO: Burlington Office t .. In accordance,with our discussion on December 11,, Veve Associates, LLC wishes to propose to you the following cures >n connectiori with the above Notice of ``Violation: " 1. With respect to the clearing of approximately 40 feet on the north side of the property (Town Square line), Veve will plant by May 21, 2008 eight evenly spaced cedars a minimum of six feet high. 2. There are two "pocket" areas along the westerly side of the Dorset Commons property off the existing road. These have existed, in a graveled state, and have been in continuous use since 1977 or 1978. 24 V.S.A. 4454(a) would therefore apply. Veve believes the addition of gravel to these areas constituted routine maintenance. However, the westerly six feet. of one area, and the westerly fifteen feet of the other area, although continuously used since that time, were not so graveled. Veve will cover these six foot and fifteen foot areas with mulch to a depth of six inches. 3. , You are withdrawing the violation related to encroachment within a wetland and wetland buffer without a'2oning•permit: 4. This leaves about sixty feet of the road along the westerly side of the property which was widened in the middle section only by between two to four feet. This road has always existed and been in continuous use since at least 1977-1978. Again, 24 V.S.A..4454(a).would apply to this use. Veve believes the widening by two to four feet in the middle area of'tlie 60 foot section MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753-0351 (802) 388.6356 • Fax (802) 388-6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com •BUtLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 -(801) 864.0217 � Fax.(802) 864.0137 • Email: attomeys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com Ray Belair January 3, 2008 Page 2 would be a "de minimus extension under In re Scheiber, 168 Vt. 534, and, is at "a point where the violation is so insubstantial that it would be unjust and inequitable to require the removal.:: through a mandatory injunction" (Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 155 Vt. 126). Nevertheless, without waiver of this position Veve will also lay mulch, likewise to a depth of six inches, along the westerly edge of the road in the widened area. The above mulching will be done by May 15, 2008. Please let me know if these cures are acceptable. Sincerely yours, Veve Associates, LLC by Mark L. Sp ry, Esq. MLS:mns c: Ralph Veve 445331.2 ray From: Mark Sperry [msperry@langrock.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:27 PM To: ray Cc: Maralee Sanders; dorcom@sover.net Subject: Veve Dear Ray Ralph took down 5 white pines on the Town Square side. They were 12 - 14 feet tall. They were not doing well in that location, had become dried out and were splitting and overhanging branches were beginning to fall down on vehicles. Please call is you have any questions. Mark Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: This information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the use of those to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, or someone responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any disclosure, forwarding, copying, printing, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: Please note that: e-mail is not a secure method of communication; any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers as it is transmitted; and, persons not participating in our communication may intercept our e-mail communications. If you do not wish to receive communications from us by e-mail, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 14, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Veve Associates, LLC — Notice of Violation Dated Oct 10, 2007, Appeal Now Pending with DRB — Proposed Cure Dear Mr. Sperry: am writing in response to your letter of 1/3/08 proposing cures in connection with the above referenced Notice of Violation. I do not have jurisdiction to consider or approve alternative cures to the violations other than that which was listed in the Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation required as the remedial action, "restore the property to its original condition" within 7 days. The proposed cures listed in your letter propose changes to the site plan for the property, which only the Development Review Board may review and approve. If your client wishes to submit a revised site plan to the Development Review, please review Article 14.05 of the City Land Development Regulations for the list of application requirements. JSin rel ay d J. air " Administrative Officer E� f Zoning Information R-7 District Max Building Coverage 20Z Pines Housing, L.P. Max Lot Coverage 40% l Max Res, Density 7 units/acre egend 1 1 Setba ks c Front JO feet Sides j 15 feet Hydrant Rear JO fee! -- _ _ Boundary Line 1 PUD Perimeter JO (eat 1 1 1 � Veve Assoc. '' � Lot Coverage Ratios Existing Development - Buildings 56,201 sf Easement Line LOt D 640,356 s( = 8.78R 0.60 Acres Lot Co, I74,515 sf _ k a 64O J56 s( = 27.3R' { Proposed Development- Buildings 62,J23 s( 666,492 s( = 9.35% 1 186,729 sf Lot Coe 666,492 sf = 28.0% J. Crobbe 1 .o i 1 Max. Residential Density See Attachments. 1 Parking Requirements 1 1 1 ' 1 \ Existing Parking Spaces (6 garages, 104 ports, 70 open) = 180 Spaces i Proposed New Development (12 garages, 106 ports, 80 open) = 198 Spaces (18 Spaces Added) _ \ 1 (Regs. = 2 spaces/unit + 1 spaces/4 units = 9) i \ Town Square Assoc. I'I 30' PUD Setbacks d. 1 F+Je lmee1 uy,o ra+ \ \ (2) New Apt. Bldgs. N /R 1 \ ;weeney 14.93 Acres 1 Eeee•^eel \ �\ �(, � NOTE: City of South Burlington 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 111 Eo+' 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS &OTHER INFORMATION FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP LABELED "AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT & SITE PLAN" DATED a/16/63. AND, CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET State of Vermont \ 11 1 1 Frederick H. Tuttle 1 Middle School 1 1 1l I�e 1 t 1 1 _ao• l � 1 111 lP 1, 1 � 1 � 1 ` 1 1 \ 1 1 1 STREET ENTRANCE. \ / a Is zs so too Sao AND, VERMONT CAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED MED. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. / IN FEET \\ R..AR SCr1LLe r-eo•-o South Burlington High School Project Location II 1 f�m�lr - - December 3, 1996 Correction to Parking & Calcs. I RFK November 20. 1996 New Condo Footprint; Additional Parking Spaces "I July 3, 1996 Mlnor Correction To Plan. RFK 12-06 11-21 07-06 ._ 1 now I�txJtcdcGam, T-6T&-L tT'E �I aq2wit ~il' iwA r. Re �' Z SO ray From: Mark Sperry [msperry@langrock. com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:41 AM To: ray Cc: Maralee Sanders; dorcom@sover.net Subject: Dorset commons Ray I spoke to Ralph and we would like to continue the hearing scheduled for Feb 5. Pls let me know the next date. Mark Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: This information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the use of those to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, or someone responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any disclosure, forwarding, copying, printing, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: Please note that: e-mail is not a secure method of communication; any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers as it is transmitted; and, persons not participating in our communication may intercept our e-mail communications. If you do not wish to receive communications from us by e-mail, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. "Aw, ®► NO southburlinton PLANNING & ZONING April 2, 2008 Veve Associates, LLP c/o Raphael Veve P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, VT 05407 Re: Appeal #AO-07-04 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision regarding the above mentioned project which was signed by the Development Review Board on April 1, 2008. Please call or stop by if you have any questions. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning and Zoning Assistant cc: Mark Sperry, Esq. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT 7008 0150 0003 6150 5461 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Section 114.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at 13,5 - --I having been completed ��� as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. E- dated may now be used for occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for days. Zoning Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Sect' 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at SJ_ having been completed /6/ las per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. `S - C, dated,,-/� may now be used for �- �' ���''-�-1' ; occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for A � days. 16��Zoning Administrative Officer S� nin CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Sec 'on 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at J �! as per specifications outlined having been completed in Zoning Permit No. dated occupancy. may now be used for Temporary Certificate valid for A'// '�� days. ZoningAdministrative mstrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Secti 1,4.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at /_ a �'') having been completed .7110 as per specifications outlined tf' rC •"_' in Zoning Permit No. dated p?�-� may now be used for ^�_1e_ '�'t't'L 4 "`t_. occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for _�. ,�' days. Zoning Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Section 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at Y having been completed `'/�' as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. 1, dated may now be used for occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for ;Z days. /, 11,. . / (' . , . . Zoning Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance/ with Section 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at having been completed ('bJ 7 as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. r4� dated � 7 7 may now be used for r'C c-,-` occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for / days. �� Zoning Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Sectio14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at having been completed `� l % as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No, l'-dated may now be used for i <2 occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for days. Zoning Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with 7R, *on 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the premises located at r having been completed as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. '`�' dated �AXIX!5� may now be used for occupancy. t Temporary Certificate valid for ° d 1/0/, ays. Zoning Administrative Officer j� CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Section 14.20 of the Zoning Regulations the Premises located at ? '4;a,_ having been completed A4 " 7— 7f as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. 63 46 S, dated may now be used for- occupancv. Temporary Certificate valid for IJjP:- X— a--.. / days. Z�Ii,�,gAdihim���e Offrcer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY In accordance with Section 20.20 of the Zoni g Regulations the premises located at 3 / f(0217e� having been completed/ �/as per specifications outlined in Zoning Permit No. dated may now be used for 1'%G1 T occupancy. Temporary Certificate valid for wry^� days. Zoning Administrative Officer MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: DORSET COMQ!ION - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 1. Area zoned R-7 - maximum density 102 units - maximum density is proposed. 2. Proposed parking for 193 vehicles - minimum required 153. 3. Sewer on Dorset Street ends at Town Square Apartments. Existing sewer line to rear of property. Airport Parkway treatment facility is near capacity - information for City Engineer should be furnished by developer i.e. number of bedrooms. 4. Entrance to complex should be minimum of 30 feet. 5. Area is heavily treed - Tree Committee and County Forester should be consulted. Developer should save as much of existing vegetation:.:as_;-possible. 6 Additional -recreation area_- should be a consideration of developer. T4 VVO-,4U-a-V! 14 °o(a At, 4. f 197 PLANNIPdG CGMMISSIGN MAY 2 ) 7_ to have expert opinion on a plan if that plan is not the one being studied by the Commission. Se made it clear that this was not Mr. Graves' fault but that he would like a change in procedure. Mr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan proposal of the Tygate Corporation for a 101 unit motel, and 2 seat restaurant, as depicted on a plan entitled "Motel and restaurant for Tygate Corporation, South Burlington, Vermont,' drawn by Wiemann-Lamphere, dated April 11. 1977, subject to the following conditions: 1) Aisle width between parking stalls to be 24 feet. 2) The 15 foot strip of land along the Williston Road frontage, which is to be deeded to the city, shall extend across the 50 foot stri land at the extreme southeast corner of the property. 3) The recommendations of the City Engineer regarding layout and specifications of storm drains, pavement width, and lighting er his memo of May 20, 1977 shall be complied with. of 4) The total amount of landscaping required remains the same as previously approved on May 25, 197 ; the d stribut on of landscaping on the revised pan shall-Fe---a-etermined by the Zoning Administrator, after consultation with the applicant. 5) Any future modifications or additions to this plan shall be subject to site plan review. 6) The plan submitted May 24, 1977 to the South Burlington Plannin Commission 6hall be reviewed for final approval by the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed with Mr. Rozendaal abstaining. Mr. Poger asked that item 4 and item 5 on the agenda switch places, and that was done. Deliberation on two final plats: ICV and 435 Dorset`St. T Mr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan and final plat application of Mr.' Ralph Veve, for La two phase, 104 unit apartment project known as "435 Dorset Common" as de acted on a plan entitled "Final Plat and Site Plan - 435 Dorset Common" 5 sheets drawn by Environmental Assessment Group, undated, subject to the followipE stipulations: 1) A recreation fee of $6,517.00 shall be paid in an amount pro- ...,.., +.. +1 o r imlhor ^f hiM Ai no. nArm is issued. when thev are issued. 2,) Phase II landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to construction of Phase a an scap ng and of 15. shall be posted for Phase I prior to issuance of building permits. 3) A performance bond to be set by the City Engineer shall be posted. Post -it® Fax Note 7671 Date e JJJT1n Ia°e pgs To [ �v From Co. ept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax # 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1977 4) Temporary fencing shall be installed around existing vegetation to be saved, to prevent damage or encroachment during construction recording. 5) The plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Assistant.prior to 6) This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date Lpersuant to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations. 7) Prior to issuance of building or land development ermits for Phase II, the Commission must find, after a duly ;yarned public hearing, that the construction of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. The motion was Mr. Poger then the final plat and the first seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed unanimously. moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve aglolication of Investors Corporation of Vermont for 3 lots of a 220 unit apartment complex, as depicte. on a plan entitled "Site Plan - Kennedy Drive Apartments for ICV Corporation, South Burlington, Vermont", dated April 22, 1977, unsigneed._gubject to the following stipulations: 1) Bonds for landscaping, utilities, and other required improvements, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer or Zoning Administrator_ shall be Posted prior to issuance of building Jpermits. 2) Show easements for lots 1 and 2 utilities and pedestrian ted to hi her round trail on final Plat to be recorded. 3) Construction drawings shall be submitted to and ap roved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 4) The width of paved roadways shall --be 27 feet, except 24 feet between two adjoining rows of parkin ,-.and properlydelineated on the final plat to be recorded. 5) Phase I is considered to have site plan approval with the exception of a landscaping plan, which shall be submitted to and approved by the Commission after issuance of building permits and prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 6) A final plat, incorporating the conditions of final ",pj v , shall be recorded, after review and approval by the Planning Assistant. 7) A recreation fee (based on a total of S ,447 00 for 220 units) shall be paid in proportion to the number of buildin,7.permits issue�the time of issuance. 8) The City Attorney's certificate that all required legal documents_ are satisfactory shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1977 changed between then and now and Mr. Unsworth replied that people have refused to buy the lot and that the energy crunch has become more acute. Mr. Wessel suggested that the garage be put on the east and was told that that was not saleable. Mr. Wessel explained why the lots and right of way had been set up as they had. Mr. Unsworth said that he was not asking for anything that other people dial not have on that street but Mr. Morency oited recent cases where the Commission has allowed fewer than. 1 curb cut for every lot. Mr. Wessel polled the Commission and everyone except Mr. Rozendaal favored letting it stand the way it was now. Mr. Rozendaal said that he did not think that a residential drive was too bad because it has few turning movements. Mr. Ewing felt that it could be a problem someday. Mr. Ewing moved to let :staAd,the decision regarding this lot that the Planning Commission had made on 16 7 . The motion was seconded by Mr. Morency and passed with Mr. Rozendaal voting nay. Because the appellants for item 9 were present and those for item 7 were not, the Commission decided to discuss #9 first. Item 8 was tabled until the next meeting. Site Plan Review - Multiple Listing Service - 8 White Street Mr. Robert Morse showed the Commission where the property was located and said that they would have to change the interior of the building and the parking. He said the deeded right of way was 9'. Mr. Page said that that would be a real problem since State law requires a 20' right of way. Mr. Morse said that 3 people were working and one more might be put on, but that he expected only 20-25 cars would come in per day because realt©rs would be coming, not clients. Mr. Rozendaal suggested access from the Merchant's Bank if they would allow it and Mr. Wessel said that if the applicants could work it out, it was OK with them. He added that they could not resolve this tonight, and would continue it for two weeks. Amendment to 435 Dorset Conditions of Approval Mr. Page said that 435 Dorset wanted the same wording as far as the expiration date and the public hearing went that IN had on their approval. Mr. Wessel asked if Mr. Page had talked to Richard Spokes and was told that he had and that Mr. Spokes had no objection. Mr. Woolery moved that the approval motion for 435 Dorset Common be amended to read. -as follows: 6) date and 7) Prior to issuance of building or, land development permits for Phase II, the Commission may find, after a duly warned_ public hearing, that the construction of the proposed .phase will exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed, and may alter or recind its approval as based on those findings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rozendaal and passed unanimously. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:45 pm. Clerk 61. PLANNING COIJ24ISSIOIN LAI 24, 177 9) 1. Layout and design of storm drainage, curbing, fire hydrants and 10) This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date, De-Esuant to Section 14-30 of themooningRegulations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Mr. Poger then appended the following statement: Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II, and Phase III, the Commission must find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construction of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and high- way services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. Presentation on South Burlington historic sites,Messrs Liebs and Closs Mr. Wessel said that several months ago he and Chester Liebs had gotten together because South Burlington needed to have a better understanding of her historical resources. The result was that several of Mr. Liebs' students studied the City this semester and put together a report which they presented to the Planning Commission for study. Each of the four students studied one area in depth and gave an oral presentation to the Commission on the area that they had covered. Because it was very late, the presentations were quite brief and are covered in more detail in the report, which also makes specific recommendations to the Planning Commission on problems that the students found. In conclusion, Mr. Liebs and his students said that they hoped the Commission would read the report carefully and that it would help them. The meeting was declared adjourned 11:30 pm. Clerk ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16. 1984 Mr. Ward said the building is in an R-7 district. The medical clinic is a conditional use. Under section 9.20, conditional uses, sub -section 19.056, any alterations, extension or other change to an existing conditional use requires approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. They are requesting to construct an addition of 15' x 38' on the Kennedy Drive sidCr of the building to be uses for storage. Except for the ordinance 19.05, everything else is in conformance. Dr. Alden said because they have a new Physician more space was needed. The addition is planned so it fits in with the present structure and can not be seen from Kennedy Drive. They are seperated by a wooded area from the Timberlane Condominimums. No one in the audience spoke for or against the project. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. No. 3 Appeal of Ralph Veve Mr. Ward said we are dealing with tenths. Presently we have 7 units per acre times 14.9 acres equals 104.3 units. Existing is 104 units. They are proposing to construct a 28' x 48' operational building with a second story dwelling unit for the manager. Density allows 104 but not 105 units. Accessary uses allows garage. Mr. Graf asked if they were talking about .7 density. Mr.. Duf f said they needed the 'building for storage and an office for the manager. The aprtment will also house the manager who now lives and works out of one of the apartments. There was no opposition from the audience. The appeal was granted on a unanimous vote. Mr. McClary made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 26, 1984 meeting. Mr. T hibault seconded the motion. All approved. Mr. Dinklage made a motion to postpone the meeting with University Mall which was scheduled for April 16, 1984, until April 23rd per request of Mr. Khouri to study the conditional use law. Mr. Guyette seconded the motion. All approved. Mr. Dinklage made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Thibault seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 P.M. �Y_. --- Clerk rr r L NMI 5014�i southburlington PLANNING & ZONING March 20, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: Minutes — Veve Associates — 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Sperry: For your records, enclosed is a copy of the approved February 19, 2008 Development Review Board meeting minutes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, tobG���Bnough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F. Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon William B. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble October 24, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ray Belair, Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Re: Veve Associates, LLC Notice of Appeal Dear Ray: Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M. Conard Erin Miller Heins Of Counsel: Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler REPLY TO: Burlington Office Enclosed for filing please find Veve Associates, LLC's Notice of Appeal regarding your October 10, 2007 Notice of Violation. I have also enclosed a check in the amount of $111 to cover the filing fee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Mark L. Sperry MLS:mns Enclosures c: Ralph Veve 441051.1 MIDDLEBURY: 111 S. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388-6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com BURLINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402-0721 (802) 864.0217 • Fax (802) 864-0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com vev.e -h?n. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2008 Continued Appeal #AO-07-04 of Veve Associates, appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer to Issue Notice of Violation #NV-07-18, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Knudsen recused himself during this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Belair explained that he issued the Notice of Violation because the appellant cut trees on the property without approval of the DRB. The site was originally a wooded area, much of which was cut down for the development. The trees which were recently cut down were those which had been left on the site after the development. There is also an Interstate border area which the appellant is using for storage of equipment without approval. Mr. Belair directed the Board's attention to exhibits as follows: a. the approved plan showing a 150 foot setback conservation area from the Interstate to which pavement has been added in the conservation area. b. A photo of remains of trees which were cut down c. Stored trailers, etc. d. A plan that was never approved showing the 150-foot conservation area with no encroachment indicated. Mr. Belair also showed the Board the approved plan of 15 March 1977 showing existing vegetation. It also indicates a planting plan with the existing trees to be saved and the added plantings. He stressed that an approved plan cannot be changed without approval of the DRB. Mr. Sperry said the problem here is with Section 1306(b)(6) which requires maintaining trees in a "vigorous growing condition." He said that in order to do that, trees sometimes have to be cut down to allow other to grow. He noted that the trees cut down on the Town Square side will be replaced in the spring. Mr. Belair replied that if they cut a 30-foot tree and replace it with a 6-foot tree, that needs Board approval. Any change in species or size requires DRB approval. Mr. Sperry indicated that the applicant will cover over the graveled areas. He distributed photos showing this. Mr. Veve said the trees he cut down were diseased or were too close to the buildings. Branches had started to break and roots were coming up under the cement of the patios. There was also debris from the trees on the rooftops. Mr. Veve said he has taken care of the trees throughout the years, even shifting an entrance so as not to harm a large tree. He noted that on the Town Square side, trees didn't grow well. They were diseased and broken. Branches were coming down on cars. -3- SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2008 He agreed that he should have told the Town Square residents that the trees would be replaced. Mr. Veve noted that they are now redoing windows and have a temporary trailer and dumpster. These will be gone in about 2 months. The gravel was already there. There are 2 "pockets" that were going to be roads, but this never happened. The roadway is where the water and sewer lines are. Mr. Veve said he has just maintained the gravel there. Mr. Sperry noted that "pocket areas" have been there since 1977, beyond the 15- year enforcement time. Mr. Behr asked about the difference between "removing" and "maintaining" trees. Mr. Belair said the Board could have given approval to remove the trees, but there has to be a request made to the Board. Mr. Sperry cited the cost of have a landscape architect, etc. Mr. Birmingham noted that you do need to prune and cut trees in order to have others thrive. Mr. Belair said that's why you apply to the Board. Members agrees to close this portion of the hearing and hold a deliberative session. Mr. Knudsen rejoined the Board. 10. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-07-76 and Final Plat Application #SD-07-77 of Chittenden Bank re -opening the hearing to amend a previously approved planned unit development of a 704,655 sq. ft. GFA shopping complex with 618,846 sq. ft. of GLA. The amendment consists of 1) razing a 4879 sq. ft. drive-in bank; 2) constructing a 7310 sq. ft. drive-in bank; and 3) installing a 1330 sq. ft. temporary drive-in bank. This hearing is being re -opened to correct errors in the decision dated 12/13/97, 55 & 155 Dorset St: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance until 4 March. Ms. Quimby moved to continue Preliminary Plat Application #SD-07-76 and Final Plat Application #SD-07-77 of Chittenden Bank until 4 March 2008. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Conditional Use Application #CU-08-01 of The Roman Catholic Diocese for the expansion of the Resurrection Park Cemetery. The proposal involves: 1) site preparation for existing grave sites, 2) construction of columbarium, and 3) construction of new internal roadways, 160 Hinesburg Rd: and 12. Site Plan Application #SP-08-06 of The Roman Catholic Diocese for the expansion of the Resurrection Park Cemetery. The proposal involves: 1) site preparation for existing grave sites, 2) construction of columbarium, and 3) construction of new internal roadways, 160 Hinesburg Rd: rr .. �e fie southburlington PLANNING & ZONING February 13, 2008 Mark Sperry, Esq. Langrock, Sperry, & Wool, PLC PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Re: 435 Dorset Street - Veve Dear Mr. Sperry: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Brown Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com iFOL f 4 4 ♦ R• j^ Y ..it A : ozg 4AL *'�c t � ��, rya,. �`. ''��. w� .+•,�i�. .•i '�'�`rr ��'�Zw sc• .p � J,�'FY � y�;`t 4 *+. -"� > � < r �Y . �e�, r - 1 � winA "fir 'PS Zw & W S r„ w -. � .. ... ram. .. .. . .. .. K'. No Text R"- r n �'_^'- •., v rI. .; .y.^ •y:+ 'may ry 34r ' 'v i:: r f Wfw•. iit+ i',. 'i !Z �.. Jv' 1�N'S.` .L.,I r. 7`iG/�+ + Yi T ��; ♦. r�� b. :i.: 4 ► ,� f +•� ,-"" �, j t�l ?r 1 �'� �. `..7 4+^ �tr Syr • � ~� �•, '`� �~ � �r� t': r''''�i •�37� mot% -9 a' 4 t�''� �"i`++) yy�s���y.���JJ ii�'{. r�^i1 � � \CC- ti : r.;'� �,1. ` `,T^ ,'i •�•: • X ' � � J ��R' 1 �/ TI' ' � f ��•: fir_ T � • .\•.�.� s� 46 • � f �y / Q� C� K �f_• 7,/ �L�'� A.. i 4 ` s.e4i �.�R. �S'af•-ate �i �.�,5 � ��p �y` 9 _ v •r ••. a� ;� „t� ts a > t� i, r ylit i fci '� �j►i s f • vR �?' F i ' �^] • i r �• � e "i •� AF aYw t No Text 1At �+,:rl�" � i'„�(�..�d. ♦,; .x a ,,"�y°j i � ins ,;,� �s � r",.. • � ♦ j.R � , �=,; ..�•`+! 4��"' t� � aft • ' { ry „i �, t/( �" T:. • x� I�N.X. ..'r t 1 �'} • } � .;e f"<. �, '� 7 p->,,' ter• ,� r x � � r �,+..�d', E- r �� Y 11 a r ♦� 3 �• � h rk ".. y r �'' � et1 � yd J ,r ta+LC en,. .;,� is •. ', dr.• S,ti( i' el yd r• tfs �: � �,: ,N = J�^`i . J i � �r�y pF: ,A��'� "1 •i� ,:j( r f "0 t {j r ��� F� `..'j ti t tyre ��. �� .i� �„ y- �..^ .�. � � ', � • ' Ael r�2 J� , 1 a f •t 1` TO •td*� ff � �( , �� • ` ram, R \i.. Pd t � $ `FSq i , , �4' .,} `' d �^ .'� ' t c"T!% I�+.'Yl��y' I jrt ♦ ♦. �. .,'� 1. r.. �, i 3 t' Pay' ...•r � � e ,- ♦ .�. iw ��+�^ ire ? 'x ,. J i i' � x 4 t No Text No Text No Text . S i%_°� � � '�"Il'� �3 ' lR � e'I „h -s� _ d� f° � ?, 11�K� {,,. �� i M� 4 � ♦ O k .• p _ i /,��+. ri '. ,•. -�• i� � _ 7T;� �� +# �; ter._,? x rZI- k ` � :a�•� a �+°•-� �iPs . - _yam �. �� � - -- Ir At • C :y. ...»• •• • I .1 n 6 C4P 0. Io- mW.ifmqAm t� ''yy j • r f Y k�4 � � .i . }, t j!Mi� '� , , • �'�a rim i `` ' ' � � `w +r + �► . . I 1:2 No Text No Text � ti., '`,.,,� F•. Q ham, � �� i� " .tt�" 5 41 it It .t. vo �� r• ►fir T ! t. IiFF .�',� Y�:. �, ij. 1�+� .� 7�'a .�+cam , •�t�� � k �7.�. �'" 4 MEN 04 ♦ / 1 F. ..z jr.4Ij -� 1 s]I f• y III j 4, s ` . u, •. Nk AM NOW III _.... `��;' � �'�1�,• �� � . aft i a� T Tt • ,w i q n , M � ^ riu� ►,` T � t� � � k� r No Text wpm 4 IV 1'- 7 c No Text A AAIV 7Tv L 3A ML i A%L 0 d6 No Text W.Sm 4 7 { ;/t 1 i♦ I t� r�x'vY'�s 1 ai r {{ r i ,e,• Y, 1 + ` No Text No Text MIDDLEBURY LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP BURLINGTON Peter F.Langrock Ellen Mercer Fallon WilliamB. Miller, Jr. James W. Swift Emily J. Joselson Mitchell L. Pearl Kevin E. Brown Frank H.Langrock Beth Robinson F. Rendol Barlow Devin McLaughlin Wanda Otero -Ziegler Erin E. Ruble January 3, 2008 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Partnership Including a Professional Corporation Ray Belair, Zoning. Administrator, City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 ' Michael W. Wool Mark L. Sperry Christopher L. Davis Thomas Z. Carlson Susan M. Murray Alison J. Bell Lisa B. Shelkrot Eric M. Knudsen David W. M• Conard Erin Miller Heins Hobart F. Popick Of Counsel: Thomas J. Sherrer Sarah Gentry Tischler REPLY TO: Burlington Office Re: Veve Associates, LLC'=Notice of Violation Dated. October '10, 2007,,Appeal Now . Pending.W.ith DRB -Proposed Cure, ; Dear Ray - In accordanc6.',vitli our discussion on December 11,. Veve, Associates, LLC wishes to propose to you the followirig"cures in connee'tioii with t e' above Notice of "V'iolatiori: 1. With respect to the clearing of approximately 40 feet on the north side of the property (Town Square line), Veve will plant by May 21, 2008 eight evenly spaced cedars a minimum of six feet high. 2. There are two "pocket" areas along the westerly side of the Dorset Commons property off the existing road. These have.ekisted, in a-graveied state, and have been in continuous use since 1977 or 1978..24 V.S.A. 4454(a) would therefore apply. Veve believes the addition of gravel to these areas constituted routine maintenance. However, the westerly six feet. of.one area, and the westerly fifteen feet of the other area, although continuously used since that time, were not so graveled. Veve will cover these six foot and fifteen foot areas.with mulch to a depth of six inches. 3.. You are yviih�rawing.the wiolafi6r 'related`to eiicroachrnerit Mtl in a wetland and wetland buffer without`a`zomng• permit: 4. This leaves about sixty feet of the road along the westerly side of the property which was widened in the middle .,section only.by between two to four feet. This road has always existed and been in continuous use siric .at ledst 1977-197$.. Again,.24rV,S.A 4454(a) would.apply to this use. Veve believes the widening by two to four feet in the middle area of"the 6 foot section M106LEBUiiY: I I IS. Pleasant Street • P.O. Drawer 351 • Middlebury, Vermont 05753.0351 (802) 388-6356 • Fax (802) 388.6149 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com `BUnINGTON: 210 College Street • P.O. Box 721 • Burlington, Vermont 05402.0721 '(802)'864'-0217 1 Fay,. @02) 864.0137 • Email: attorneys @langrock.com • Website: www.langrock.com Ray Belair January 3, 2008 Page 2 would be a "de minimus", extension under In re Scheiber, 168 Vt. 534, and, is at "a point where the violation is so insubstantial that it would be unjust and inequitable to require the removal - through a mandatory injunction" (Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 155 Vt. 126). Nevertheless, without waiver of this position Veve will also lay mulch, likewise to a depth of six inches, along the westerly edge of the road in the widened area. The above mulching will be done by May 15, 2008. Please let. me know if these cures are acceptable. Sincerely yours,. Veve Associates, LLC by Mark L. Sp y,.Esq. MLS:mns C: Ralph Veve 445331.2 ray From: Mark Sperry [msperry@langrock.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:27 PM To: ray Cc: Maralee Sanders; dorcom@sover.net Subject: Veve Dear Ray Ralph took down 5 white pines on the Town Square side. They were not doing well in that location, had become dried out and overhanging branches were beginning to fall down on vehicles. Please call is you have any questions. Mark Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 msperry@langrock.com (802) 864-0217 (Phone) (802) 864-0137 (Fax) Member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide were 12 - 14 feet tall. They were splitting and IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: This information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the use of those to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, or someone responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any disclosure, forwarding, copying, printing, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT: Please note that: e-mail is not a secure method of communication; any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers as it is transmitted; and, persons not participating in our communication may, intercept our e-mail communications. If you do not wish to receive communications from us by e-mail, please notify us immediately by calling 1-800-639-6356. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 14, 2008 Mark L. Sperry, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Veve Associates, LLC — Notice of Violation Dated Oct 10, 2007, Appeal Now Pending with DRB — Proposed Cure Dear Mr. Sperry: am writing in response to your letter of 1/3/08 proposing cures in connection with the above referenced Notice of Violation. I do not have jurisdiction to consider or approve alternative cures to the violations other than that which was listed in the Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation required as the remedial action, "restore the property to its original condition" within 7 days. The proposed cures listed in your letter propose changes to the site plan for the property, which only the Development Review Board may review and approve. If your client wishes to submit a revised site plan to the Development Review, please review Article 14.05 of the City Land Development Regulations for the list of application requirements. t . air Administrative Officer OKD - VT. FE 3018 ' OS/2O/2UO0 V �� Ext�trr�► Lbw&� -• �u�ldlr�ts •642,14 Lot Gov. [74,51 642,14 Opdw7 Pd*4V -- 62 dip dP \ `o / • . \Q3Odo as ��� O \ O,, �\\Arl ` % Town 6cpaw Assoc.. / \ \ ; 1000 ••► �,fo •\ :� \ � ,per • ,•• V co t • V-. ; ♦ E* � \ NIP it Con wvo&7m aid ♦ ♦ \.01,00�" C ARC; Re v8v-1�-i0E CIO \� � Pines Housing, L.P. \ 1 I \ 1 \ 1 ' 1 Veve ASSOC. l Lot D 0.60 Acres .o a 1 I`: J. Crobbe 1 V - 11 1 1 1 1 �%lying/ i Ea+e 1 1 1 1 Zoning Information l R- 7 District Max Building Coverage 20% Max Lot Coverage 40% Max Res, Density 7 units/acre _Legend Setbacks Front JO feet Hydrant Sides 15 feet Rear 30 feet — — — — Boundary Line PUD Perimeter JO feet — — — — — Easement Line Lot Coverage Ratios Existing Development — Buildings 56,201 sf = B.76% 640, 356 sf Lot Cov. 174,515 sf 640,.i56 7f = 27.J% Proposed Development— Buildings 62,J2J sf 666,492 sf = g,35% Lot Cov. ' 186,729 sf 666, 492 sf = 28. 0% Max. Residencial Density See Attachments. Parking Requirements Existing Parking Spaces (6 garages, 104 ports, 70 open) = 180 Spaces Proposed New Development (12 garages, 106 ports, 80 open) = 198 Spaces (18 Spaces Added) (Reds. - 2 sooces/unif + 1 saoces/4 units = 9) 1 Town Square Assoc. 1 /30' PUD Setbacks "I11 14.93 Acres IF Q `\ \ `\ \`• tom"" 5a' \ Cansol e,wllun NOTE: City of South Burlington 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR `1 �Ily[nf CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS & OTHER INFORMATION \ \ FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP \ \ \ LABELED "AS —BUILT/ FINAL PLAT k SITE PLAN" DATED 6/16/83. AND, CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET Stote of Vermont �� \ STREET ENTRANCE. ����\\\\ / o Is xs so too aoa AND, i GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED PRESSURE, \ \ MEtl. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. / AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. ` / IN FEET `` BAR SCALD r.sa-o 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Location Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School South Burlinqton High School December 3, 1996 Correction to Parking k Colcs. RFK 12-116 November 20. 1996 New Condo Footprint; Additional Parking Spaces RFK 11-21 July 3. 1996 1 Minor Correction To Plan. RFK 07-06 Veve Assoc. ' PaoteD 2 1 Le end Zoning Information J. Crobb 1 0,60 Acres ( I - — — —tea Stormwater Line R-7 District Max Building Coverage ZO% Max Lot Co veroge 40% m Stormwater Grate Max Res. Density 7 units/acre - t 1 Water Line Setbacks Front JO leaf Sides 15 feet Hydrant Rear JO feet PUD Perimeter JO feel Sewer Line I LotRatios oExstng Ie Electrical Line Demlopment - Buildings 56. 201 sf = 8.78R 640,356 s! I I I I I I Boundary Line 174.515 s/ = 27J% 640,356 sf I I I I Existing Culvert I Easement Line MaxResidenclal Density 1 I 1 14.93 Acres + tA60Acres - 108 units (104 Existing) All/awed unr s cre - 1IParking Requirements I Exist. Parking (6 Caroge, 104 ports, 70 open) I I I I I I I Town Square Assoc. Sweeney It • IIII' 14.93 AcresIt I State of Vermont I \ 7� NOTE: \ _ I. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2 FROM BOUNDJ HRIESTUAREASEMENTS T ASS CIATES SURVEY& OTHER OMA?TION LABELED "AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT &SITE PLAN" DATED \ \ \ �\ 8/i6/83. \ / AND, CITY OF SO, BURLINGTON MAPS OF NEW DORSET•- STREET ENTRANCE. AND, VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED MED, PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. \ \ / ` - / City of South Burling ton . AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. \ a 15 zs so 100 zoo \ / / N FEET BAR SCALE r-soy-o V s I 1 I I I I 1 I 180 Spaces 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 11 I 1 Protect Location N Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School South Burlington High School I Dec. 4, 1996 Minor Changes To Coics. RFK 12-6 July 7, 1995 Location Map Revised; Elect/Cos/Coble Removed; RFK 07-27 Back Rood & Calcs Revised; Easements Labels July 10. 1995 Adjacent Owners/ Location Mop. RFK 07/I1 May 30, 1995 AsBuIlts - Utilities Relocated/ Gas Line Added, RFK 05/30 19 May B. 95 AsBuilts - Parking Relocated. RFK 05/08 May 4, 1995 Condo Units Moved/ Garages Added. RFK 05/04 April 12. 1995 Legend & Additonal Units Added. RFK 04/12 April 05, 1995 Zoning Info/ Parcel p2 Added. RFK 04/5 Dec. 08,1994 Pkg. 0Condos Changed. RFK 12/8 Nov. 29, 1994 Condo Added/ Barscole Added. RFK 11/30 Nov. 14. 1994 Storage Reduction/Utilities Added, RFK 11/15 Nov. 10, 1994 Storage Spaces Added, RFK 11/10 _ Dale Revised I DescriD Non Checked Date CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 (802)846-4106 October 31, 2007 South Burlington School District 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an application for development that abuts property you own. This is being sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the proposed development. You will not receive this notice if any subsequent or continued public hearings for the same applications are required. Under Title 24, Section 4464 of State law, participation in a municipal regulatory proceeding is required in order to preserve your right to appeal a local development approval to the Vermont Environmental Court. State law specifies that"Participation in a local regulatory proceeding shall consist of offering, through oral or written testimony, a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding." If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call this office at 846-4106, ,stop by during regular office hours, or attend the schedule public hearing. Sincerely, Betsy McDonough Planning & Zoning Assistant Encl. web site: www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup by clicking on "District CQmmis- sion Cases" and entering the case number above. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 29th day of October, 2007. By: /s/ Peter E. Keibel Peter E. Keibel Natural Resources Board District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 T/ 802.879.5658 E/ Peter.keibel@state.vt.us ACT 250 NOTICE MINOR APPLICATION 10 V.S.A. H 6001-6092 On October 19, 2007, Den- nis Demers,. filed application #4C077OR-3A for a project gener- ally described as: the creation a two lot subdivision for construction of a single.family residence on each lot. The project is located on Bishop road in the Town of Shelburne, Vermont. CHARLOTTE PLANNING COMMIS- SION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Title 24 Chapter 117 V.S.A, and the Charlotte Land Use Regulations, the Charlotte Planning Commission will meet on Thursday November 15, 2007 at the Town Hatt to hear the follow- ing application: 7:05 PM Final Plan Hearing of a subdivision amendment by Sam & Priscilla Spear to a condition of Prior subdivision approval PC-OS- 53 to move an existing barn at 1501 Ferry Road. Application material can be viewed at the Planning and Zoning Office. Participation in the hear- ing is a prerequisite to the right to appeal any decision related to these applications. PUBLIC HEARING . SOUTH BURLINGMN DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development The District 4 Environmental Review Board will hold a public Commission will review this ap- hearing at the South Burlington plication under Act 250 Rule 51 - Minor Applications. Copies of the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, application and proposed permit Vermont on Tuesday, November 20, are available for review at the 2007 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the Shelburne Municipal Office, Chit- following: tenden County Regional Planning Commission located 1. Appeal #AO-07-04 at 30 Kimball of Veve Asso- Avenue, South Burlington, and the ciates, LLP appealing the issuance office listed below. The application of Notice of Violation #NV-04-18 and proposed permit may also be by the Administrative Officer for viewed on the Natural Resources zoning violations at 435 Dorset St. Board's web site (www.nrb.state. vt.us/lup) by clicking on "District 2• Conditional use permit applica- Commission Cases," selecting tion #CU-07-08 of Gary & Irene "Entire Database," and entering Bourne to convert 2850 sq. ft. of the case number above. space to social services use, 31 Swift St. No hearing will be held unless, on or before November 13, 2007, a party notifies the District Commis- sion of an issue or issues requiring the presentation of evidence at a hearing or the commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. Any hearing request shall be in writing to the address below, shall state the criteria or subcriteria at issue, why a hearing is required and what additional evidence will be presented at the hearing. Any hearingrequest by an adjoining property owner or other interestedperson must include a petition for party status. Prior to submitting a request for a hearing, please contact the dis- trict coordinator at the telephone number Listed below for more information. Prior to convening a hearing, the District Commission . must determine that substantive issues requiring a hearing have been raised. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be Prepared unless the Commission holds a public hearing. Should a hearing be held on this project and you have a disability for which you are going to need accommodation, please notify us by November 13, 2007. 3. Conditional use permit applica- tion #CU-07-09 of L.E. Farrell Co, Inc to change the use of a 94,900 sq. ft. manufacturing facility to warehousing, processing, storage & distribution use, 20 Karen Dr. 4. Preliminary plat applica- tion #SD-07-72 of Catamount/ Middlebury, LLC & JWJ Realty for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) a boundary line adjustment between 1785/1795 Shelburne Rd and 68 Nest! Drive, 2) expanding the parking lot for auto sales & service use on 1785/1795 Shelburne Rd, and 3) creating a new access for 68 Nesti Or through 1785/1795 Shelburne Road. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Ha Lt. October 31, 2007 PARCEL NO. 2: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr., by War- ranty Deed of Peter C. Holmberg and Marilyn D. Holmberg, dated April 7, 1995, and recorded at Book 84 Pages 553-554 Charlotte Land Records. PARCEL NO. 3: Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr., by War- ranty Deed of Peter C. Holmberg and Marilyn D. Holmberg, dated April 7, 1995, and recorded at Book 84 Pages 557-559 Charlotte Land Records. Nature of the Interest: Oil and Gas Lease from Henry Dike and Beatrice Dike to Peter Hender- son Oil Company dated September 28, 1957, and recorded at Book 27 Page 396 Charlotte Land Records. Name and Address of the Person Giving Notice Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. 286 Prindle Road Charlotte, Vermont 05445 It is presumed that the above Oil and Gas Leases are abandoned. Dated a Vergennes, Vermont, this 29th day of October, 2007. Submitted by: Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr. PUBLIC NOTICE VERMONT STATE HOUSING AU- THORITY Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA) wilt be closing its waiting list for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program at 4:30 p.m. on October 31, 2007, except that applications wilt continue to be accepted from individuals applying to the Section 8 Project - Based program, and individuals applying to the Section 8 Family Unification program. This Notice is provided in accor- dance with VSHAs Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which mandates the agency provide a thirty (30) day notice prior to closing the list. 802-828-3295 (Voice); 800-798-3118 (TTY); 800- 820-5119 (Messages) VSHA will provide free interpreta- tion services to clients who have Limited English Proficiency. Equal Housing Opportunity STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET No. S0045-07 CnC Ameriquest Mortgage Company, as the Company and Servicer in trust for the Purchaser and various Mortgagors, Fixed and Adjusted Rate Mortgage Loans, CitiGroup mortgage the undersigned is the present holder, for breach of the conditions of said mortgage and for the purposes of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auc- tion at 11:00 A.M. on November 7, 2007, at 38 Maple Street, Essex Junction, Vermont all and singular "thepremises described in said mortgage: To Wit: Being all and the same land and Premises conveyed to Simon Btucher and Catherine Blucher by Warranty Deed of Sandra Lane dated May 16, 2006 and recorded in Volume 686 at Page 639-640 of the Land Records of the Town of Essex. Terms of Sale: $10,000.00 to be paid in cash by purchaser at the time of sale, with the balance due at closing. Proof of financing for the balance of the purchase to be provided at the time of sale. The sale is subject to taxes due and owing to the Town of Essex Junction. Other terms to be announced at the sate or inquire at Lobe & Fortin, 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306, South Burlington, VT 05403, 802 660-9000. Ameriquest Mortgage Company By: Joshua B. Lobe, Esq. Lobe & Fortin, PLC 30 Kimball Ave., Ste. 306 South Burlington, VT 05403 STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. CHTiTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. S946-07CnC Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Plaintiff Jessica T. Lacey, Dean R. Lacey, Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB And Occupants residing at 7052 Main Road, Huntington, Vermont, Defendants SUMMONS & ORDER FOR PUBLICA- TION TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: Jessica T. Lacey and Dean R. Lacey sucn uaim in any other a, YOUR ANSWER MUST STATI A COUNTERCLAIM WHETHE NOT THE RELIEF DEMANDE THE COMPLAINT IS FOR DI AGE COVERED BY A LIABIL INSURANCE POLICY UNDEF THE INSURER HAS THE RI( OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT' DEFENSE. If you believe tf Plaintiff is not entitled to Part off the claim set forth Complaint, or if you belie You have a Counterclaim a the plaintiff, you may will consult an attorney. If yoL that you cannot afford to attorney's fee, you may asl clerk of the Court for infor about places where you m; legal assistance. Plaintiffs action is a Comr in Foreclosure which allege you have breached the ten a Promissory Note and Mor Deed dated November 14, Plaintiffs action may effec interest in the property de! in the Land Records of the of Huntington at Volume 8 Page 626. The Complaint al seeks relief on the Promiss, Note executed by you. A cc the Complaint is on file am be obtained at the Office o Clerk of the Superior Court County of Chittenden, Stag Vermont. It appearing from Affidavit filed in the above entitled that service cannot be mad with due diligence by any ( methods prescribed in V.R.I 4(d) through (f) inclusive, hereby ORDERED that servi( the above process shalt be upon defendants, Jessica T. and Dean R. Lacey by publi pursuant to V.R.C.P. 4(g). T der shall be published once for three consecutive weeks 10/2.4/07, 10/31/07 and 1 in the Seven Days Newspap copyof this Order shall be i to defendants at their addn their address is known. Dated at Burlington, Vermo 15th day of October, 2007. Hon. Matthew I. Katz Presiding Judge Chittenden Superior Court DON'T SEE A SUPPORT grou that meets your needs? Call mont 2-1-1, a program of Ui Way of Vermont. Within Verr dial 2-1-1 or 866-652-4636 free} or from outside of tVerr 802-6524636. Monday-ft; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. D 4 4 Zoning Information R— 7 Dislri'ct Max Building Coverage 20X Mox Lot Coverage 40X Max Res. Density 7 units/acre Setbacks front JO feet Sides 15 feet Rear JO feet PUD Perimeter JO feet Lot Coverage Ratios Existing Development — 8uildings 56,201 s! ' 640,J56 sf Lot Coe 174,515 sf 640,J56 st Proposed Development— Buildings 61,J1J sf 666,492 sf Lot Cov. 186,729 sf 666,492 sr = 8.78Z legend Hydrant - - — Boundary Line — — — - Easement Line Max. Residential Density See Attachments. Parking Requirements Existing Parking Spoces (6 garages, 104 ports, 70 open) a 180 Spaces Proposed New Development (12 garages, 106 ports, 80 open) = 196 Spaces (18 Spaces Added) (Reps. - 2 spaces/unit 4 1 saacesA units = 9) Pines Housing, L.P. 1 It} 1 1 1 Veve Assoc. Lot D 1 0.60 Acres fq .o o ;o J, Crobbe 11 1 11 1 ` 1 +o' 1 Etiwo9/ 1 1 tm 1 1 (2) New,F 1 1 1 N /R 1111 11 Sweeney �� `1 \ \ i NOTE; ..... \�\ "I ON City of South Buriinaton 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR ~\ `1eYMI CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. \ ta+ 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS k OTHER INFORMATION \ \ \ \ FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP LABELED 'AS —BUILT/ FINAL PLAT k SITE PLAN' DATED 8/16/83. \ AND, CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET Stote of Vermont STREET ENTRANCE. \ / 0 Is 25 so 100 200 AND, VERMONT CAS SYSTEMS PLANS. LABELED MEO. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90.. AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. IN FEET BAR SCALS rs0-o Project Location Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School South Burlington High School December 3, 1996 Correction to Parking k Calcs. RFK 12-06 November 20, 1996 New Cando Footprint; Additional Parking Spaces RFK 11-21 July 3. 1996 Minor Correction To Pion. I RFK 07-06 - .,..-.:a ..: ,: , ...,, s., , .a' •«.n,...:.r� v.• v.. , s • .; . d .. a .:�'.,. a - •^''3'�yam'. A?b'!L:F '9¢'x7, ^` $ ,;s l�F}#^p..�rmr w4"t = .0;.•:•++-�....:k•..e» ..R. f,M 3:.._ .fit .�!!:-»..+Ew Sx'kk ;8 .. 5..-,a^s,+, $�. S,js .`:"'a, �..; ,.€. 'i�'�. ;" - � � ..� . -•h .. �; ., ar .�!4r..-�-:'� .•�- �.:' .,.r.•$.�A•e.. , y_is :r.li. `rr �+i#aa.•2' .., x f'- r :� s •; S ....,, �•�, - ,..•:t.__ 5..+.... s::�i- S . �.._�w . :.': ,.- r...:.,. ... i'i' ,;. Ss -" , ,�: M .. �'[�+vE.�,�. '.. ..a. %.. _X'< "�'"��"s�* .- x` i i 2^�';a/� F;�"• _'v€.� .�"� t ; #..,. �a : -i c .�`� .�;. �-r�'�:�+'^..r,•raac�sa< _.i+'' .. '"' ,�, - �Z��M� ... y•' .� gg-..�..,. wv'"..r .:53 .y4 7,..xw-,�(,,�int� ..,.+..Y+s- .,...w� _....� .. m, .3 f •:rK' .�"jx'#'. �E,--.�2 „P. !YF ,:X. 'k`','-. f., n' , x •:: y �E••�+ .: t r!,'! ae ,,.. 5��.:w;.fj4.'! :,�r,". "a ..'t. �;sl?9""-, a•yy.'w,' '� :'ri �'....�. P++f rt �5.�?! :i �4 t. 5 _px &.�"` ,:,, •: �: �-.:•., :'�` " #+�. ^� a`a. '; s+> ,r7,k'` ,.r • 04•',.,.:s. �`•ia �.`:i:w ;;Y'�Sc-..s.',«K� �;yR.p`,,,., .�• k '�i"7. ,••�.� t.�' ia'•r'fe'. .r'a .>we.>�•!r,- �"t t'-S.syba..+�l�tiyz `i.,. a•�• � �tlx;.�••, c.- :,r.�f .d. �o.,: o'er, :,ny,. 'tii �.. .4�.+`<- .r ,:B IVc -:9,- -�... � ,.5. -,d°! I. ~i i=�vi�; '3' '!•�.. '� f--� � }r7Jt "'t• -' _ J :�.,•:� '... r .,.. r '.. v • .$, t:, -- - � .c 1.� a+�w'Mr '#'�-ty �`'�-.f''9 ':?;. t3a.3' ;'"< 'F�n i; .t r 4 id � Y*' ':1 �''. -^{�. .9: 4,A -:le A. 'S♦ .i i•+w• f 1 ' ,3 :; x ,,,..i.,•s '.t. 'r.. ri .AiY �t.•a-...,,i£n� ,x.s�+�:�',. _�!4,a�..�'4 ':,::"k,t'E;'''. E.•> %,�e '.a - .j'- .�. =T..�-• .�.1..:: -i-tt - ,rr ,.. 't i•p ::YY' i. ...Aew,a..'.+,• , -. �,A, ,•} i$ � - N.l f _. ` .:5;:!w.._ .b.. .f'�S;l -S} }CZ3 .��+ ..�� �i"'_ ��r r'.ia. '* -!. °�` .4 £^ v•.'.w .-`w _ .y r•3 �^a�. Y'• .w,..-�i'ti s.. �..-.. �.. +.+t.�` N <�. .,.r 1?�&- a..,.q3 �, r,...: �'.�• �P .. l� �t �r ,a�,.;.. .a:._, .. •.v'?s.,i •M:.��%W r,w, .Y`.�c.. .fa �: 3 ':.+-.i. _::i:.:,:..;-;u;>, .LT':...:_' [ _Y I' .R. t• i t M - ..,....N ? � J s�.� .i.AP---�t..� t. y , t . - ::�' 1 � v v n y .J " 1' 3'�,. �.s ,�9 �,�. { ,y a ":. %'9r-+: Susr+w• r ;t •FA jp` •+.ar. t..sr T.. .. - +w _-�'� a+^ �.:k si � X& ��� � r . I,� • _ ,fix v .. � �.�E.� ,:a'"��'. y.: t ' ". �'RMRwl6+••M ow 71, TDCA r; Lb r jaiI tri; 4.Ix 1�_� q (61 -it L Abutting Property Owners State of Vermont Agency of Transportation National Life Bldg., Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 Jeffrey Guyette and Deborah Wehrlin 119 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Oakwood Homeowners Association c/o Ryan J. Daley, Director 124 Oakwood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Town Square Condominium Association c/o Martha Lyons, Director 425 Dorset Street, Condo #8 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington School District South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 440849.1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 10, 2007 Veve Associates, LLC c/o Eugene Ward, Registered Agent 3069 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation — 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Ward: omb, F A Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a zoning permit from the City as required by Section 17.02 of the Land Development Regulations and 24 VSA 4449 (a) (1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property. Altered the existing approved site plan by removing vegetation and removing and placing fill in several areas on the property without a zoning permit. Encroached within a wetland and wetland buffer without a zoning permit. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Restore the property to its original condition. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceedings, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to $100.00 per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the (amity pursues �eS further enforcement proceedings. 1ui;5iui 14:4u 11A1 802 863 4587 Ward & Babb I U 004 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 ��lNll3iT !3 . I Application #AO - U _ NOTICE OF APPEAL All information requested below must be completed in full. Failure to provide the - requested information on this notice will! result in rejection of your application and delay--- -- in the review of the appeal before the Development Review Board. understand: • the presentation procedures regbired by State Law. (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act); • that the Development Review Board holds regular meetings twice a month; • that a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on my appeal. i • 1 agree to pay a fee of $111 to offset the cost of the hearing on my appeal. 1), NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPELLANT(S). Veve Associates, LLP, c/o Raphael Veve, P.O. Box 2361, S. Burlington, VT 05407 2) LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL: Dorset Commons Apartment.building!on Dorset Street . 3) WHAT ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ARE YOU APPEALING? Notice of Violation dated Octoberj10, 2007 r ,o /35/07 14:40 FAX 802 863 4587 Ward & Babb Z 005 4) WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, IF ANY? Section 17.02(a) - no zoning permit required for maintenance a�r;�;ries 5)'WHAT RELIEF DO YOU WANT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO GRANT? R.eVersal`of decision of Administrative�officer'issuing Notice of -Violation 6) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN NUMBER 5, ABOVE,_ IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? The term "land development" does not include routine mainten nep a(Itivities 7) LIST ABUTTERS (LIST ON.A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL). See attached list I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this notice of appeal has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Il�L citG., SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT 1�i2�I0� DATE -2- 10/15/07 14:40 FAX 802 863 4587 Ward &Babb 191006 i Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: 1 REVIEW AUTHORITY: I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal and find it to be: Complete Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date -3- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 December 28, 2004 Ralph Veve Veve Associates PO Box 2361 South Burlington, VT 05407 Re: Design Review Application #DR-04-12 Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 12/21/04 (effective 12/27/04). If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Betsy Mc onough Administrative Assistant Encl. Permit Number DR - CITY OF SOUTH BURRING ON APPLICAT70N FOR DESIGN REVIEW .AJI information requested 'on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on required design plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. 1) Approval is being sought for (check all that apply): Design Plan Approval El Sign Design Approval 2) OWNER OF RECORD (Name as shown on deed, mailing address, phoneand fax # (:, 3) A-PPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fw.-4) 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 6) TAX PARCEL ED 9 (can be obtained at Assessors Office) J 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief description of the improvement. I or modification for which design review approval is being sought. If sign design approval is being sought, provide a description of the sign(s) type, size and height. 1 N6�X, rT -Y the information -listed on Exhibit A attached snail be submitted along with this application form. FiVQ (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (I I " x 17") of all required plans and drawings (e.g. - site plan, buliding elevations, sign details) must be submitted. 1 hereby Certify that all the -information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. 'V t�"9N_ S1 GNATURE OF APPtICA-NT SIGNATURE OF LATND/BUV_D&TG OWINTER Do not write below -this line DATE OF SUBMSSION: I have reviewed this design review application and find it to be: 0 Complete El Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoningor Designee Date City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 18, 1998 Mr. Rafael Veve Jr. P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Veve: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a six (6) month extension on your zoning variance approved February 24, 1997. This extension will expire on February 28, 1998. South Burlington has no provisions for any extensions greater than 6 months. You are permitted to apply for a zoning permit (before 2/28/98) which would have a six (6) month expiration period. All conditions of your approvals and impact fees must be addressed. Without a permit, you have the option; of reapplying for new approvals. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp ass0eiales City of South Burlington c/o Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT, 05403 RE: Request for extension Zoning Variance Granted Feb. 24,1997 February 16,1998 Dear Mr. Ward, W e are still continuing our preparations for the construction of two duplexes at 435 Dorset Commons Apartments. These four units had been granted a zoning variance approval on February 24,1997. Could you please grant us an additional extension under section 27.302 of Article XXVII of your Zoning Regulations. We are still experiencing engineering and financial delays. Thank you for considering this request. P.0 Boz 2361 Sincere y, R ev lij'. jrJ 3o. Burlington Vorinont 05407 8 0 2 - 8 6 4 - 7 7 6 6 77 VEVE a s s o ( i a t e s City of So. Burlington c/o Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator July 25, 1997 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT, 05403 RE: Request for extension Zoning Variance Granted Feb. 24, 1997 Dear Mr. Ward, W e are diligently continuing our site plan preparations for the construction of two duplexes at 435 Dorset Commons Apartments. These four units had been granted a zoning variance approval on February 24, 1997. We proceeded to be heard by planning during a positive schetch plan hearing and are poised to be heard on a single preliminary and final plat review. In getting everything ready for this stage we have incurred engineering and site plan delays due to the minor repositioning of these buildings. Essentially nothing has change exept for the building orientation and site distances from each other. Could you please grant us an extention under section 27.302 of Article XXVII of your Zonning Regulations since the approval has yet to expire and we have experienced engineering delays that have been out of our control. Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to a positive response. 2 36 1 S 0: _ B u r Ii n g I o.n Ve,rm on t 0 5 4 0 7- 8 0 2- 8 64 7 76 6 1) VEVE ASSOCIATES - RAFAEL VEVE, 435 DORSET STREET Area in question zoned R-7 District. Section 25.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements. Maximum density, 107 units (15.3A.x 7 = 107 (units). Existing density, 105 units. Proposed density, 109 units, construct additional 4 units. NOTE: Variance granted April 1984, constructed a 28'x 48' maintenance/operational building with a second story dwelling unit. Application proposed to add Lot D (100'x 120' = 12,000 square feet) which would increase density. Total lot area of the Dorset Commons to include lot D is 15.3 acres. Variance granted 10/23/95 for same request (attached are findings of fact). No permits for construction were requested within 6 months, therefore approval expired. Veve Associates Dorset Common Apts. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 February 24,1997 To: Zoning Board of Adjustment Fr: Ralph Veve Re: Extension of zoning variance This Board approved the variance last year. There were no known changes since that approval. We have worked with diligence to complete this project and have not yet finalized the planning phase. This is expected imminently. We respectfully request a extension of variance as everything is being done to move the project forwards. Best RI gards, 1 Ralp `Veve RV\mab Fd\c:\wpdocs\vcve0224 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 10, 1997 Rafael Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05430 Re: Zoning Application Dear Mr. Ralph: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, February 24, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this hearing and be prepared to address the enclosed review criteria. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, - Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp 1 Encl SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Reggulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, February 24, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. to consider the following: #1 Appeal of Veve Asso- ciates, Rafael Veve seek- ing a variance from Sec- tion 25.00 Density requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to con- struct an additional four (4) residential units at Dorset Commons for a total density of 109 units on a parcel of land con- taining 15.3 acres, lo- cated at 435 Dorset Street. #2 Appeal of Linwood D. Abott seeking approval from Section 25.117 al- terations of existin ggrades sub -section (Al filling with earth products of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to fill an area of approxi- mately 800 square feet (approximately 1800 cubic yards) at a maxi- mum depth of fifty (50) feet, located at 72 Cen- tral Avenue. #3 Appeal of James J. Dunn seeking approval from Section 25.117 Al- terations of existin grades sub -section (AI filling with earth products of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Re- quest is for permission to fill an area of approxi- mately 1000 square feet (approximately 750 cubic yards) at a maximum depth of twenty-three (23) feet, located at 66 Central Avenue. Plans are on file with the South Burlington Plan- ning and Zoning Office, located at City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer February 8, 1997 City of South Burlington -Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # Date I I a 8. 61, rl Applicant \JCie_ 1-� �_ o,,ry-k-es Owner, leasee, agent Address ?0 i3ox 2"ICek } „ Yij f 1, � i Landowner HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Telephone # ' i Gq-'7'"I(e�p Address 5n uyt 1 1 Location and description of property ,; �4, 1�ar�et `'-�`' ; �► (�n,,.,„„r,�. Type of application check one: ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer ( ) request for a conditional use (,-.)-'request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal 1 (.. i\� IDCY serf- C omn7ons 4 pl . (' "A_ 0ke x C-isr_c<.r►�A yr '101 � I C+� The following documents are submitted in support of the application: Hearing Date Signat Do not write below this -line lant --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on &11 Day of Week 41 U( ?.� 4/11,f at to consider the following: Month and Date` Time PP d seeking a from Section City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # Date i 1 a 8. Cf'r'J Applicant -_� eel Owner, leasee, agent HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address �� 13ox Z3(et :�}� ( , 1 Telephone # J6 Le`-r - �" (, Landowner Address Pn AD)c2',co i n RUYN , 4 i Location and description of property Type of application check one: ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer ( ) request for a conditional use (,_ )-request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question VG t&nr t . nor+ uo aS.DC� 1 �n��11+ lc Reason for appeal uc�-rse_-t- c clmr►-ions . Corn- ply-,4 cis. teas-�-t r�lL cry The following documents afe submitted in support of the application: Hearing Date Signatgr1p b�,�pollant Do not write below this "line --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on;', Day of Week aet,4 7, V" / l at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of / r seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to WAr SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Mu- nicipal Offices, Confer- ence Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, Sep- tember 11, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. to consider the fol- lowing: Appeal of Veve Asso- ciates, Rafael Veve seek- ing a variance from Section 25.00 Density re- quirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regula- tions. Request is for per- mission to construct an additional four (4) resi- dential units at Dorset Commons for a total den- I sity of 109 units on a Parcel of land containing 15.3 acres, located at 43g Dorset Street. I Plans are on file with the South Burlington Planning ' and Zoning Office, lo- cated at City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Bur- lington, Vermont. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Of- ficer August 26, 1995 I City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 August 28, 1995 Mr. Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Zoning Appeal Dear Mr. Veve: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Be advised that the South Burlington Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, on Monday, September 11, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. to consider your application for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting and be prepared to address the enclosed review criteria. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very t uly, lie Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp Encl October 23, 1995 South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Dorset Commons To the Zoning and Planning Commission: Background First, the Dorset Commons property will not be used for the elderly parking. They were able to make other arrangements. Please see the attached fact sheet and argument. Second, we want to pursue our appeal to obtain a variance. Here is our logic • Parcel D is sized to allow four units. • The shape and topography are not ideal for that development. • If, due to other factors, the lots are combined, the four additional units are reduced to two. So, therefore we are asking for a variance to allow the development to proceed. 1. Allow the two lots to be combined 2. Allow four additional units to be constructed in the optimum location We respectfully request a variance due to a hardship that complies with the variance regulations be approved. Thank RV/me aAveve\zoni1023 Fact Sheet Dorset Commons Apartments To the Zoning and Planning Commission: The position is: 1 We own a parcel of land suitable, under zoning, for four units. 2 We would like that density approved and accepted. We would like to be allowed to merge that lot and density with the existing Dorset Commons. 3 We would then, technically, be in variance as a combined parcel, but ok if the density was previously accepted. 4 We would then go to the Planning Commission to develop the optimum site plan for the approved density. 5 We can't combine lots without the variance as we lose two lots. This is why we need zoning approval prior to planning. Done this way and in sequence, I hope you can see that the laws are all complied with and the best final product is achieved. The question, since all of this properly phased and timed plan is completely legal, is how do we get the optimum plan. a:veve\1018sb1t South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment Argument on Presentation Requirements Veve Associates of South Burlington 1. Lot D, from which the proposed density transfer would come from, has its own unique physical circumstances; Lot D has a very irregular shape with an easement for Oakwood Drive taking up the long, narrow portion on the West side of the property. The lot size, though it is possible, becomes very dense with the addition of the allowed four units placed there. The use of the adjacent parcel will allow conformity to the Zoning regulations. This is an essential point. The unique physical circumstances of Dorset Commons is due in part by the "taking" of land at the Dorset Street side of the property, drainage areas and the 150' Conservation and Open Space area on the rear of the property; this does not allow for complete potential use by the applicant. 2. The Zoning regulations cannot be strictly adhered, hence the density transfer issue is the least significant variance. The use of Lot D with the four units does not allow for strict adherence to the regulations. The requested variance is therefore necessary to enable the applicant to reasonably use the property's potential. 3. The unnecessary hardship was not created by the applicant; the property's density transfer has become a necessity to allow the appropriate development of the combined lots. 4. The requested variance will not alter the characteristic of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. The proposed use has been planned to blend into the existing Dorset Commons property, matching the existing open space and off-street parking as much as possible. Also this would eliminate any harmful effect(s) that might be caused to the Oakwood Drive neighborhood from increased traffic, lights, etc., were the four units to be built there. 5. The requested variance will represent the minimum variance needed to afford relief and represents the least possible modification to the zoning regulations and of the plan. The zoning regulations allows for a possible four unit density on Lot D to be transferred directly to the combined lots; no further units, expect those allowed by code, are being asked for. All other zoning regulations, including setbacks, etc., are to be strictly adhered to when the project is built out. a:veve\1023zoni.var VEVE asso(iales September 22, 1995 South Burlington Zoning Board Attn: Dick Ward 575 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Zoning Variance Lot D Dear Dick, We have completed in writing the answers to the five criteria. However, we don't think our lawyer can finish his opinion, as requested for Monday's meeting. This being the case, could you put us on the following meeting's agenda. Thank you for your attention. Since , el F. Veve Jr. 8ox 7361 so. RurIinglon Vermont 05407 802-864_?766 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 11. 1995 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, September 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Fred Blais, Chairman; Dennis Johnson, Dan King, Lance Llewellyn, Mary Anne Murray, Maureen O'Brien, Joseph Randazzo Others Present Rafael Veve, Mildred Estey, Madeline Yandow, Charlie Brush, George Chamberland (The Other Paper), Richard Ward (Zoning Adminstrator) Mr. Blais swore in the appellant and members of the audience who might wish to speak to the appeal, then read the warning. 11 - Appeal of Veve Associates Rafael Veve seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Density requirements. Request is for permission to construct an additional four (4) residential units at Dorset Commons for a total density of 109 units on a parcel of land containing 15.3 acres, located at 435 Dorset Street. Mr. Ward informed the Board the area in question is zoned R- 7 District. Section 25.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements. Maximum density, 107 units (15.3A. x 7 = 107 units). Existing density, 105 units. Proposed density, 109 units, construct additional 4 units. Note: Variance granted April 1984, constructed a 28' x 48' maintenance/operational building with a second story dwelling unit. Applicant proposed to add Lot D (100' x 120' = 12,000 square feet) which would increase density, Lot D to be leased to the Pines Housing for parking (approved August 26, 1995 by Z.B.A.). Total lot area of the Dorset Commons to include Lot D is 15.3 acres. Mr. Ward added that the proposal is to build an additional two buildings of two units each. Mr. Johnson asked how Lot D can be counted with Dorset Commons if it's being counted with Pines Housing. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Veve is the owner of Dorset Commons (14.7 acres) and Lot D, even though he has leased off a portion of that lot. Mr. Blais suggested that since the land wasn't conveyed for the purpose of increasing the density of an adjoining parcel it can be counted as part of the owner's ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 2 property. Mr. Ward said that is the question the Board must decide. Ms. Murray asked whether Lot D is about .6 acres; Mr. Veve said it is .594 acres. Mr. Llewellyn wanted to know the rationale for requesting 109 units when only 107 are allowed. Ms. Murray questioned the details of the 1984 variance. Mr. Ward said the high number would have been 104.7 units; the applicant requested rounding it out to 105 plus a maintenance building. Mr. Llewellyn said the applicant has now lost some property. Rafael Veve said his original plan would not have involved application for a variance, because he was going to put four units on Lot D, which would have been permitted. He said he has a right-of-way with Pines Housing to enter through their parking lot, and he would block off access to Oakwood Drive except for emergency vehicles. Mr. Veve said he changed his plan when the senior center grant came about and Charlie Brush of Pines Housing asked him to move his four units further south so as to solve the parking problem created by the planned senior center. He said the Planning Commission looks pretty favorably on his appeal if he can get Zoning Board approval. Mr. Veve said that he is less short on acreage now with 15.3 total acres than he was when the 1984 variance was granted. He said he believes in the senior center, otherwise he could build in the northerly portion of his property. When the units are moved south it creates a problem of interpretation as to linkage of his two properties, he said. Mr. Veve said it is necessary for him to have four units; two or three are not sufficient. He said the senior center won't be built if, Pines Housing can't lease a portion of Lot D because Pines doesn't want to destroy green space by surrounding the building with asphalt for the additional parking. Mr. Veve suggested that since he's short very little on acreage, the greater benefit to the City is the creation of a senior center. Mr. Randazzo asked Mr. Veve to address the variance criteria. Mr. Veve said as to 1., that the lot size is too small for the four units. He asked the Board to consider his two properties as linked. Several Board members disagreed. Mr. Veve said the properties are linked because they are under the same ownership. Mr. Blais said even if there was no question about who uses Lot D and it was considered one property with Dorset Commons, density requirements allow only 107.1 units on 15.3 acres. Mr. Veve said the building permitted by the 1984 variance is ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 3 grandfathered; Mr. Johnson and Mr. Blais disagreed. Mr. Johnson said the maintenance building should be counted toward coverage. Mr. Veve said he currently has 105 units total, including the maintenance building. Mr. Blais asked how Mr. Veve would argue for 109 units, irrespective of the question of Lot D. Mr. Veve said he looks at his request as being for 108 units, because of the one granted by the 1984 variance. Mr. Johnson said why not build two additional units instead of four. Mr. Veve said he needed four for economic reasons, having lost a lot of money over right-of-way legal battles. Mr. King asked whether Mr. Veve would say he needs four because fewer would create a financial hardship; Mr. Veve said yes. Mr. King directed his attention to variance criteria 3. re hardship. Mr. Veve said the hardship is sociological because the community's need for a senior center puts a burden on him. Mr. King said the criteria are a legal matter and he can't get by 1. and 3. Mr. Randazzo said he was bothered by the implied threat in connecting the senior center with this appeal; each must be evaluated on its own merits. Mr. Veve said his appeal does not exist in a vaccuum and there is a higher order to be considered. Mr. Blais said the Board should not be hearing this kind of testimony about an adjoining property and asked Mr. Veve to address the criteria without reference to the senior center project. Mr. Veve said the pressure on him to cooperate with the senior center project is the only reason he came before the Board, and he must go beyond the usual rules and regulations for the good of the City. He added that the rubber band stretches but does not break. Mr. Blais said Mr. Veve had been a good neighbor and his development generally has been an asset to the City Center concept, but the Board must find that there is a rationale to grant his appeal that is not economically based. He said he was comfortable with counting Lot D as part of Mr. Veve's acreage but not persuaded that 109 units should be approved when 107 are allowed. Charlie Brush of Pines Housing added supportive testimony, saying that Mr. Veve has an existing 105 units, to which he is entitled. If you add Lot D with .594 acres, that will support four units on its own, he said. Mr. Brush said if the Board refuses approval to build four units, isn't it taking away Mr. Veve's previous variance because he has leased Lot D? Mr. Brush said that would be holding Mr. Veve to a higher standard than previously existed. Mr. Veve said the Planning Commission had given him a break on parking ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 4 requirements because of new criteria affecting an already - existing situation. Mr. Brush said the Planning Commission had been reasonable in not taking away what Mr. Veve already had, and the request for four additional units is the same type of situation. Mr. Ward said the comparison doesn't equate because only 107 units are permitted for 15.3 acres. Mr. King agreed that those are the rules. Mr. Randazzo said you can't count Lot D's acreage toward supporting both new units for Dorset Commons and parking for Pines Housing; that would be overcoverage. Mr. Brush said there is no double-dipping going on; Mr. Veve is merely selling him the use of some parking spaces. He said Mr. Veve is not even close to maximum coverage. Mr. Llewellyn said he would like a legal opinion on whether you can call this two separate parcels and move density from one to another. He said the applicant wants the Board to see the property as two parcels for some purposes and all one for others, and suggested that the original variance disappears if the properties are combined. Mr. King said he agreed. Mr. Llewellyn said he didn't think the two lots can legally be combined. Mr. Johnson wondered whether the density transfer rule used in the Southeast Quadrant might be applicable here and decided it was not. Mr. Blais said the question was whether the existing parcel, prior to the acquisition of Lot D and as varianced in 1984, can be left unaffected and the Board separately consider a new appeal for further building by the same landowner on a different parcel of land. Mr. Johnson said the 1984 variance violated density requirements by very little. He said if the two parcels are combined 108.045 units would be permitted, which is not much less than the requested 109. Mr. Ward said only 107 units would be permitted on the total acreage. He added that Mr. Veve doesn't have Planning Commission approval to put four units on Lot D. Mr. Blais said he wanted an opinion from the City Attorney on his previously -stated question. Mr. Ward said Mr. Veve was asking for a variance on top of a variance, and it can't be done. He said the old variance is disturbed by the new appeal, since circumstances change due to losing some land and gaining other land, alterations in zoning bylaws and other factors. Mr. Ward said Mr. Veve would need to go before the Planning Commission to develop Lot D; if he is going to merge his two parcels, that's another issue. Mr. Blais asked whether the grandfathered provision gets lost ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 5 from the original variance when the appellant asks for a modification; Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Blais suggested a continuance for the purpose of consulting the City Attorney. Mr. Ward said the burden of obtaining legal counsel would be on the applicant, and it could then be reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Veve had questions about the interaction between his own lawyer and the one for the City. Mr. Brush was concerned about the effect of a delay on meeting the grant deadline and said he is only leasing about half of Lot D, or 12,000 square feet. Mr. Blais offered Mr. Veve a continuance to consult his own attorney in order not to risk losing any rights created by the original variance. Mr. Blais then polled the Board to get a sense of where members stood: Mr. Johnson and Ms. O'Brien said they had no problem with the appeal while Ms. Murray, Mr. Randazzo, Mr. King and Mr. Llewellyn had various concerns and objections, the consensus being that legal advice was necessary. Mr. Llewellyn suggested that Mr. Veve should be given the exact question the Board will be taking to the City Attorney so that his own lawyer can address it. Mr. Blais stated the question as follows: The Board requires a legal opinion on whether or not the variance as grandfathered on the original parcel may remain intact and unaltered by the new request for the development of four units on an adjoining parcel by the same landowner. Mr. Johnson said his figures showed that if the two parcels are legally permitted to be combined, 108 units would be allowable. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Veve would have to do some legal work to combine the parcels. There was some discussion about how Mr. Johnson did the math. Mr. Blais called a 5-minute recess for the purpose of obtaining a calculator. Using the square footage numbers on the map, a figure of 107.35 units was obtained. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the percent of variance for 109 units would then be 1.54. Mr. Blais said the question of a continuance remained. Mr. Veve stated he wished to request the continuance. Mr. Llewellyn proposed an additional question: If an owner owns two contiguous properties and wants to dissolve the property line to merge them, how is the density figured? Mr. Blais and Mr. Randazzo pointed out that the 5 Criteria still need to be answered, even after the legality of the ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 6 request for 107 units is established. Mr. Llewellyn asked whether the application could proceed without dissolving the lot lines. Mr. Veve said there were financial considerations involved that required him to keep the two parcels separate entities. Maureen O'Brien moved to continue the appeal for the pur2gse of obtaining an answer to the aforementioned question. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and all voted aye. Other Business Ms. O'Brien said it had been brought to her attention that a daycare on Barrett Street, approved by the Board a couple of years ago, has been expanded by the owner buying the next - door house and running a daycare center there as well, with a fence enclosing both properties. Mr. Ward said anyone in a residential district is allowed to offer daycare for as many as six children. Ms. O'Brien said that she had received a complaint about a second -story deck at 151 Hayes Avenue being built too close to the property line. Mr. Ward said he would look into it. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about a portable sign in front of Club Fantasy and asked if it was legal. Mr. Ward said the use of the sign to advertise Club Fantasy was over and he would not be pursuing it. Dennis Johnson moved to accent the minutes and the findings of fact of August 28, 1995. This was seconded by Ms. O'Brien and all voted aye. Dan King moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. O'Brien seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment A G E N D A South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont Meeting @7:00 P.M. September 11, 1995 1) Appeal of Veve Associates, Rafael Veve seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Density requirements. Request is for permission to construct an additional four (4) residential units at Dorset Commons for a total density of 109 units on a parcel of land containing 15.3 acres, located at 435 Dorset Street. 2) Minutes and findings of August 26, 1995. Respectfully submitted, 1 Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer � a FF y. V i --%)'"i"' ._..-..G...,I) -q.s'T�-�y'•''y'.G.,.4+...{�...�.y.e /� r w.I�i''i�. �} ,^''�'.�..,.1 L,�„��^.'�' . ' L.G-'',�'(. �'.,r,.� ,r:� � j^t �,,;ra �C_.C_... .r. L..�a..�.M.-� „�e¢.•t�-yl�t. � ---- c _ L I/ PiL?'1�LP/.xi 4r1j"Ir. Design, Planning & Drafting Servit:es. DENSITY CALCULATIONS DORSET COMMONS VEVE ASSOCIATES In 1984, (via ZBA) addition of a 105th unit over office space: This would translate to .042 Acres short for 109 units; less than the .065 Acres short that a Variance was given for. THEREFORE: We feel that the Density of Lot D should be able to be transferred onto the Main Lot without harm due to the previous taking of land by the City of South Burlington or the arrangement for additional parking on Lot D for the Senior Center, a community benefit. .. {ectal l '%% rt�s3 (lid-�ri+vc�/Eat j'ii.»erraC G',`�i4Fi %11f 1rne. 002i �Krx. 062) 65,i—/901i VEVE ASSOCIATES VEVE, Rafael 435 Dorset Street Area in question zoned R-7 District. Section 25.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements. Maximum density, 107 units (15.3A.x 7 = 107 (units). Existing density, 105 units. Proposed density, 109 units, construct additional 4 units. NOTE: Variance granted April 1984, constructed a 281x 48' maintenance/operational building with a second story dwelling unit. Applicant proposed to add Lot D (100'x 120' = 12,000 square feet) which would increase density, Lot D to be leased to the Pines Housing for parking (approved August 26, 1995 by Z.B.A.). Total lot area of the Dorset Commons to include lot D is 15.3 acres. No Text c-� d � _ Al axi XDO / 41, T 44 .lei /DDX /2D = 1'?"Oo0 a'd p -/uw/ 6G 4,<Pe av( 0, 7.3 IS, QU U 2 5-1 L/ �- e �s 7----/ A.1 / L14 -7 z �C eve - C)J ,4t VEVE asso(ialeS Veve Associates Variance Request September 11, 1995 1) Veve Associates is both the owner of 435 Dorset St. (Dorset Commons Apartments and on its back portion at 118 Oakwood Dr. it also owns Lot D. he larger oracres. (435 Dorset St.) is zoned R-7 and has 105 apartments on 14.742 acres. Before the Dorset St. taking it had 14.935 acres. Lot D has 0.594 acres and is zoned R-7. With access through Dorset Commons, 4 units could be allowed. 2) In order to make possible a much needed Senior Center at the Pines (our next door neighbor), Pines Housing L.P. has a roached us to move our 4 unit construction farther south into our 4 Dorset Commons property. They need a portion of Lot D to accommodate additional parking for a Senior Center. We have adequate room in our southerly location but need a variance to do so. We strongly believe in the need for a new So. Burlington Senior Center, one Which will take some of the pressures off the current room used at City Hall. The area where we intend to relocate our building has the following positive aspects: A. Building Coverage is 8.87% or less than half (20%) of what the maximum is allowed. B. Lot Coverage,is 30.90% or less than 3/4 (40%) of what the maximum is allowed. C. Parking; We are adding 12 spaces or an additional 20% whereonly 9 are required. In addition, we are creating 22 parking spaces on Lot D to make it possible for the Senior Center to operate. 3) On April 4 1984, 435 Dorset Commons was ggranted a variance to construct 1 additional unit, for a total of 105 units. It then had 14.935 acres before the Dorset St. taking and was short .065 acres. After the taking we were left with 14.742 acres. When we combine the two parcels one at 14.742 acres and the other at 0.594 acres we get a combined dotal acrea e of 15.336 acres. At 7 units per acre we are allowed 107.352 unNs without a variance and not taking into consideration the grandfathered unit granted by variance making it 105 units. With this scenario, we are now short .236 acres to be able to meet the desired construction of 4 units in this location. The new total would then be 109 units. 4) Pines Housing L.P. will not create this Senior Center for which government funds have already been awarded, if it does nod acquire Lot D for additional parking. Although they have the space to construct additional parking, the do not want to surround the building with asphalt and very li tle green space. That look would destroy their investment and have repeatedly stated that they would not build this Senior Center under those circumstances. 5) Veve Associates believes in the reater good for the community in its facilitating the creation of his new Senior Center. It makes little difference to us whether we build 4 units on Lot D or relocate said buildings closer to our pre-existing apartments. We feel that the integration of our schematic fits better with our pre-existing apartments and would look better overall. Further, Lot D would not look as densely built (ie, building to building) next to the senior housing and its use would create a larger, open space. City of South Burlington Application to Board of Adjustment Official Use APPLICATION # Date August 9, 1995 Applicant Veve Associates, Rafael Veve Owner, leasee, agent HEARING DATE FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address 435 Dorset St., S. BurlTelephone # 864-7766 x 11731el Svs 435 Dorset Street Landowner Veve Associates Address Bldg. #11 - Main nffire Location and description of property Main Parcel known as Dorset Commons Apts. at 435 Dorset Street (14.742 Ac.); Lot D is off Oakwood Drive attached to north corner of Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( X ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Max Residential Density Reason for appeal Specific conditions of this site could allow for the required u_n_i_ts if Max. Density calculations were reviewed. (See attachment.) The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve s support evidence to the Board. �- ft R1 1i Hearing Date Signatu e o el ant Do not write below t ine ------------------------ SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of.-Week at ��U�''�V] to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of% seeking a � .��,�t� from Sectiong?5 of the South Burlington Zoning Re ulations. Request is for permission to�2 A40 No Text Zoning In =otion R-7 District Max Building Coverage 209 Pines Housing, L.P. Max Lot Coverage 40R legend Max Res, Density 7 units/acre 1 1 1 1 Setbacks Ix Frront JO feet Sides 15 feet 1 Rear JO feet — - - Boundary Line PUD Perimeter JO feet 1 1 �' Lot Coverage Ratios - — — — - Easement Line 1 Veve Assoc. Existing Development - Buildings 56,201 sf Lot D 640,J56 s! = 8.78% 1 0.60 Acres Lot Coe 174,515 sf 640,356 sf = 27.3R' °4o Proposed Development- Buildings 62,J23 sf 666,492 s1 = 9.35% ' 12 v. 1 186,729 s! Lot Co666,492 sf = 28.0% 1 �1� � � � 1 Mox. Residential Density J. Crabbe 1 1 ` - See Attachments. 1 1 Parking Requirements \, 1 Existing Parking Spaces (6 garages, 104 ports, 70 open) = 180 Spaces 1 \ Proposed New Development (12 garages, 106 ports, 80 open) = 198 Spaces (18 Spaces Added) (Regs. = 2 spaces/unit + 1 spaces/4 units = 9) 1 Town Square Assoc. 1 1 1 1 \ ' 1 30' PUD Setbacks WetJ0 r► 1 20 1 QQOfff (2) New Apt. Bags. N/R 1111 1� 14.93 Acres Sweeney 1 �` uo' �� ,. �\+„ \ ° h .��,•,.- it NOTE: ` r°.,.,°°r �\ \ / v City of South Burlington 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR �`'y\ ao'llyml / CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 6^'"'" / 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS & OTHER INFORMATION FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP \ LABELED AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT & SITE PLAN" DATED 8/16/83. AND, CITY OF SO. 13URLINGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET State of Vermont STREET ENTRANCE. - / o ,s 25 sa I00 200 AND, VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED \ MED. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. PRESSURE, / AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. / IN FEET gAR SCALE ,•-so•-a 11 1 i 1 1 1 1 N N il iA it a9lu 41 411 Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School ti �1 1 Q 1 Ln 1 1 LI] 1 a 11 South Burlington High School 11� 1 1 1 1 Project Location December 3, 1996 Correction to Parking &Colts. RFK 12-06 November 20, 1996 New Condo Footprint; Addltlonol Parking Spaces RFK 11-21 Jul3, 1996 Minor Correction To Plan. RFK 07-06 Dale Revised Description Checked Dale Design RFK PROPOSED SITE PLAN Drawn RFK Scale Checked RFK50'-O DORSET COMMONS APTS. Date 3-1-95 435 DORSET STREET SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT Project 3435 Veve Associates • South Burlington, Vermont Irermex Design Design, Planning A• Drafling 7 8 .fountain View Drive Swanton, VT 05-188 ,.W.,. L ■ANW2.7 M I Veve Assoc. Parcel #2 I Lot D 1 1 0.60 Acres r I l�ee_c en d — — — — — Stormwater Line m Stormwater Grate Zoning Information R-7 District Max Building Coverage 20% Max Lot Coverage 40X Max Res. Density 7 units/acre — Sides 15 lee) �;g Hydrant Rear 30 reef i PUD Perimeter JO feet Sewer Line I Lat Coverage Ratios Exsting Electrical Line Development - Buildings I I I I I 1 Boundary Line 56,201 sf = B. 78X 640,356 sf 174,515 s/ = 27 JR 640,J56 s/ I I I Easement Line Max. Resldenclal Density I Existing Culvert I I 14.93 Acres + .60 Acres I I = 108 units (104 Existing) I 1 Allfowed units Acre �. I I I I 1 Parking Requirements - I I Ex/sf. Parking (6 Garage. 104 ports, 70 open) 180 Spaces I I III I I � - _ Town Square Assoc. HER III \ \ _ Sweeney \ i i 14.93 Acres / State of Vermont NOTE — 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS & OTHER INFORMATION FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP LABELED "AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT & SITE PLAN" DATED \ \\,\ ��• ,-., _t. / _ �� 8/16/83. _ AND, CITY OF SO. 13URLINGTON MAPS OF NEW DORSET STREET ENTRANCE. ` y AND, VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED \\ MED. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. City South Burlington AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS.`\\� / \ ' 0 15 25 50 IDO 200 / IN FEET Y / I BAR SCALIs\< Dec. 4, 1996 July 7, 1995 1 July 10. 1995 1 May 30, 1995 IMay B, 1995 May 4, 1995 April 12, 1995 April 05, 1995 Dee, 08.1994 Nov. 29, 1994 1 Nov. 14, 1994 I Nov. t0i1994 Date Revised Design I Drawn I 1 Checked f Scale 1 nm. I PrJect Location_ Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School South Burlington High School Minor Changes To Coles. Location Mop Revised; Elect/Gas/Cable Removed; Back Road & Coles Revised; Easements Lobelei Adjacent Owners/ Location Mop, AsBullts — Utilities Relocated/ Gas Line Added. ABBuilts — Parking Relocated. Condo Units Moved/ Garages Added. Legend & Additonal Units Added. Zoning Info/ Parcel p2 Added. Pkg. ® Condos Changed. Condo Added/ Borscale Added. Storage Reduction/Utilities Added. Storoge Spaces Added. 12-6 ""'teary -Burke `�11 Associates, PLC December 30, 2002 I'vir. Ray BeLair Zoning Administrator 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Ralph Veve - Oakwood Lot/Dorset Commons Dear Ray: We are writing on behalf of Ralph Veve as a follow up to our December 23, 2002 informal meeting with Ralph Veve, Mark Sperry and I regarding the above referenced project. As discussed, the proposal includes two (2) facets, a proposal for two (2) duplex lots on the Oakwood parcel and modification of the Dorset Commons boundary to achieve this goal. We understand that this proposal requires two (2) applications to be heard concurrently. Please find the following: Oakwood Parcel: The proposal for two (2) duplex structures on one (1) lot is classified as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and generally requires Sketch, Preliminary and Final approvals. It is our hope that Preliminary and Final will be combined, due to the small size of the proposal. The proposal includes a request for encroachment on a wetland buffer (S 3.503) and encroachment (S 10.404) on the northerly PUD Buffer (S 25.1). The impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent, while still allowing for, two (2) duplexes. The wetlands consultant has been requested co provide responses to S 3.503. Their initial comments are that the wetland is of low quality and significance and that the proposed buffer impact will not have an adverse affect. Their responses will either be provided prior to the Sketch hearing or with the next submittal. The request for waiver of the northerly PUD buffer (30') is supported by meeting the standard ten (10') foot duplex setback and the City's current proposed Zoning revisions, which include removal of the current buffer requirement. We are including the following for this request: 1. Subdivision Application; 2. Five (5) copies of Site Plan (Sht. #1); �i II,_ 7 tSSIA J( T..VT U5452 i'110\I:802-878-9990 FAX 802-878-9989 CIV'IL'itTOGET11ERA I Mr. Ray BeLair December 30, 2002 Page 2 3. One,(1) 11 " x 17" reduced Site Plan (Sht. #1). Dorset Commons: In order to allow for the proposed two (2) duplexes, area is added from a separate parcel referred to as the "Interstate Parcel". The "Interstate Parcel" is proposed to be dissolved and the majority of the area added to the Oakwood parcel with the remaining area added to Dorset Commons. Per the attached, this proposal was supported by staff (Ray BeLair & Sarah McCallum) when informally reviewed in 2001. As the Oakwood proposal will require a minimum of two (2) steps, we understand that this proposal will be Sketch to Final and scheduled concurrently. We are including the following for this request: 1. Subdivision Application; 2. Five (5) copies of Site Plan (Existing); 3. One (1) 11 " x 17" reduced Site Plan (Existing); 4. Five (5) 11 " x 17" reduced Site Plan (Proposed). We are submitting with hopes of scheduling for the February 4, 2002 hearing. If the agenda for February 4, 2002 is full, please schedule for the March 4, 2002 agenda, as Mr. Veve will be out of Town on February 18, 2002. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, David W. Burke Enc. cc: Ralph Veve Mark Sperry (Atty.) I CERTIFY THAT TWE 56RYEY INFORMATION s Zoning wcrrmatlon . SF101bN FF�-•• � - —4,9 NT _. WRN clw 1 CERTIFY AND ° a WRN ALL I NOW, LBLX &R Moo 2 ALL V14, BEF I 0-2, �z13 Z rlington 1� ,hoo! O 4n ✓ED ooz �f) lington w cq mares LNza � IXY` !� marls Gets W V Cp r L Nn Q eY. zLro O irk -I LW �. n.9myLk. z vns-�t Llr� �I Y � Ll t Pob 9 } YJX CoA -L- . I� 'a T V. rrewoms � zV W' i Raq�e�le � i`—a W (V EUGENE J. WARD, III GUY L. BABB MARIKATE E. KELLEY MATTHEW M. GLITMAN PETER B. SCHUBART JOYCE H. CHASE REGISTERED LAW CLERKS: JASON F. RUWET JANINE T. GOMEZ March 20, 2001 WARD, KELLEY & BABB ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW 3069 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403-6030 A Tradename for a Professional Corporation (802)863-0307 TELEFAX 863-4587 generaldelivery@wkblawyers.com Ray Belair Sarah MacCallum South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Veve - Lot "D", Oakwood Drive, South Burlington, Vermont Dear Ray and Sarah: CLOSING COORDINATOR: JO RICHER LEGAL ASSISTANTS: LUCIA B. WILDER CATHY I. RAYMOND PARALEGAL: KIM C. DENNIS Thank you for taking the time to meet with Dave Burke, Ralph Veve and me last Tuesday. We felt the meeting was very beneficial in assisting us to organize Veve Associates, LLP's long range development plan. To recap our discussions: Dorset Commons Dorset Commons is owned by a registered Vermont limited liability partnership, Veve Associates, LLP. The existing density for Dorset Commons is 105 units. The allowable density is 103 units (642,142 sq. ft./43,560 sq. ft. per acre with 7 units per acre allowing 103.2 units). The acreage/density shortfall, in large part, is due to the City taking land in order to widen Dorset Street several years ago in conjunction with the "City Center" enhancements. 2. Lot "D" the "Oakwood" Lot A) The partnership also owns an independent adjacent .594 acre lot that lies between the Dorset Commons property and the Pines housing project which is referred to as Lot "D" on prior survey maps of record and enclosed preliminary sketches. Lot "D" has a 30 foot right of way on the easterly side through the Pines parking area, all the way to the city street which right of way is not shown on the sketch. Oakwood Drive and two lot owners have rights of way over the limited liability partnership's Lot "D" to access their lots, which are adjacent to I-89. (I handwrote North and East on the sketch to identify these locations). B) The partnership would like to construct 6 units of housing on Lot "D" with a 2 unit footprint of three stories in height, not exceeding the 40 foot height restriction for a peaked roof. The minimum area to construct 6 units on Lot "D" is 37,377 sq. ft. (43,560 sq. ft./acre / 7 units per acre x 6 units). The lot currently is shy of square footage by 11,463 sq. ft. (37, 337 - (.0594 x. 43,560 sq. ft.) = 11,463 sq. ft.) March 20, 2001 Page Two The "Sweeney" Lot Veve Associates, LLP is not the record owner but has rights to take title to the 13,800 sq. ft. lot entitled "N/F Sweeney" on the sketch. The "Sweeney" lot is contiguous with and adjacent to the Dorset Commons parcel as shown on the sketch. 4. The Boundary Adjustment Veve Associates, LLP would like to adjust the boundaries of the 3 lots in one of two ways. At this juncture it has no preference on which is preferable, but a preference may develop as this project takes shape. Veve Associates, LLP would take title to and merge the "Sweeney" lot into the Dorset Commons parcel and either under Option 1, the Dorset Commons lot would convey 11,463 sq. ft. to Lot "D" as shown on the sketch with my handwritten Option 1 in the lower left hand corner, OR as shown Option 2, the Dorset Commons lot would be merged with the "Sweeney" lot and the Dorset Commons lot would convey an equal amount of footage (13,800 sq. ft.) to Lot "D" as shown on the sketch with my handwritten Option 2 in the lower left hand corner. In the first option, Dorset Commons would receive an additional 2,337 sq. ft. of the land (13,800 sq. ft. - 11,463 sq. ft.). The second option would be an equal swap of footage with no resulting change in density or coverage to Dorset Commons. We would very much appreciate your thoughts on these potential boundary adjustments designed to enhance the developability of Lot "D" and either improve or not disturb the non -conformity regarding density at Dorset Commons. Dave Burke and I are happy to meet with you after your review. If this is acceptable, we shall put together some preliminary plans and an application. Cordially, t Eugene`J. Ward, III, Esq. (ward@wkb lawyers. com) EJW:kcd Enclosure cc: David W. Burke Y F 0043-00E 100.4 i j] �do N07-25-Ise Oakwood Orlye 2" 24' 13.00E� 0 L: 64.59 . ------------- SM-23-IBW °�3.27' 508—M-0ow 164.29 j �� / �808-P--OOW 115.00' IL-•-----•-----•---- ' NOS-1°!`OOE 115.00' J 35Inv ---------- X 454.88' 5 <a/ix- (/ea - <Lz, -� �i Yer mont Late 89 o v (j Memorandum - Planning February 25, 1997 agenda items February 21, 1997 Page 5 Mailbox cluster: The preliminary plat plan should include mailbox cluster sites. School impact: The applicants have estimated that the new proposal will generate essentially the same number of school children as the 64 lot proposal. Floodplain Overlay District: The preliminary plat should show the floodplain limits along Muddy Brook. Other: - each unit and house will be assessed road, school and recreation impact fees in accordance with the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. --- provide base flood elevation data. --- provide finished contour lines. 4) VEVE ASSOCIATES - ADD 4 DWELLING UNITS - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of amending a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing four ( 4 ) dwelling units in two (2) buildings, and 2) constructing two (2)carports. sketch plan for this proposal was reviewed on 8/8/95 (minutes enclosed). The ZBA on 2/24/97 will consider a request from the applicant for a variance to exceed the density limitation. This property located at 435 Dorset Street lies within the R7 District. It is bounded on the north by a residential development (Town Square), on the south by City Hall, on the west by I-89 and on the east by Dorset Street. Access/circulation: Access is provided by a 30 foot signalized curb cut on Dorset Street. No change proposed to this access. The private roadway for this development currently serves 105 units. Section 401.1(g) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units served by a dead end street to 50 units. Circulation on the site is adequate. Coveraqe/setbacks: Building coverage is 9.4% (maximum allowed is 9 Memorandum - Planning February 25, 1997 agenda items February 21, 1997 Page 6 20%). Overall coverage is 28.0% (maximum allowed is 40%). The proposed buildings meet the 30 foot PUD perimeter setback. An existing building along the southerly boundary does not meet this setback requirement. Parking: A total of 246 spaces are required and 198 spaces are available. This represents a 48 space or 19.5% shortfall. The additional units require nine (9) additional spaces and 18 additional spaces will be provided. The nine (9) additional spaces were added in response to the Commission's concern with the parking shortfall on the 8/8/95 plan. A bike rack should be provided as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. Landscaping: The revised final plat plans should include all existing and proposed landscaping. Proposed landscaping should meet the minimum landscaping requirement. Sewer: The additional sewer allocation needed for this project is 2400 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Density: The maximum density range for this property, calculated under Section 26.152(a) of the zoning regulations, is 84-108 units. The base maximum density is 84 units. The Planning Commission has the authority under Section 26.152(b) of the zoning regulations to permit density increases up to the normal maximum (i.e., 108 units) according to the degree to which the development satisfies the general standards listed in Section 26.151 of the zoning regulations and the specific standards for a PUD in the R7 District. The normal maximum density is 108 units based on the lot size used for coverage calculations as indicated on the plan. The lot size used on the plan to calculate density should reflect the Dorset Street taking. The perimeter survey which will be submitted with the revised final plat should indicate the exact lot size. The applicant is proposing 109 units which exceeds the maximum allowable density. The ZBA on 2/24/97 will consider a request from the applicant for a variance to exceed the density limitation. Revised finalplat: The final plat plans should conform in all respects to the information requirements under Section 203.1 and 204.1 of the subdivision regulations and Section 26.10 of the zoning regulations in addition to the following: C. Memorandum - Planning February 25, 1997 agenda items February 21, 1997 Page 7 --- provide existing and proposed exterior lighting details (cut - sheets) and show locations on the plan. --- show dumpster locations, all dumpsters should be screened and so noted on the plan. --- provide a perimeter survey of the entire property and show "parcel D" merged with the original lot. --- correct the note on the plan so that the Conservation and Open Space District is not shown as a setback. It is a zoning district. --- provide estimated cost of proposed buildings. --- the applicant should submit a written report addressing the PUD criteria under Section 26.151 of the zoning regulations. --- the pedestrian path should be shown in its approved location (refer to map in volume 105, page 76 in the land records). 5) WTEMANN-LAMPHERE ARCHITECTS, SUBDIVISION & AUTO SALES & SERVICE ADDITION - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of amending a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a commercial complex consisting of two (2) buildings totaling 27,750 square feet. The amendment consists of: 1) merging a 24,750 square foot lot into the adjoining lot creating a 5.3 acre PUD, 2) creating two (2) lots within the PUD of 2.4 acres (lot #1) and 2.9 acres (lot #2), and 3) constructing a 2560 square foot addition to the auto sales and service facility on proposed lot #2. The ZBA on 3/10/97 will consider a request from the applicant for a use variance for the auto sales and service addition. This property located at 1085, 1089 and 1095 Shelburne Road lies within the Cl District. It is bounded on the west by Fayette Road, on the south by L&M Park, on the east by Shelburne Road, and on the north by Hannaford Plaza and a cemetery. PUD "Notice of Condition": Even though two lots are being created, this development constitutes a PUD and therefore will be reviewed by the City as one lot for zoning and subdivision purposes. A "Notice of Condition" should be recorded which clearly identifies this entire development as a PUD and that it will be reviewed as one lot for zoning and subdivision purposes. The applicant has requested that the development not be treated as one lot for sign purposes so that they may erect a separate free standing sign on lot #2. Staff does not see a problem with this request since both Eudora Web -Mail Page 1 of 1 1 InBox - Read Mail Privacy Poles Contact Us Help Date:Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:56:49 -0500 From: "James Pease" < RvIP@dec.anr.state.vt.us> Add to Address Book Add To Spam Block List Subjecedumping To:maccallum@eudoramail.com Hi Sarah: Just wanted to mention to you that we are doing a survey of stormwater structures in S Burlington right now. Yesterday we found alot of dumping of lawn/garden debris into the wetland behind 242 Dorset St (Actually Ocean Drive, right next to the city offices). The dumping is in the back of the development on the northwest side. Not sure what we could do about it other than educate the owners not to dump in wetlands, these are class 3 I would assume. I could report this to our wetland staff as I think it is a violation but I wanted to see if it was on your maps and if you had any policy. This is not a small amount of material but is something that looks like it has been going on for some time; it is also hard to tell where the wetland boundary is. Thanks for any help you can provide. Jim James Pease Water Quality Division 10 North Building 103 S. Main St. Waterbury, VT USA 05671-0408 (802) 241-2683 JimP@dec.anr.state.vt.us Itm C1995-2000 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. 01998-2000 Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Lycos is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University http://be8-mail.eudoramail.lycos.com/338036236...:1&bool_next_on_disp_pg=true&bool_prev_on_disp_pg=tru 11/22/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION 8 AUGUST 1995 PAGE 4 addition. 8. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission. 9 As expressly represented by the applicant there shall be a maximum of two trailers Parked on the site at any time. Mr. Teeson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch plan application of Veve Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development for 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of 1) construction of 4 dwelling units in 2 buildings and 2) allowing a portion of the property to be used for a parking area for an adjacent nursing/convalescent home and senior center, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. Veve said the piece of land is.594 acres and was acquired a number of years ago. It abuts land with apartments. The plan is for apartments on this lot D. It is zoned R-7. There would be a quad of 4 buildings. The entrance would be through Dorset Commons, and there is a right-of-way through the property. The Pines developers have asked to use a portion of the lot for parking. Mr. Veve said he then decided to move the units into the rest of the property and have units in 2 buildings as duplexes. The new piece of land would be for parking for the senior center. This gives rise to issues of density, etc. They are short .42 acres in order to have what they want with this scenario. Mr. Weith said they are actually short .235 acres. In addition, the Planning Commission can't approve more than 107 units. Mr. Veve said they are requesting a variance for the additional units. He felt it would look better visually with more green space. Mr. Burgess asked if there are any issues with the leasing of parking. Mr. Austin said he doesn't have enough parking for the development. Mr. Burgess said the Commission won't allow a bad situation to be made worse. Mr. Veve said there are no parking problems. Mr. Weith said there are many more cars than spaces. People park along drives and technically the drives are not wide enough for that. Mr. Burgess said he wasn't ready to accept that with illegal parking everything is OK. Mr. Sheahan felt it was impossible because of the parking. Mr. Austin suggested the possibility of making the road 3 ft. wider or otherwise adding parking. Mr. Burgess summarized by saying the applicant would get a lot PLANNING COMMISSION 8 August 1995 page 5 more sympathy from the Commission if he attempted to add some parking. 6. Sketch plan application of Pines Housing, L.P., to amend a previously approved planned commercial development consisting of 88,740 sq. ft. of medical and general office use and a 124 unit nursing/convalescent home, 421 Dorset Street. The amendment is to: 1)convert 6,000 sq. ft. of basement area in the nursing/convalescent home to a senior center, and 2) expand the parking area to accommodate the senior center partially on the applicant's property and partially on an adjacent property: Mr. Brush reviewed the history of the project. He noted they have gotten a block grant to finish the lower level of the Pines for a senior center to be managed by Champlain Senior Center. There will be all -day program for seniors with a meal served. They are asking for approval of this use. They will go to the Zoning Board for expanded approval of their conditional use approval. Mr. Burgess suggested solving the additional parking needs with some parking on this site, some on the Veve site. A neighbor expressed concern for additional traffic. Mr. Brush said they won't come in on Oakwood. The question of a traffic light on Dorset St. was also raised. Mr. Burgess said the applicant will have to provide data on this, but he added that his best guess is that it won't be required. Mr. Brush said they don't meet the warrants for a light yet. 7. Public Hearing: Revised Final Plat application of MBL Associates to amend a previously approved planned residential development consisting of 121 single family lots and 60 multi- family units, Dorset St. The amendment consists of adding berms and landscaping to conform with the State Environmental Board's approval: Mr. Milot explained the berm will be between the development and Dorset St. to screen the development along the public corridor. He added that they have removed trees from the public right-of- way as required by the Public Works Dept. No issues were raised. approved planned residential development consisting of 121 single family lots and 60 multi -family units Dorset Street The amend- ment consists of adding berms and landscaping to conform with the state Environmental Board's approval, as depicted on a 3-paste set / r tuuth igurliugtuu N ire U rpartmeut 575 BDrset #trert #nuth Nurlingtnn, Vermunt 05403 Mr. William Burgess Chairman So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Burgess, ". (802)658-7960 March 11,1977 the fire department reviewed a plan for the Veve complex at 435 Dorset Street. At that time we requested that all roads to be 30' wide. Because of space problems I was asked if the roads could be less then the 30' wide. At that time because of the design of the road way we said we could live with 26' roads with no parking on main roads. The development was approved for 11� car parking space per unit. Through the years we are finding 13� spaces per unit is not adequate, plus people want to park near their unit so they don't have to walk very far. On Wednesday December 2, and Thursday December 3,1992 we responded to fires at 435 Dorset Street. Both days we had problems getting our equipment.in due to parking on the main roads. I had a meeting with Mr. Veve on the problem. He agreed there were problems on the corners but he needed the parking on the straight aways. Mr. Veve and I road around the developments and there were many carports and extra parking spaces with out vehicles but they were parked on the main road. I told Mr. Veve that something must be done that with the parking as is with fires like we had on Thursday November 19,1992 we would not beable to give proper fire protection to the complex because we would not beable to set up our equipment in the proper location with the parking in the main road ways. if you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sipcerely ame�Goddette Sr. 6Chief cc; Mr. Ralph Veve City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 15, 1997 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed is a copy of the February 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith/'� City Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl 4 A SITE wf IS Location Plan N, T. S, HYDRANT: -104 I EXISTING CATCH (DASIN COLLECTS ENTIRE 6AC,K PARKING LOT RUNOFF - C-ONVE15 TO NORTHEA5TI 11 EX15T. 5MH C RIM - 501.1-4�f, R B F 6" IN -495.89 IN CO 6" OUT -49400 y TUBE NEW 5MH ------- RIM - 501.0 NEW 5MH RIM - 501,0 MCI 101-IT :7 10' 51DFI YA D SE 75,1 EX15TIN PARKINC, LOT it I EXISTING CIF HYDRANT 7 JX15T. CLIK N0879'00'E CALF 3560 5F 30' PEAK YARD/ PLID 5ETf5ACK 50 CITY PRIVACY_ WETLAND BUFFER FENCE &ROUND PATIO PATIO NEW SILT FENCE TO DIE 11,15TAI-LeD DY CONTKAC-TOP PRIOR To COMMENCING \\CON5TKUCTION GLB INOKA, FOR WETL 4 IK IV AC. r EN c)R PATIO EDGE A CT- L- — - — - — - 93.27' m EXISTING END OF vex OAKWOOD DRIVE e PROJECT DATA: ZONED: R-7, RESIDENTIAL MUMFRONTAGE: 120 FEET MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK: 30 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 10 FEET MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK: 30 FEET LOT AREA: TOTAL: 37.336 S.F. BUILDING COVERAGE: PROPOSED: (4,050 S.F. 37.336 S.F. 10.8%) MAXIMUM ALLOWED: 20X RZ37".. TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED: (9,200 S.F. 4,050 S.F.) 37,336 S.F. x 100) - 35.5X) MAXIMUM ALLOWED: 40x (60% WITH CONDITIONAL USE) IMF, BASE MAXIMUM DENSITY: (23,460 S.F. - 15%)/4,3.560 X 7 UNITS/ACM - 3.2 UNITS MAXIMUM DENSITY (26.152 (b)): 37,336 S.F./43.560 X 7 UNITS/ ACRE - 6 UNITS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 40 FEET FROM AVERAGE PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE TO PEAK OF ROOF (45 FT. WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL) PRIVACY \FENGE If - - - — - - - - - -- -Y ;. IM r -W, - . . . . . . . . ....... i t -ev 7 4,',9 -7 we� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X15T. RIM - 50047 6. IN -49107 a' OUT '490 q7 - LIM!T5 OF NEW 24' WIDE PAVED AREA (EXTEND TO GRAPHIC SCALE 30 DEYOND ENTRANCE TO (ONDOMINIUM5 TO PROVIDE �OF ' ADEQUATE EMERGENCY VEKIC-LE TURN-AROUND5 IN FELT I I m,h = 10 IL RE 6f IVED DEC 3 1 ML City of So. Budi Legend P'.J-t P'.P.rty PIWWY U.. cwtwM. W sla E,istMg Troolne 499-- - - - E I tl g Groh Cwtwrs FIhIM 0,aft Cwtolx. 0w Iron Pip* Found 0- C—to Mannalt Faund EM— Found M— Land Iu - -- * Farad B0- Gru utmity Pole C-10IF N08i3g�00-E 2. 1* r ,;ISTIN':, WAI. LIt -.-17- F.0511N& WATERLINE EXISTING 16" SEWER \ THE C!.ITRA"- SHALL -�D'.IAI�%�T ._SA'E PRIOR 0 Y r 'AV T NOTE5: I PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE 5A5ED ON A PLAN ENTITLED 'A SURVEY OF A PORTION OF LAND OF VEVE A550(,IATE5. LOCATED ADJACENT TO OAKWOOD DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH &LIKLINOTON". PERFORMED DY PROPERTY OIE51&N. MONTPELIER, VERMONT DATED AND LA5T REV15ED 11114100 BY LYNN Rle-OLiNI. VT L5 556 2 ELEVATION5 ARE DA5ED ON AN A55UMED DATUM Et Vexle - Lc>t "EY 6CA .01Ot kRy-BLTRKE Ok.,,.d Drfve 7--,— CIVIL ASSOCIATES, PLC South Burlington. VT .1-A4 cT. VT PH Site Alan PHON%873 9990 1- -.-. PLANNING COMMISSION 25 February 1997 page 6 13.2 acres. She felt a development of this density is a violation of the beauty of the environment. Mr. Kane of Dunn Associates said they were asked by Friends of Muddy Brook to look at visual impacts of the development on the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the goals of the Southeast Quadrant include encouragement of open space, protecting views, protecting wildlife, supporting agricultural use, and promoting well planned residential use. Mr. Kane then said the visual character of the quadrant is composed of elements such as a contrast between open land and densely wooded land. There is also an order and harmony of the land. Dense development occurs at the northern end of Hinesburg Rd. and is in stark contrast to the southern end of the road which is dominated by large, open fields, woodlands and low - density rural community. It was the feelings of Dunn Associates that the proposed high density nature of the development would impact the character of the area in many ways including the elimination of important open space, the disruption of wildlife corridor, and a compromise to the visual order and harmony of the existing landscape. Mr. Burgess noted that fewer compromises are being asked for with the revised plans. He said the Commission would want assurances that a Homeowners Association would maintain the proposed connector road. Mr. Teeson said his main concern is traffic. He felt the project was laid out to preserve open space and had adequate buffers. Mr. O'Rourke agreed. Mr. _Tee_so_nthen moved _to continue the application until 25�March. Mr. O'Rourke �seconded. _otion_passed_unanimously, 4. Sketch plan application of Veve Associates to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing four dwelling units in two buildings, and 2) constructing two carports, 435 Dorset Street: Mr. O'Rourke noted he has a conflict of interest in this ap- plication and would therefore not participate in the discussion. Mr. Carroll noted the development is served by a single access across from the school. In a property settlement, the applicant acquired a piece of land adjacent to the existing development. They had originally PLANNING COMMISSION 25 February 1997 page 7 planned to put the 4 units on the newly acquired land; however, after discussions with the city, they decided to merge the properties and add the units near the other multi -family buildings. They got a variance from the Zoning Board allowing the transfer of the units to the original piece of land. Nine parking spaces are required for the addition. They will add 19. They will also take down one old carport and add two new ones. The new buildings will be similar in style and design to the existing multi -family buildings. The main issue is whether a development of this size can have only one access. Mr. Carroll noted there are a number of areas where there could be a second access; however, the Planning Commission has always felt it would be safer not to open them. Mr. Weith said the city is now in court over denying an application because of the maximum 50 units with a single access rule. He felt it would not be wise to waive the requirement for a second access in this instance. Mr. Carroll said they could provide an emergency access and showed a possible location which would access onto Oakwood. They could also go over Pines property. Mr. Burgess encouraged having an access over property owned and controlled by the applicant. Other members didn't have any preference for a location but agreed it would be easier if it were on property owned by the applicant. No other issues were raised. 5. Sketch plan application of Wiemann-Lamphere Architects, Inc, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of a commercial complex consisting of two buildings totaling 27,750 sq. ft.. The amendment consists of: 1) merging a 24,750 sq. ft. lot into the adjoining lot creating a 5.3 acre PUD, 2) creating two lots within the PUD of 2.4 acres (lot #1) and 2.9 acres (lot #2) and 3) constructing a 2560 sq. ft. addition to the auto sales and service facility on proposed lot #2, 1085, 1089, and 1095 Shelburne Road: Mr. Webster showed the location of the existing Saturn and Chrysler -Plymouth buildings and where the proposed addition would go. He noted that the existing tennis facility building has been taken down. The applicant is proposing to create two abutting lots with a City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 21, 1997 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05430 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and the Fire Department were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S� cerely, ,{' l 1Z Jo Weith, Ci y Planner JW/mcp Encls ) '7FVEVE asso(iates February 13,1997 City of South Burlington Mr. Raymond J. Belair Zoning and Planning Assistant 575 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Four (4) Unit Expansion Dorset Commons Reply to letter dated February 5, 1997 Dear Mr. Belair, As requested we include our reply to your preliminary comments. Sketch Plan 1) The acreage for Lot D of 0.60 acres and for Lot 435 Dorset St. of 14.93 acres is correct and their total sum is 15.53 acres. 2) Although the 15.43 acre lot size is correct for a density of 108 units, we had been given a variance in 1985 for unit 105 and the balance of the 4 units requested has been granted by an additional variance allowing us to transfer the density of Lot D (four (4) units) south onto this new location within the 435 Dorset Street lot. In response to the parking comments, this new (4) unit development under present parking regulations requires 4x2+1 or 9 spaces. As requested by the last planning commission meeting to increase the parking spaces, we are proposing 19 spaces or 111% extra over the required amount for that area. The existing 435 Dorset St. lot which complied with the old rules has conservatively 180 spaces and a resulting surplus of 49.5% under the old rules. We do not have a current parking problem at Dorset Commons Apts. The new development would stand alone with no further parking burden to the rest of our residential community. P.0 Boz 2361 So. Burlington Vermont 05407 8 0 2 - 8 6 4 - 7 7 6 6 In combining the old and the new parking rules, the actual ratio deviation is reduced by the new improvement. OLD Actual 180 Old 157.5 New Rega 236.25 Deviation - 23.86% PROPOSED 19 6 9 +111.00% TOTAL 199 163.5 245.25 -18.86% This is the best site for these 4 units for it maximizes the use of the land leaving plenty of green space between The Pines, adjacent duplexes and Town Square. As soon as we get through sketch plan, we will be formally addressing final plat comments. 1) We will show a landscaping plan. 2) Provide existing light detail which up to now will involve exterior lights affixed to the corners of the new buildings. 3) All new dumpsters will be screened. 4) Bike racks will be shown as per section 26.253(B). 5) We will show the perimeter survey merging Lot D. 6) We will correct the name designation as to the open conservation zone. 7) Cost estimates are almost completed. 8) The total amount of new bedrooms is four per unit. 9) The access will be shared by the existing 435 Dorset St. entrance which is more than adequately served by an existing traffic street light. This new construction does not create additional access points. 10) We are aware of the cost of impact fees. We hope this answers some or all of your comments at this time. Please give us a call if you need any further clarification. Sin,Dcer 1 o rs, al eve Preliminary February 11, February 5, Page 2 Comments - Planning 1997 agenda 1997 --- submit a point by point lighting plan which shows that the maximum illumination at ground level does not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. GREEN TREE PARK, INC. - WAREHOUSE - SITE PLAN --- provide gross floor area devoted to office space, number of non -office employees and number of company vehicles operating from the premises (for parking calculation). --- provide front yard coverage information --- plan should include street address: 6 Green Tree Drive. --- provide details (cut -sheets) for any building mounted exterior lights. --- the dumpster should be screened from the adjoining property to the north. --- the applicant should be aware that the road impact fee is approximately $1800. --- staff recommends that the Maple trees be increased in size to a minimum of 21 inch caliper. VEVE ASSOCIATES - ADD 4 DWELLING UNITS - SKETCH PLAN --- lot size on plan used for post -development lot coverage is 15.3 acres. Plan indicates that lot D is 0.6 acres and the lot at 435 Dorset Street is 14.93 acres which totals 15.53 acres. Which is correct? --- if the 15.53 acre lot size is correct, then 108 units are allowed and 109 units are proposed. --- 246 spaces are required and 198 spaces are available. This is a 48 space or 19.5% shortfall. Revised final plat: The final plat plans should conform in all respects to the information requirements under Section 203.1 and 204.1 of the subdivision regulations in addition to the following: --- show all existing and proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping should meet the minimum requirement required under Section 26.105(a) of the zoning regulations. --- provide existing and proposed exterior lighting details (cut - sheets) and show locations. --- all dumpsters should be screened and so noted on the plan. Preliminary Comments - Planning February 11, 1997 agenda February 5, 1997 Page 3 --- provide a bike rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. --- provide a perimeter survey of the entire property and show "parcel D" merged with the original lot. --- correct the note on the plan so that the Conservation and Open Space District is not shown as a setback. It is a zoning district. --- provide estimated cost of proposed buildings. --- indicate total number of new bedrooms (for sewer allocation). --- the private roadway for this development currently serves 105 units. Section 401.1(k)(1)(b) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units served by a single access to 10 units. The Planning Commission may allow the access to serve more units when it determines that increasing the number of units serviced by a private roadway will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the community. --- applicant should be aware that the additional units will be subject to road, school and recreation impact fees. NILE & JULIE DUPPSTADT AND JOHN & DEBORAH ALDEN - 74 UNIT PRD PRELIMINARY PLAT --- lots #2-5 (4 lots) will be served by a private roadway. Section 401.1 (j) (1) (a) of the subdivision regulations requires a public road if the proposed roadway serves four (4) or more separate residential lots. --- the building envelopes for lots #3-5 are located in a non - buildable area as shown on the SEQ zoning map. --- show C.O. District on lot #3 created by the existing stream and all other C.O. Districts on the property. --- traffic impact analysis should be updated to address this project. --- submit revised sewer allocation request. --- indicate cost of all multi -family buildings (for landscaping calculations). --- school impact letter should be revised for this project. --- the applicant should be aware that Section 401.1 (k)(1)(b) of the subdivision regulations limits the number of units on a proposed roadway which has a single access on a public street to no more than 10 units. On a proposed roadway which has two (2) points of access the limit is 20 units. The Planning Commission may allow these thresholds to be exceeded when it determines such a road will not have an adverse effect on the public good and welfare of the community. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 5, 1997 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, the Fire Department and myself. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans, if appropriate, no later than Friday, February 14, 1997. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc ely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: February 25, 1997 Agenda Items Date: January 30, 1997 DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS - DORSET STREET Site plan dated 10/14/94 prepared by Vermex Design is acceptable. J.W.J. REALTY - SHELBURNE ROAD The cemetery is surrounded by a chain link fence installed by the City several years ago. This fence is the property line. Plans shows this fence about 5 feet into the lot being developed. OLD STONE HOUSE FARM - VAN SICKLEN ROAD - (MULTI -FAMILY PROJECT 1. Sidewalks should be included. 2. The future road to the Auclair property to the south should have a simple curve not a reverse curve. 3. Water demand for fire protection is greater for multi -family structures than for single family. This should be checked to see if it is adequate. M E M O R A N D U M To: Joe Weith, South Burlington City Planner From: South Burlington Fire Department Re: Plans Review for February 25, 1997 Date: February 3, 1997 1. J.W.J. Realty Dated 1/16/97 1095 Shelburne Road The Fire Department is concerned with the close proximity of the hydrant to the proposed addition. If possible, this hydrant should be moved further from the building. 2. Veve Associates Dated 1/28/97 435 Dorset Street Acceptable 3. BLS Properties Dated 1/31/97 52 Timber Lane Acceptable TAX MAP #: 40-2-21 FILE #: 84-17,95-27 LOCATION: 435 DORSET STREET GRAND LIST #: 0570-00435-R DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE 2-22-77 SK 104 APARTMENTS 3-15-77 PP if 5-24-77 FP if 7-12-77 AMEND MOTION OF APPROVAL 4-9-84 V EXCEED DENSITY 8-8-95 SK ADD 4 UNITS 10-23-95 V DENSITY FILE NAME: VEVE, RALPH 11 if if If if if RALPH VEVE VEVE, RALPH A114 1;1,14x�Al < I 5• PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1978 Mr. Wgolery moved that the site plan of Rowland Peterson expire 6 months from this date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Mr. Woolery:then moved that the site plan for Norco Auto Supply expire 6 months from this date. This motion was seconded by Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Consider request,for amended final plat of 435 Dorset Common Apartments, Mr. Ralph GevS .X Mr. Y4v4 said that he had met with the Act 250 people on this project and that they had brought the tennis court to his attention. He said that it is an expensive item and that in view of the fact that he is already paying a recreation fee to the city, he would like to delete that item. It will be lighted, which will waste energy, will be out of the way and encourage people to drive to get thorn,',the lights from the interstate will be a distraction, some nice mature tressryill have to,be taken out, and there are other courts in the city. He also said that one court would not really,be enough and that he would rather put the money into a beefed-up tot lot and have picnic tables and stoves in,,the area the court would go. Mr. Mona said that he did not think the city had very many tennis courts - there are only 3 municipal ones and they are used fully now. Mr. Schuele felt that if Mr. Wve was only now finding out that some nice trees had to come dorn for the courts, maybe the plan had not been thought out very well, and he said that he,did not like to find out after approval that there will be differences between what is proposed and what is built. Mr. Uve said that it was not a big thing and ,\ that he would put in the court, but the Act 250 people had ask,td him to' discuss it with the Planning Commission. Mr. Woolery moved that the Planning Commission accept the plan chano. The motion was seconded by.Mr.. Ew�ng'.and passed with Messrs. Mona and Morency voting,no and Mr. Poger abstaining. City Council - Planning Commission joint meeting on budget request Mr. Wessel said that the Commission would like to clarify exactly what it wanted and how much it would cost. He said that the Commission did not have time to plan and he pointed out that it now met 6 times a month and would continue to do that until it cleared up some of the backlog it„has: The problem as he saw it was that the Commission was doing administrative work, not planning, and he said that they needed a tool to let them do that. He said that the present administration was doing an excellent job under the circumstances but that they needed more help. He said that the Commission would continue to get outside consultant help but that it would like to have a general engineer with some background in traffic in the office. Mr. Morency said that he felt the Commission was a decisive body and that on soft meeting nights they seem to be trying to write things at the same time they are discussing them. When they do long range planning, it is much better to have specific proposals in front of them to discuss and it is hard to get these when the administration is taken up with day to day work details. It would be more efficient to have full, well thought out proposals, he said. Mr. Flaherty felt that the city should do things at its own rate and suggested that Mr. Page not be available every day to developers. Mr. Paulsen asked f about using citizen committees to prepare drafts in certain areas. He said i. that the Council had received a list of people willing to help the city out. \~ Mr. Wessel replied that if that draft had to be integrated with city documents, it would take a month just to read all the necessary paper. Mr. Mona added that it is very hard for a citizen to do that, since he has to immerse himself G�� s�zF = CGG, v5e � _ �s3 4 r7l n I It J. Crobbe I 1 1 I III III I� 1 1 Existing Culvert I I I I I I I�I I 1 II II I I II I I II I�I I II I rl /R I I I Sweeney i I II I I 1 \ \ State of Vermont ` Veve Assoc i Parcel #2 Lie Lot D en end 0.60 Acres Stormwater Line m Stormwater Grate 1 Water Line Hydrant / ISewer Line 1---------- Electrical Line 1 — — — — Boundary Line IEasement Line 1 1 I 1 1 Town Square Assoc. ------------------- I NOTE: \ \ \\ \ 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR \ \ \\ \ CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. \ \ 2. BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS & OTHER INFORMATION \ \ \ FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP LABELED 'AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT & SITE PLAN" DATED \ \\ \ 8/16/83. AND, CITY OF S0. BURLINGTON MAPS OF NEW DORSET STREET ENTRANCE. AND, VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED MED. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. I )o Zoning In/ormation / R-7 District Max Building Coverage 209 Max Lot Coverage 40% g AZ Res. Density 7 units/acre eu Setbacks Front 30 feet 2 Sides 15 feet -- ' .SITE Rear JO feet PUD Perimeter 30 feet Lot Coverage Ratios Existing Development - Buildings 56,201 sf = B. 78X 640,356 sf 174,515 sl = 2739 640,356 sf Max. Residential Density 14.9J Acres + .60 Acres = 108 units (104 Existing) Alllowed 7 uni s Acre Parking Requirements Exist. Parking (6 Garage, 104 ports, 70 open) = 180 Spaces Protect Location City of South Burlington 0 IS 25 50 100 200 IN FEET BAR SCALE i sev-o N I I 1 R�I I Frederick H. Tuttle IMiddle School I I I ru JAN 2 8 1997 I I City of So. Burlington I I ISouth Burlington I High School IDec. 4, 1996 Minor Changes To Calcs. RFK 12-6 July 7, 1995 Location Map Revised; Elect/Gas/Cable Removed; RFK 07-27 July 10, 1995 Back Road & Colcs Revised; Easements Label' Adjacent Owners/ Location Map. RFK 07/I1 May 30, 1995 AsBs- Utilities Relocated/ Gas Line Added. RFK 05/30 ZBuiltuilts RFK 05/08 May 8, 1995 May 4, 1995 - Parking Relocated. Condo Units Moved/ Garages Added. RFK 05/04 April 12, 1995 April 05. 1995 Legend & Additonol Units Added. RFK 04/12 Zoning Info/ Parcel p2 Added. RFK 04/5 Dec. 08,1994 Nov. 29, 1994 Pkg. 0 Condos Changed. RFK 12/8 Condo Added/ Barscale Added. RFK 11/30 Nov. 14, 1994 Storage Reduction/Utilities Added. RFK 11/15 Nov_10, 1994- Storage Spaces Added. _ RFK _ 11/10 Date Revised _,- Description Checked Dote Design - SITE PLAN I Drawn RFK DORSET COMMONS APTS. I Checked RFK Sale 1"=50'-0 Dcole 10/14/94 435 DORSET STREET SO. BURLINGTON, VERMONT Project 3435 Veve Associates • South Burlington, Vermont Permex Design Design, Planning & Drafting S P 1 8 Mountain View D24ve Swanton, fermont 0508 ;a,.x City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 26, 1995 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed is a copy of the August 8, 1995 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. in ere , J Weith, Ci y Planner JW/mcp 1 Encl Memorandum - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 4, 1995 Page 2 Coverage/setback: Building coverage is 25.7% (maximum allowed is 30%). Overall coverage is 61% (maximum allowed is 70%). Front yard coverage is 29% (maximum allowed is 30%). Setback requirements will be met. Parking: A total of 25 parking spaces are required and 29 spaces are being provided including one (1) handicapped space. A bike rack is being provided as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. The parking space closest to Berard Drive should be eliminated to provide a minimum 15 foot green strip along the street as required under Section 25.107 of the zoning regulations. Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, is $1200 which is being met. Plantings will include White Pine, Spruce and Yew. Traffic: ITE estimates that the current facility generates 7.1 vehicle trip ends and with the addition to generate 13.3 vte's for a 6.2 vte increase. The applicant should be aware that the road impact fee for this project is approximately $1000. Sewer: No sewer allocation needed due to on -site septic. Dumpster: The dumpster is located at the rear of the existing building so it will not be visible from the street. Lighting: Exterior lighting will consist of the following: --- one (1) 175 watt high pressure sodium lamp with a downcasting and shielded fixture mounted on a 12 foot pole. --- five (5) 35 watt high pressure sodium lamps mounted on the building with shielded fixtures. An existing pole mounted flood light will be removed. 5) VEVE ASSOCIATES - ADD DWELLING UNITS - SKETCH PLAN This application is to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 105 multi -family dwelling units. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing four (4) dwelling units in two ( 2 ) buildings, and 2 ) allowing a portion of the property to be �A Memorandum - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 4, 1995 Page 3 used for a parking area for an adjacent senior center. This project was approved on 5/24/77 (minutes enclosed). The ZBA on 4/9/84 granted the applicant a variance from the density limitation of 104 units to add one (1) additional dwelling unit for the resident manager. This property located at 435 District. It is bounded on the (Town Square), on the south by on the east by Dorset Street. Dorset Street lies within the R7 north by a residential development City Hall, on the west by I-89 and Discussion of Density and Coverage: The first thing the Commission needs to do is determine how we should interpret maximum allowable density and coverage in a mixed - use development such as this one (i.e., residential PRD and a "commercial" parking lot for a community care facility) . In the R7 district, maximum density for residential uses is governed by number of units per acre and also by coverage restrictions. Commercial uses are governed only by coverage. In the R7 district maximum allowable coverage for residential uses is 20% for buildings and 40% overall. Commercial uses are allowed a 25% building coverage and 60% overall coverage. In the case of mixed - use developments on one lot, it is not clear which coverage limitation should prevail or how density limitations should be applied. A precedent was set with the review of the mixed -use L&M Park development on Shelburne Road, however, I do not recommend that we continue to apply the method used in that application to determine maximum density and coverage. In that application, the developer was proposing 150 residential units and roughly 75,000 square feet of commercial development on 30 acres of land. Maximum residential density in the Cl district is 7 units/acre. Maximum building and overall coverage for residential is 20% and 40%, and for commercial uses is 30% and 70%, respectively. To determine maximum coverage, we worked backward based on the number of proposed residential units. 150 units would require a minimum of 21.4 acres (150 units 7 units/acre = 21.4 acres), leaving 8.6 acres for the commercial portion. Applying the maximum coverages to the 8.6 acres yields a maximum commercial building coverage of 2.6 acres and overall commercial coverage of 6 acres. This seemed to be an appropriate method for determining maximum coverage since the residential and commercial portions of the development were geographically separated. 3 Memorandum - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 4, 1995 Page 4 This method poses a problem, however, when residential and commercial uses are proposed to be located within the same building or complex such as what we are trying to encourage in the City Center. To account for this type of situation, I recommend that we no longer interpret maximum density and coverage in a mixed -use development by assigning a certain number of acres to the residential use and a certain number of acres to the commercial use, as was done in the L&M Park application. Instead, the number of residential units should simply not exceed the allowable density, and the amount of building coverage and overall coverage for the entire development (i.e. both residential and commercial) should not exceed maximum coverage requirements. In the case of a district which allows different coverage limits between residential and commercial uses, such as in the R7 district, the more restrictive coverage would apply. Or, the Planning Commission could choose which to apply based on the predominant character of the area. This method of interpretation for mixed -use development on one lot could potentially lead to more commercial footage being developed than with the other method of interpretation. However, I do not see this as a concern since the City is trying to encourage mixed - use development in its commercial districts. Provided below is an assessment of the project's density and coverage based on the new method of interpretation described above. Density: The base maximum density for this property, calculated under Section 26.152(a) of the zoning regulations, is 84 units. The Planning Commission has the authority under Section 26.152(b) of the zoning regulations to permit density increases up to the normal maximum according to the degree to which the development satisfies the general standards listed in section 26.151 of the zoning regulations and the specific standards for a PUD in the R7 District. The normal maximum density is 107 units based on the lot size used for coverage calculations as indicated on the plan. The lot size used on the plan to calculate density does not reflect the Dorset Street taking. The perimeter survey which will be submitted with the revised final plat will indicate the exact lot size. The applicant is proposing 109 units which appears to exceed the maximum allowable density. The applicant should submit a written report addressing the PUD criteria under Section 26.151 of the zoning regulations. 4 Memorandum - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 4, 1995 Page 5 Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 8.9% (maximum allowed is 20%). Overall coverage is 27.9% (maximum allowed is 40%). The overall coverage information should include the emergency access road and the parking area on the applicant's property leased to the senior center. Access/circulation: Access is provided by a 30 foot curb cut on Dorset Street. No change proposed to this access. A gated emergency access is proposed at the rear of the property which would provide access between this property and the adjacent nursing/convalescent home property to the north. The type of gate used should be approved by the Fire Chief and the access road plowed in the winter. Circulation is adequate. Setback requirements are met. Parking: This project requires a total of 243 spaces. The note on the plan indicates that 168 spaces are existing and 18 additional spaces are proposed for a total of 186 spaces. Staff counts only 168 spaces on the proposed plan. This represents a shortfall of 75 spaces. The plan should note that the 22 spaces on lot D do not count towards the applicant's parking requirements. A total of six (6) handicapped spaces should be provided (none are shown on the plan). Landscaping: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, is $7740. Existing and proposed landscaping has not been submitted. This information should be provided with the revised final plat. Sewer: The additional sewer allocation needed for this project is 2100 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit. Revised final plat: The final plat plans should conform in all respects to the information requirements under Sections 203.1 and 204.1 of the subdivision regulations in addition to the following: --- show all existing and proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping sh ould meet the minimum requirement required under Section 26.105(a) of the zoning regulations. 5 Memorandum - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 4, 1995 Page 6 --- provide existing and proposed exterior lighting details (cut - sheets) and show locations on the plan. --- show dumpster locations, all dumpsters should be screened and so noted on the plan. --- provide a bike rack as required under section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. --- provide a perimeter survey of the entire property and show "parcel D" merged with the original lot. --- show existing 10 foot pedestrian right-of-way easement. --- correct the note on the plan so that the Conservation and Open Space District is not shown as an easement. --- the correct name of the abutting landowner adjacent to lot D is Pines Housing, L.P. not Dorset Land Company. Impact fees: The applicant should be aware that the residential impact fees for this development are approximately $6200. 6) PINES HOUSING, L.P. - PARKING EXPANSION - SKETCH PLAN This application is to amend a previously approved planned commercial development consisting of 88,740 square feet of medical and general office use and a 124 unit nursing/convalescent home, 421 Dorset Street. The amendment is to: 1) convert 6,000 square feet of basement area in the nursing/convalescent home to a senior center, and 2) expand the parking area to accommodate the senior center partially on the applicant's property and partially on an adjacent property. The last amendment to this project was on 5/9/95 (minutes enclosed). The ZBA will consider the applicant's request for a conditional use permit on August 14, 1995. Parking: An unknown number of parking spaces are required and 441 spaces including 11 handicapped spaces are being provided. The number of spaces required is unknown because the applicant does not know at this time the number of persons occupying the senior center. This information should be provided prior to final plat. The expanded parking area adds 48 additional spaces, 25 spaces on the applicant's property and 23 spaces on the adjacent Veve property. The legal documents for the parking on the Veve property should be approved by the City Attorney and recorded in the land records prior to recording the revised final plat. 11 336 �. 3 S- i i 1 / eA Ill V✓V August 3, 1995 Joe Wyth City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street • qv?, ;nc. Design, Planning & Drafting Sera ces, 42 a, -4 . 'ioue fale�� rli2, %i3or�ea�i� l:5/4h' lµt f lG�ze: i5'U % 6,T.; /90Y max: (802) 655-/.904 Design, Planning & Drafting L'_-"Jervrces. DENSITY CALCULATIONS DORSET COMMONS VEVE ASSOCIATES In 1985, addition of a 105th mit.over office space: 1) Main :Lot -prior to the ,.taking of land, by..the City L Of South lington-was given a:variance to build UPL'to'J'05 units; This would translate to .042 Acres short for 109 units; less than the .065 Acres short that a Variance was given for. THEREFORE: We feel that the Density of Lot D should be able to be transferred onto the Main Lot without harm due to the previous taking of land by the City of South Burlington or the arrangement for additional parking on Lot D for the Senior Center, a community benefit. 05446 6,757-A901 Ktr. (802) PLANNER 658-7955 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 Vermont 05403 August 4, 1995 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and Fire Chief Wally Possich were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please JW/mcp Encls giv me a call. Sin erel , Jo Weith, Ci y Planner r 4 . PLANNING COMISSION M.AY 24, 1977 i to have expert opinion on a plan if that plan is not the one being studied by the Commission. He made it clear that this was not Mr. Graves' fault but that he would like a change in procedure. Xr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan proposal of the Tygate Corporation for a 101 unit motel, and 275 seat -restaurant, as depicted on a plan entitled "Hotel and Restaurant for rporation, South Burlington, Vermont, drawn by Wiemann Lamphere Tygate Co , dated April 11, 1977, subject to the following conditions: 1) Aisle width between parking stalls to be 24 feet. 2) The 15 foot strip of land along the Williston Road frontage, which is to be deeded to the city, shall extend across the 50 foot strip of land at the extreme southeast corner of e property. 3) The recommendations of the City Engineer regarding layout and specifications of storm drains, pavement width, and lighting per his memo of May 20, 1977 shall be complied with. 4) The total amount of landscaping required remains the same as previously approved on May 25, 197 ; the distribution of landscaping on the revised plan shal e e ermined by the Zonirlg Administrator, after consultation with the applicant. - 5) Any future modifications or additions to this plan shall be subject to site plan review -- 6) The plan submitted 2iay 24, 1977 to the South Burlington Planning Commission shall be reviewed for final approval by the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. The motion was seconded by fir. Ewing and passed with Mr. Rozendaal abstaining. Mir. Poger asked that item 4 and item 5 on the agenda switch places, and that was done. Deliberation on two final plats: ICV and 435 Dorset St Mr. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan and final plat application of Xr. Ralph Veve, for a two phase, 104 unit apartment ro'ect known as "435 Dorset Common" as depicted on a plan entitled "Final Plat and Site Flan - 435 Dorset Common" 5 sheets drawn by Environmental Assessment Group, undated, subject to the following stipulations: 1) A recreation fee of .$6,517.00 shall be paid in an amount pro- portional to the number of building permits issued, when hem are issued. 2) Phase II landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to construe lon oPh ase ; a an scap i nd of a15. OCOC shall be posted for Phase I prior to issuance of building permits. 3) A performance bond to be set by the City Engineer shall be posted. 11 a P PLANNING COPYISSION 4) Temporary fens to be saved, to preven- shall be installed around exis va ciiV1 Vt1C:i1W 5. MAY 24. 1977 5) The plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Assistant, Drior to recording. 6) This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date, persuant to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations. 7) Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Prase II, the Commission must find after a duly warned public hearin , that the construction of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed unanimously. Iir. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final lat application of Investors Corporation of Vermont for 3 lots and the firstphase_64 units of a 220 unit apartment complex, as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan - Kennedy Drive Apartments for ICV Corporation, South Burlington, Vermont", dated April 22. 1977, unsigned, subject to the following stipulations. 1) Bonds for landscaping, utilities, and other required improvements, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer or Zoning Administrr t� shall be Hosted prior to issuance of building permits. 1 2) Show easements for lots 1 and 2 utilities .L , � .. _ t destrian 3) Construction drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits 4) The width of paved roadways shall be 27 feet except 24 feet_ between two adjoining rows of parking,:and properly -delineated on the final 1p at to be recorded. 5) Phase I is considered to have site Plan approval with the exception of a landscaping plan, which shall be submitted to and approved by the Comnlsslon after issuance of building permits and__prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 6) A final plat, incorporating the conditions of final ap r v , shall be recorded after review and approval by the Planning Assistant 7) A recreation fee (based on a total of 0, 447 00 for 220 units shall be paid in proportion to the number of building pe L +=eyed, at the time of issuance. 8) The City Attorney's certificate that all required legal documents are satisfactory shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. >� I Dorset Land _. o� Veve Assoc. Company o Lot D Legend Zoning Information J. Crobbe s _ £Idefr Housing Pr*fact_ 1 oO° - -`� _ _ _`` -� - ' — — ' — - Stormwater Llne R _ MaxDistrictg Coverage 2OX f _ Max Lot C * 40te * a p Stormwater GrateDensity Max Res. Denmsitesa y 7 unita/ocn � - IWater 1 • • .... • • . • • Line $ems' Front 30 fleet + r H Hydrant Tic Yd S7dw 15 feet Rea 30 feet C - PUD Perimeter 30 feet — - — — - Sewer Llne — I New 12' culvert Lot Coverage Ratios Eidstilg Development - Buddings 56,201 sf a a78X Boundary Line 640,356 of Easement Line Lot Cov. �356 sf = 27.3X Existing Culvert I I 1 l ✓� Mallbox Collector Proposed Development- Budd/ngs f92 sf 8.87X :I I 1 1 Lot Cov. 185,633 *f 66G4.92 sf = 27.9X r I�� Mac Resldenc/d Density 14.93 Acres + .50 Acres = 108 units (104 Existing) AlBowed 7 un s cre I ' I No Emeyenry Gates Patting Regvhwnents '7JiF 1 Extsthg Parking Spaces - 168 Space* _ I Proposed New Development 186 Spaces + 22 Spaces, Lot D Town Square Assoc. �*g' - 2 *p°ae%"'R + 1 'pao.*/4 T-1 - Sweeney I . • •L ..... ...... - I State of Vermont �lU I1� ��iA��T►rt��ggw:� I � F- LLI \ �` \\ I - LJ NOTE '\''� •e... _ . 'TX • (/) 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. \ i. \:�E��� \ • - --- . 2. BOUNDARIES EASEMENTS do OTHER INFORMATION FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATE'S SURVEY MAP \ \ \ •. • - ' • ' • " �--� _ LABELED\ LABELEDAS-BUILT / FINAL PLAT k SITE PLAN' DATED 8/16/8% LASTED REVISED; \ \ •\ •�� AND, CI Y OF SO. BURLNGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET STR ` \ \ \ \'•• \ -�- - �- AND, VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED MED. PRESSURE, DATED 3/20/90. AND, SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS. ' � �� City of South Burlington a 15 cue so 100 am � IN FEET \ RdR SCiLE 1 1 July 27, 1995 Pro)ect Location Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School RECEIVED J U L 3 1 1995 City of So. Burlington South Burlington High School I� 1 I Utility connections Added; Got* h velvet IRFK I7-28 Revised; Zoning Into. Updated; Lot D Added. PROPOSED SITE PLAN DORSET COMMONS APTS. 435 DORSET STREET SO. BURUNGTON, VERMONT Veve Assoeiatss • South BurUrWto1% Vermont Vermex, Inc. computer d Bssoyrm S f 2 P.O. Box 21f2 south Btsrttny / ff 054,7 '+ Dote evlaed Design RFK Drawn RFK Checked Date 5-1-95 Prefect 3435 i Design,, Planning & Dm fling Services. July 31, 1995 Joe Wyth City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 J�'acl a fclr/ ft�i, %le4r wmi 65446' /-itarrc: (802) 6,; -/901 � ax: 002i 655-1904 ✓�dE /�55�G 7-- 4D 5- q� lwd4y)d lvwv/k�, -::- / G�, -� � /5-53� r MEM,01It AINDU M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTO?� PLA^+NING COM ;IS:�ICN FROM: RICEARD WARD, ZONING ADMINIST:t :TIVE OFFICER RE: DCL;SET COML.OIV - SKETCH PLAN R�VIEvy' DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 4 / 1. Area zoned R-7 - maximum density 102 units - maximum /� density is proposed. 2. Proposed parking for 193 vehicles - minimum required 153. 3. Sewer on Dorset Street ends at Town Square Apartments. Existing sewer line to rear of property. Airport Parkway treatment facility is near capacity - information for City Engineer should be furnished by d.eveloper i.e. number of bedrooms. 4. Entrance to complex should be minimum of 30 feet. 5. Area is heavily treed - Tree Committee and County Forester should be consulted. Developer should save as much of existing vegetation as;possible. 6. Additional recreation area should be a consideration of developer. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 11, 1995 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, September 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Fred Blais, Chairman; Dennis Johnson, Dan King, Lance Llewellyn, Mary Anne Murray, Maureen O'Brien, Joseph Randazzo Others Present Rafael Veve, Mildred Estey, Madeline Yandow, Charlie Brush, George Chamberland (The Other Paper), Richard Ward (Zoning Adminstrator) Mr. Blais swore in the appellant and members of the audience who might wish to speak to the appeal, then read the warning. 11 - Appeal of Veve Associates Rafael Veve seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Density requirements. Request is for permission to construct an additional four (4) residential units at Dorset Commons for a total density of 109 units on a parcel of land containing 15.3 acres, located at 435 Dorset Street. Mr. Ward informed the Board the area in question is zoned R- 7 District. Section 25.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements. Maximum density, 107 units (15.3A. x 7 = 107 units). Existing density, 105 units. Proposed density, 109 units, construct additional 4 units. Note: Variance granted April 1984, constructed a 28' x 48' maintenance/operational building with a second story dwelling unit. Applicant proposed to add Lot D (100' x 120' = 12,000 square feet) which would increase density, Lot D to be leased to the Pines Housing for parking (approved August 26, 1995 by Z.B.A.). Total lot area of the Dorset Commons to include Lot D is 15.3 acres. Mr. Ward added that the proposal is to build an additional two buildings of two units each. Mr. Johnson asked how Lot D can be counted with Dorset Commons if it's being counted with Pines Housing. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Veve is the owner of Dorset Commons (14.7 acres) and Lot D, even though he has leased off a portion of that lot. Mr. Blais suggested that since the land wasn't conveyed for the purpose of increasing the density of an adjoining parcel it can be counted as part of the owner's ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 2 property. Mr. Ward said that is the question the Board must decide. Ms. Murray asked whether Lot D is about .6 acres; Mr. Veve said it is .594 acres. Mr. Llewellyn wanted to know the rationale for requesting 109 units when only 107 are allowed. Ms. Murray questioned the details of the 1984 variance. Mr. Ward said the high number would have been 104.7 units; the applicant requested rounding it out to 105 plus a maintenance building. Mr. Llewellyn said the applicant has now lost some property. Rafael Veve said his original plan would not have involved application for a variance, because he was going to put four units on Lot D, which would have been permitted. He said he has a right-of-way with Pines Housing to enter through their parking lot, and he would block off access to Oakwood Drive except for emergency vehicles. Mr. Veve said he changed his plan when the senior center grant came about and Charlie Brush of Pines Housing asked him to move his four units further south so as to solve the parking problem created by the planned senior center. He said the Planning Commission looks pretty favorably on his appeal if he can get Zoning Board approval. Mr. Veve said that he is less short on acreage now with 15.3 total acres than he was when the 1984 variance was granted. He said he believes in the senior center, otherwise he could build in the northerly portion of his property. When the units are moved south it creates a problem of interpretation as to linkage of his two properties, he said. Mr. Veve said it is necessary for him to have four units; two or three are not sufficient. He said the senior center won't be built if - Pines Housing can't lease a portion of Lot D because Pines doesn't want to destroy green space by surrounding the building with asphalt for the additional parking. Mr. Veve suggested that since he's short very little on acreage, the greater benefit to the City is the creation of a senior center. Mr. Randazzo asked Mr. Veve to address the variance criteria. Mr. Veve said as to 1., that the lot size is too small for the four units. He asked the Board to consider his two properties as linked. Several Board members disagreed. Mr. Veve said the properties are linked because they are under the same ownership. Mr. Blais said even if there was no question about who uses Lot D and it was considered one property with Dorset Commons, density requirements allow only 107.1 units on 15.3 acres. Mr. Veve said the building permitted by the 1984 variance is ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 3 grandfathered; Mr. Johnson and Mr. Blais disagreed. Mr. Johnson said the maintenance building should be counted toward coverage. Mr. Veve said he currently has 105 units total, including the maintenance building. Mr. Blais asked how Mr. Veve would argue for 109 units, irrespective of the question of Lot D. Mr. Veve said he looks at his request as being for 108 units, because of the one granted by the 1984 variance. Mr. Johnson said why not build two additional units instead of four. Mr. Veve said he needed four for economic reasons, having lost a lot of money over right-of-way legal battles. Mr. King asked whether Mr. Veve would say he needs four because fewer would create a financial hardship; Mr. Veve said yes. Mr. King directed his attention to variance criteria 3. re hardship. Mr. Veve said the hardship is sociological because the community's need for a senior center puts a burden on him. Mr. King said the criteria are a legal matter and he can't get by 1. and 3. Mr. Randazzo said he was bothered by the implied threat in connecting the senior center with this appeal; each must be evaluated on its own merits. Mr. Veve said his appeal does not exist in a vaccuum and there is a higher order to be considered. Mr. Blais said the Board should not be hearing this kind of testimony about an adjoining property and asked Mr. Veve to address the criteria without reference to the senior center project. Mr. Veve said the pressure on him to cooperate with the senior center project is the only reason he came before the Board, and he must go beyond the usual rules and regulations for the good of the City. He added that the rubber band stretches but does not break. Mr. Blais said Mr. Veve had been a good neighbor and his development generally has been an asset to the City Center concept, but the Board must find that there is a rationale to grant his appeal that is not economically based. He said he was comfortable with counting Lot D as part of Mr. Veve's acreage but not persuaded that 109 units should be approved when 107 are allowed. Charlie Brush of Pines Housing added supportive testimony, saying that Mr. Veve has an existing 105 units, to which he is entitled. If you add Lot D with .594 acres, that will support four units on its own, he said. Mr. Brush said if the Board refuses approval to build four units, isn't it taking away Mr. Veve's previous variance because he has leased Lot D? Mr. Brush said that would be holding Mr. Veve to a higher standard than previously existed. Mr. Veve said the Planning Commission had given him a break on parking ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 4 requirements because of new criteria affecting an already - existing situation. Mr. Brush said the Planning Commission had been reasonable in not taking away what Mr. Veve already had, and the request for four additional units is the same type of situation. Mr. Ward said the comparison doesn't equate because only 107 units are permitted for 15.3 acres. Mr. King agreed that those are the rules. Mr. Randazzo said you can't count Lot D's acreage toward supporting both new units for Dorset Commons and parking for Pines Housing; that would be overcoverage. Mr. Brush said there is no double-dipping going on; Mr. Veve is merely selling him the use of some parking spaces. He said Mr. Veve is not even close to maximum coverage. Mr. Llewellyn said he would like a legal opinion on whether you can call this two separate parcels and move density from one to another. He said the applicant wants the Board to see the property as two parcels for some purposes and all one for others, and suggested that the original variance disappears if the properties are combined. Mr. King said he agreed. Mr. Llewellyn said he didn't think the two lots can legally be combined. Mr. Johnson wondered whether the density transfer rule used in the Southeast Quadrant might be applicable here and decided it was not. Mr. Blais said the question was whether the existing parcel, prior to the acquisition of Lot D and as varianced in 1984, can be left unaffected and the Board separately consider a new appeal for further building by the same landowner on a different parcel of land. Mr. Johnson said the 1984 variance violated density requirements by very little. He said if the two parcels are combined 108.045 units would be permitted, which is not much less than the requested 109. Mr. Ward said only 107 units would be permitted on the total acreage. He added that Mr. Veve doesn't have Planning Commission approval to put four units on Lot D. Mr. Blais said he wanted an opinion from the City Attorney on his previously -stated question. Mr. Ward said Mr. Veve was asking for a variance on top of a variance, and it can't be done. He said the old variance is disturbed by the new appeal, since circumstances change due to losing some land and gaining other land, alterations in zoning bylaws and other factors. Mr. Ward said Mr. Veve would need to go before the Planning Commission to develop Lot D; if he is going to merge his two parcels, that's another issue. Mr. Blais asked whether the grandfathered provision gets lost ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 5 from the original variance when the appellant asks for a modification; Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Blais suggested a continuance for the purpose of consulting the City Attorney. Mr. Ward said the burden of obtaining legal counsel would be on the applicant, and it could then be reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Veve had questions about the interaction between his own lawyer and the one for the City. Mr. Brush was concerned about the effect of a delay on meeting the grant deadline and said he is only leasing about half of Lot D, or 12,000 square feet. Mr. Blais offered Mr. Veve a continuance to consult his own attorney in order not to risk losing any rights created by the original variance. Mr. Blais then polled the Board to get a sense of where members stood: Mr. Johnson and Ms. O'Brien said they had no problem with the appeal while Ms. Murray, Mr. Randazzo, Mr. King and Mr. Llewellyn had various concerns and objections, the consensus being that legal advice was necessary. Mr. Llewellyn suggested that Mr. Veve should be given the exact question the Board will be taking to the City Attorney so that his own lawyer can address it. Mr. Blais stated the question as follows: The Board requires a legal opinion on whether or not the variance as grandfathered on the original parcel may remain intact and unaltered by the new request for the development of four units on an adjoining parcel by the same landowner. Mr. Johnson said his figures showed that if the two parcels are legally permitted to be combined, 108 units would be allowable. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Veve would have to do some legal work to combine the parcels. There was some discussion about how Mr. Johnson did the math. Mr. Blais called a 5-minute recess for the purpose of obtaining a calculator. Using the square footage numbers on the map, a figure of 107.35 units was obtained. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the percent of variance for 109 units would then be 1.54. Mr. Blais said the question of a continuance remained. Mr. Veve stated he wished to request the continuance. Mr. Llewellyn proposed an additional question: If an owner owns two contiguous properties and wants to dissolve the property line to merge them, how is the density figured? Mr. Blais and Mr. Randazzo pointed out that the 5 Criteria still need to be answered, even after the legality of the ZONING BOARD September 11, 1995 page 6 request for 107 units is established. Mr. Llewellyn asked whether the application could proceed without dissolving the lot lines. Mr. Veve said there were financial considerations involved that required him to keep the two parcels separate entities. Maureen O'Brien moved to continue the appeal for the purpose of obtaining an answer to the aforementioned question. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and all voted aye. Other Business Ms. O'Brien said it had been brought to her attention that a daycare on Barrett Street, approved by the Board a couple of years ago, has been expanded by the owner buying the next - door house and running a daycare center there as well, with a fence enclosing both properties. Mr. Ward said anyone in a residential district is allowed to offer daycare for as many as six children. Ms. O'Brien said that she had received a complaint about a second -story deck at 151 Hayes Avenue being built too close to the property line. Mr. Ward said he would look into it. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about a portable sign in front of Club Fantasy and asked if it was legal. Mr. Ward said the use of the sign to advertise Club Fantasy was over and he would not be pursuing it. Dennis Johnson moved to accept the minutes and the findings of fact of August 28, 1995. This was seconded by Ms. O'Brien and all voted aye. Dan King moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. O'Brien seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 July 18, 1995 Ralph Veve Veve Associates P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05407-2361 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Four (4) Unit Expansion, Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Veve: Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Please respond to these comments with revised plans and/or addition information, if appropriate no later than Friday, July 28, 1995. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ly, Raymo d J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls Preliminary Comments - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 18, 1995 Page 2 --- this property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 2 which allows this property to generate a maximum of 26.2 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates that this restaurant currently exceeds vte's permitted and this expansion of the restaurant will further exceed the vte limit. Under Section 21.50 of the zoning regulations, the Planning Commission may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the normal standards if the Commission determines that other site improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. It does not appear that any site improvements are proposed which would produce a benefit to traffic flow. --- plan does not accurately depict shrubs southerly of the Midas Road access and plan shows shrubs along southerly boundary which do not exist. --- the five (5) flood lights mounted on utility poles should be replaced with downcasting and shielded fixtures approved by the City Planner. --- this building is a noncomplying structure and any expansion is limited to 25% of the fair market value. Using the City's assessment of $390,400, the proposed expansion is 52.5% or 27.5% greater than permitted. Applicant should consult with Zoning Administrator Dick Ward regarding this matter. VEVE ASSOCIATES - ADD DWELLING UNITS - SKETCH PLAN --- the correct name of the abutter to the south is City of South Burlington. --- the Conservation and Open Space District should be labeled. --- does overall lot coverage information on sheet SP2 include the parking lot proposed for lot D? If not, this information should be revised to include this coverage. --- indicate the number of parking spaces in each of the covered parking structures. --- provide number of additional bedrooms proposed. --- provide estimated cost of the new units. --- the residential impact fees for this development are approximately $6200. Revised final plat: The final plat plans should conform in all respects to the information requirements under Sections 203.1 and 204.1 of the subdivision regulations in addition to the following: 2 Preliminary Comments - Planning August 8, 1995 agenda items August 18, 1995 Page 3 --- show all existing and proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping should meet the minimum requirement required under Section 26.105(a) of the zoning regulations. --- provide existing and proposed exterior lighting details (cut - sheets) and show locations on the plan. --- show dumpster locations, all dumpsters should be screened and so noted on the plan. --- provide a bike rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. --- show parcel D as part of this development by showing it on sheet SP2. --- show existing 10 foot pedestrian right-of-way easement. ALFRED SENECAL, JR. - OFFICE/WAREHOUSE ADDITION - SITE PLAN --- indicate quantity of each planting proposed. --- provide total square footage of office space, number of non - office employees and number of company vehicles operating from the premises. --- provide front yard coverage information (front yard is 40 feet in width along road right-of-way). --- applicant should be aware that the road impact fee for this project is approximately $1000. --- plan should show storage trailers. DAVID OLENICK - RESUBDIVISION - REVISED FINAL PLAT --- plat is acceptable. --- submit an 11"x 17" reduction of plat. L&M PARTNERSHIP - SETBACK WAIVER & EASEMENT REDUCTION - REVISED FINAL PLAT --- submit a revised sheet 5 of 27 showing the new easement configuration. This plan will eventually be recorded. 3 M- - /Y �6JIeolv Preliminary Comments - City Engineer August 8, 1995 agenda items July 20, 1995 Page 2 NOWLAND II - RATKUS DRAINAGE EASEMENT - SPEAR STREET Sketch plan with the dimensions added will be acceptable. DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS - DORSET STREET 1. The project location sketch showing the City limits is completely in error and should be deleted. The main streets such as Swift, Dorset, Spear, and Williston Road should be on this sketch. 2. Site plan is very difficult to follow water, sewer and drainage lines and their size should be clearly shown. It is not necessary to show gas, electric and TV lines. 3. Champlain Water District has an easement across this property, it should be shown. 4. Services (water and sewer) to serve new facilities shall be shown. Also drainage pipes and culverts including size. 5. Access to the Sweeney lot should be shown. 6. Utility lines including drainage should not be installed under buildings. 7. The emergency access drive should include a gate at each end. It should also be maintained including snow plowing. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commissioin FROM: Wallace Possich, Fire Chief (p DATE: July 17, 1995 RE: Plans Review for August 18, 1995, Meeting I have reviewed the following site plans and my comments are as follows: 1. Dorset Commons Apartments 435 Dorset Street Acceptable 2. Old Farm Road Boundary Line Adjustments Acceptable 3. Omega Electric Berard Drive Acceptable 4. Al's French Frys 1251 Williston Road Acceptable 5. Pines Housing, L.P. 7 Aspen Drive Acceptable Dated 7-13-95 Project No. 3435 Dated 7-12-95 Dated 6-20-95 Dated 7-6-95 Dated 7-14-95 No Text /V 6 140p( r�Pc� COMPUTATION OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES (Use separate Form R-1 for single family and multiple family dwellings) PROJECT DATA: (1) NUMBER OF DWELLINGS BY TYP: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (2) "EFFECTIVE DATE" FOR TAX CREDITS: IMPACT FEES: (3) SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PER UNIT (From Sheet R-2) times NUMBER OF UNITS (From (1), above) equals TOTAL SCHOOL FEE /cr6 FORM R-1 $ unit X units _ $ (4) RECREATION IMPACT FEE PER UNIT _a (From Sheet R-3 ) $ unit times NUMBER OF UNITS (From (1), above) X units ((// equals TOTAL RECREATION FEE _ $ �/ 70 (5) ROAD IMPACT FEE PER UNIT (From Sheet R-4) times NUMBER OF UNITS (From (1), above) equals TOTAL ROAD FEE (6) TOTAL IMPACT FEES (3+4+5) unit X � - units $ FORM R-2 COMPUTATION OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING A. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE $ 2,183.94 (1) - CREDIT FROM TABLE SCH-1 - (2) - CREDIT FROM TABLE SCH-2 - TOTAL SCHOOL FEE PER DWELLING $ B. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE $ 1,091.97 (3) - CREDIT FROM TABLE SCH-1 - _ /_/D ( 4 ) - CREDIT FROM TABLE SCH-2 - o �/. v TOTAL SCHOOL FEE PER DWELLING $ FORM R-3 COMPUTATION OF RECREATION IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING A. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE $1,686.36 (1) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-1 - (2) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-2 - (3) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-3 - (4) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-4 - (5) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-5 - (6) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-6 - TOTAL RECREATION FEE PER DWELLING B. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE $ 843.18 (7) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-1 - a6•S/ (8) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-2 (9) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-3 (10) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-4 - 38.5 3 (11) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-5 ( 12 ) - CREDIT FROM TABLE R-6 TOTAL RECREATION FEE PER DWELLING FORM R-4 VIV COMPUTATION OF ROAD IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE (1) - CREDIT FROM TABLE ST-1 (2) - CREDIT FROM TABLE ST-2 TOTAL ROAD FEE PER DWELLING B. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS BASE FEE (3) - CREDIT FROM TABLE ST-1 (4) - CREDIT FROM TABLE ST-2 TOTAL ROAD FEE PER DWELLING $ 221.72 $ 155.20 r Ga�3� 1) 2) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN Name, address and phone number of: a) Owner of record Veve Associates * ew-V Q, P.O. Box 2361 (802) 864-9869 So. Burlington, Vemront 05407-2361 b ) Applicant Veve Associates ( 802 ) 864-9869 P.O. Box 2361 So. Burlington, Vt 05407-2361 c) Contact Ralph Veve, Veve Assoc. 864-7766 Ronald Kingsbury, Vermex Design 655-7600 Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). Applicant proposes to add two buildings - four units total - to an existing P.R.D. known as Dorset Commons Apartment Complex. J13a J0QS6r A 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, etc) Veve Associates owns this property 'fee simple' 4) Names of owners of record of all 5) Town Square Associates Town of South Burlington Arthur Sweeney contiguous properties State of Vermont John Crabbe Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. 20' utilities easement through South-west section; 50' Access/Uttlities easement through North-west section; 150' Conservation easement adjacent to I89 boundaries 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Exact location of water main entrance at back of property not know by applicant, Town or District officials; possible re-routing of line. 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affects the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: 8) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8 1/2xll, 8 1/2x14 or llx17) of a Sketch plan showing the following information a) Name and address of .the owner of record and applicant. b) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. c) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). d) Boundaries and area of : 1) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record, and 2) proposed subdivision. e) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. f) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. g) Existing zoning boundaries. h) Existing water courses, Wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. i) Location of existing septic systems and wells. j) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. k) All applicable information required for a site plan, as provided in the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, planned unit development, or planned residential developme�it . (Signatureyapplicant or contact person Date TAX MAP #: 40-2-21 GRAND LIST #: 0570-00435-R FILE #: 84-17 LOCATION: 435 DORSET STREET DATE APPLICATION PURPOSE 2-22-77 SK 104 APARTMENTS 3-15-77 PP it 5-24-77 FP if 7-12-77 AMEND MOTION OF APPROVAL 4-9-84 V EXCEED DENSITY FILE NAME: VEVE, RALPH 11 RALPH VEVE ME Veve Assoc. Parcel f2 I J. Crabbe I Lot D 1 Existing Culvert I t N /R I I I Sweeney I I- I II ,- ....J...II,.... State of Vermont ` NOTE 1. TNIS IS NOT A SURVEY NOR IS IT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2 BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS & OTHER INFORMATION FROM J.H. STUART ASSOCIATES SURVEY MAP LABELED "AS -BUILT/ FINAL PLAT & SITE PLAN" DATED 8/16/83. LASTED REVISED. AND. CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON MAPS ON NEW DORSET STREET ENTRANCE AND. VERMONT GAS SYSTEMS PLANS, LABELED MED. PRESSURE. DATED 3/20/90. AND. SITE VISIT MEASUREMENTS e e — — — - Stormwater Line m Stormwater Grate • Water Line 7Z Hydrant - • — - — • - Sewer Line Electrical Line o Transformer G Light Pole - - - - - - - - - Gas Line Boundary Line Easement Line Mailbox Collector [> Cable T.V. Transformer Town Square Assoc. City of South Burlington Zoning Information R-7 Distrfat Max Building Coverage 20Z Max Lot Coneroge 40X Max Res. Density 7 units/.tr. Setbacks Front 30 feat Sides 15 feet Rear 30 feet PUD Peknetar 30 feet Lot Courage Ratios Existing D-Wopment - Buildings 56,201 sf B.78X 640,356 sf Lot Co, 771,705 sf 26.7T. 640,J56 sf Proposed Development- Buildings 113 sf 59," 9.SJx 640,356 sf Let C 185, 6J3 sf 29 OS . 640,356 tl Max Residential Density 14.93 Atrss + .60 Ames fOB units (104 Existing) lows un s ore Parking Requbements Existing Parking Spaces - 168 Spores Proposed New Development - 186 Spates (Rags. - 2 spotas/unit + 1 spoces/4 units) 1. zap w rL�r B.4R SCALE ,•_sa•- o F is _ zyV z s Prc,ject Location N Frederick H. Tuttle Middle Schooj RECFEIVku JUL1.3 1995 City of So. Burlington South Burlington High School Da a Revised D.—ptlon Checked I Dale Design RFK PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 Drawn. RFK 1- Checked Seale 1" _ 50'-0 I.DORSET COMMONS APTS. I Dote 3-1-95 435 DORSET STREET SO. BURLINGTON. VERMONT Protect 3435 Veve Associates • South Burlington, Vermont Ve7-mex, %7LC. Computer Aided Design. S P 2 P.O. Box 2f12 South Burlington, fT 05407,. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 August 28, 1991 Mr. Ralph Veve Dorset Commons P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Dorset Commons, Parking Dear Mr. Veve: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This office has received a complaint that vehicles have been parking within the access drives and outside of the designation parking areas at Dorset Commons Apartments. It is our under- standing that this problem occurs in the evenings and at night. Parking outside of the designated parking areas is a violation of the approval granted by the Planning Commission. Most important- ly, it interferes with emergency access. We therefore request that you take whatever steps are necessary to see that there are no vehicles parked within the access drives. If you have any questions, please give me a call. 7oe cerelyWeith, City Planner RJB/mcp cc: Jim Goddette, Fire Chief ea:re lob AAJ 0!ZD cJ VJCE TO ESTAB YIi AND __'WkT-4 AIi4 FIRE LAt.-S The Council of tite City Of South Burlington hereby ordains: The Council of the City of South Burlington has, after investigation, determined that the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the City will be promoted and the danger from fire may be lessened by the establishment of fire lanes or fire zones in appropriate places. The esta- blishment of said fire lanes or fire zones shall be made so that quick and adequate access will be provided for fighting fires and preventing injury or assistance to injured persons. Section 1. This ordinance shall hereafter be known and cited as the "South Burlington Fire Lane Ordinance." Section 2. The fire chief of the City of South Burlington shall study and determine what locations would benefit from the establishment of fire lanes or fire zones and aid in the prevention or extinguishing of fires. Section 3. Fire lanes may be established on any public or private parking lot or other area adjacent to building(s) which are open to public use or in any areas where congestion from any cause or obstruction by parked vehicles might impede quick access by emergency vehicles. The fire lanes or fire zones so established shall be available for use of the fire department, its men and equipment, or any other emergency vehicle. Section 4. The owners of such property, as directed by the fire chief, shall cause to be posted and/or marked upon the ground the proper control signs for the fire zone or fire lane, and all signs and ground markings and their location shall first be approved by the fire chief. Section 5. The term "emergency vehicles" shall include all fire apparatus, police cars and rescue vehicles. I -2- 1 Section 6. No vehicles, except an emergency vehicle as herein defined, shall be parked within the fire lane or fire zone at any time nor shall any vehicle be operated so as to impede an emergency vehicle in its use of said areas. ' Section 7. r Any member of the police department of the City of South Burlington rRay cause to be towed to a convenient public garage any vehicle parked in violation of this ordinance. Section 8. The owner of any vehicle towed to a public garage under the provisions Of this ordinance shall be responsible for paying all towing charges, storage charges or other expenses incurred in moving the vehicle, except that the charge of towing each vehicle shall not exceed $25.00, and the storage for each vehicle shall not exceed $3.00 per day. The operator of the garage may hold such vehicles until such charges have been paid. Section 9. Any person who violates the provisions of this ordinance, or any order or regulation issued pursuant thereto, may be fined in accordance with the provisions of 21 V.S.A. §254 as presently enacted or as from time to time here- inafter amended, and may further be subject to other action to compel compliance available under 21 V.S.A. §254 and other laws of the State of Vermont as presently enacted or as from time to time hereinafter amended. Section 10. Any part or provision of this ordinance shall be considered severable, and the invalidity of any part or section will not be held to invalidate any other part or provision of this ordinance. Section 11. This ordinance shall take effect upon passage. Approved: �, 1977. Paul A. arrar, Chairman Michael D. Flaherty 4' !f Catherine M. Neubert Aohn�B.�ink�laqe���� rank Ii. Armstrong SOUTH BURLINGTON CI`!'Y COUNCIL VEVE ,SO(jdIeS Mr. James W. Goddette, Sr Chief South Burl -in ton Fire Department rtment 575 Dorset N. So. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Dorset Commons Apartments Dear Chief Goddette, 18 December 1992 vevc. We received a copy of your recent letter of concern to Mr. Burgess of the South Burlington, Planning Commission. As you well know and after today's office visit with you we are cooperating very fully in keeping Dorset Commons safe and accessible to your equipment. As you must already have noticed, our corners are mostly devoid of any parking since our aggressive notification and towing enforcement began. in an case we have been good neighbors with an extraordinary track record during the past 14wgars. As far as we know, we have had only 5 small fires; all of which were immediately and satisfactorily taken care of. We understand you recently had a very slight delay of minutes negotiatin a corner with your large ladder truck; but it did come v in successfully. Because of this we have ?otten very aggressive on the no yarkinq'ban on these corners. The act that our complex got qpgrova for less than 301 roads like many others was a sign of he gment ofthe time. We will continue to work with your department, short of drastic measures to ensure safe passage. We also understand that you do not wish the South Burlington Fire Department or its municipal government to be liable for any lawsuit ar-:'sij-(j from the facts that there nay be inherent design f2aws from YOUl" Of view. To our there has nevier been a suit filed in Vermont on that problem nor do we ever even imagine that we would do such. However your point is well taken as you are notifyinq us of your perceived deficiency. AFor this we accept full r6sp6nsibility for any future 'Loss aswe have always and will continue to do such. As soon as the weather permits, we will be erecting fixed si-gns and line striping the roadway. We will continue to cooperate with your department in order to maintain DorSC.4- Co-mmons in as safe a condition as possible. Yours Truly, �j R iael F. Vev Jr. f Landlord cc: William Burgess 7VEVE associates Dear Dorset Commons Resident, 4 December 1992 On Wednesdays December 2nd we had a small kitchen fire that could have been disastrous. The following da a tenant intended to dry a patio furniture mattress against the ou side heater vent of the building resulting in another small fire. These are the onlyy two fires that have occurred this year; but one fire's too many. We all live in very dense multi housing and must cooperate at all cost to prevent any disasters. First of all, when you report a fire lease use the South Burlington Fire Department number of 658-1234 and not 911 unless its the only number you can remember. When you use 911 it causes a larger response from the surrounding communities department and may cause them to lower their readiness. So please use the South Burlington Fire Department number of 658-1234 first. We will be distributing emergency South Burlington phone stickers shortly. Of utmost concern and seriousness we will once again start aggressively enforcing NO PARKING on tie corners. Tenants of Building 1 apartments 1 - 12 should take special notice not to park in any of the east and west corners of your building. Most definitely we do not want to see cars parked on either side of the roadway or in the lawn. Tenants who live in Building 3, apartments 25 - 36 should also be very aware of their respective corners to the east and west and the no arking rules. Those tenants who live in buildings towards the west and back near the interstate should also be aware not to park at the apex of the corners. The idea here is to leave these areas open for the smooth entry of large emergency vehicles. It would be sad and tragic indeed if these areas were blocked due to your negligence and our property or loss of life would occur due to the slow response to the emergency. We will be line striping these areas in the spring. In the meantime we will be enforcing these areas with a tow away policy with Spiilane's Service Center on Williston Rd. If you have an question as to exactlyy where you should not park, please contac us at the office at 864-7766. There is plenty of open parking throughout the community. Use your carport actively and be prepared to park and walk a very small distance from these open areas. We will start actively towing cars starting December 14, 1992. Your cooperation will insure the speedy access of emergency vehicles and make Dorset Commons a safer place to live. Yours L y 41 Ra h Veve Lan lord P 0. Box 2361 S0 flu111ng1on Yvinion1 0S407 802 864 7766 FAX: (802) 658-4746 r � fftuM ig urlingtuit Fire i9epartment 575 Bnraet ftert f £�nuth Wurtingtnn. Vermont 05403 , (802)658-7960 Mr. William Burgess Chairman So. Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Burgess, March 11,1977 the fire department reviewed a plan for the Veve complex at 435 Dorset Street. At that time we requested that all roads to be 30' wide. Because of space problems I was asked if the roads could be less then the 30' wide. At that time because of the design of the road way we said we could live with 26' roads with no parking on main roads. The development was approved for 1' car parking space per unit. Through the years we are finding 11� spaces per unit is not adequate, plus people want to park near their unit so they don't have to walk very far. On Wednesday December 2, and Thursday December 3,1992 we responded to fires at 435 Dorset Street. Both days we had problems getting our equipment.in due to parking on the main roads. I had a meeting with Mr. Veve on the problem. He agreed there were problems on the corners but he needed the parking on the straight aways. Mr. Veve and I road around the developments and there were many carports and extra parking spaces with out vehicles but they were parked on the main road. I told Mr. Veve that something must be done that with the parking as is with fires like we had on Thursday November 19,1992 we would not beable to give proper fire protection to the complex because we would not beable to set up our equipment in the proper location with the parking in the main road ways. if you have any questions please feel free to call me. 8 cerely dames W. Goddette Sr. Chief `• cc; Mr. Ralph Veve IL (11i �.r�a�ll•�l��;a�i.. �exi IxE Prvartment 'rabq . artrrs DORSET STREET OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER 863-6455 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. March 11 s 19 77 NTr. William B. Wessel Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Wessel, After reviewing the site plans on the Ralph Veve complex at 435 Dorset Street the following should be agreed on so the fire department can give proper protection. 1. Main water lines be at least 8" . 2. Main water line should be tied in a second way. It could be on Dorset street north end of complex but would be best if it was tied into the water main which is at the back of the complex. 3. All roads must be at least 26 feet wide for fire equipment. 4. Buildings should be at least 30 Feet apart but not less then 15 feet. If there ,are any questions on the above please feel free to call me at 863-6455. Sincerely Aj James W. Goddette Sr. Chief GRAVEL, 511FA €3 WRIGHi CLARKE A. GRAVEL. CHARLES T. SHEA LAWRENCE A. WRIGHT THOMAS S. CONLON STEPHEN R. CRAM PTON S-fEWART H. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B. IHEMLEY JOHN C. GRAVEL WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BROOKE PEARSON ATTO RNEYS AT L A W 109 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE B U R L I N G T O N. VERMONT 0 5 4 0 2 Mr. William Szymanski City Manager City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: 435 Dorset Common-- Veve Associates Application Dear Mr. Szymanski: April 21, 1977 TELEPHONE 658 0220 AREA CODE 602 I write this letter on behalf of my clients, Rafael F. Veve, Sr. and Rafael F. Veve, Jr., who are in the process of applying for the necessary permit before the South Burlington Planning Commission. ,Apparently, John Stuart, the site plan engineer for the applicants, misread your intention or misunderstood your decision reached with consultation with the Fire Marshall as to what the City was requiring for a width of the private roadway which runs throughout 435 Dorset Common. The roadway has always been scaled to a width of 27', and on that basis the final plan and site plan were prepared. Both Mr. Stuart and Mr. Veve now understand by word of mouth that the City may be requiring a 30' wide roadway throughout 435 Dorset Common. Both Mr. Stuart and Mr. Veve feel strongly that the 27' width is more than adequate to meet the demands of the development. However, be advised that the applicants, by means of this communication, do hereby stipulate that if the City administration and its Planning will require a 30' wide private roadway to service the development, the private roadway will be laid out and constructed in its entirety with a uniform width of 30', and that the "as built" plat will so depict said width. SRC:vmm CC: William B. Wessel Steven Page Richard A. Spokes, Cordially, GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT Stephen R. Crampton Esq. M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: 435 Dorset Common Date: April 22, 1977 1. Roads should be crowned and not pitched to one side as proposed. Additional drainage structures will be required. 2. Roads shall be 30 feet in width with curbs. 3. Drainage structures will be required in the grassed areas to facilitate surface drainage. 4. An additional drainage inlet will be required along Dorset Street across from the High School entrance. 5. Fire Chief has recommendations for the placement of fire hydrants. 6. Sewer pipe to be bedded in crushed stone. 7. Manhole inverts shall be paved to the depth of the intercepting pipes. 8. Water installation materials, location of valves, meters, shut -offs, shall be approved by the Water Department Superintendent. 9. Storm drain pipe shall be asbestoes cement or concrete. 10. Road base shall be 18" of gravel. Respectfully submitted, William J. zy nski, City Manager AGREEMENT AND WAIVER THIS AGREEMENT dated this slj day of �3 , 1977 by and between VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont. WHEREAS, Owner has come before the South Burlington Planning Commission and the South Burlington City Administra- tion for approval of a subdivision as defined under Section 103 Definitions of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, said application being known and designated as "435 Dorset Common", and WHEREAS, the subdivision will be serviced by a private roadway of 27 feet in width which shall remain private, and the Owner has no intention at the present time that the roadway be dedicated, accepted, and/or maintained by the City of South Burlington, and WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission and City Administration, has approved the application with said private roadway subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval of said private roadway and other consideration, each to the other party given, the Owner does hereby acknowledge and agree that it will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations or other applicable Municipal Ordinances, the expense of complying with said requirements and specifications to be borne solely by the Owner, its successors or assigns. Further, the Owner waives any rights it may have or any claim it may allege by virtue of the City of South Burlington's approval of said private roadway to request the City of South Burlington to maintain and/or accept said private roadway without first completing at its own expense all necessary improvements to said private roadway as set forth hereinabove; and until such time of acceptance, Owner acknowledges that it shall be responsible for and shall maintain said roadway and right of way in a proper manner necessary to adequately service said subdivision. The Owner also acknowledges and agrees that it will not change the location of said private roadway nor extend said private roadway without the prior approval of the South -2- Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration, nor shall it permit said private roadway to service more than the presently approved 104 dwelling units without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges that the City of South Burlington, prior to any approval and acceptance of said private roadway as a public street, shall have and bear no liability or claim of liability arising from the approval of said private roadway. This Agreement and Waiver is binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their jj hands this W day of 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: VEVE ASSOCIATES, Owner BY ru Duly A tho ized Partndr CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By GZC Du y Aut or zkd Agent -3- a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By -� man, PlanTTLnj C/mmission STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At Burlington, this II4\ day of 1977, personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., Duly Authorized Partner of VEVE ASSOCIATES, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of VEVE ASSOCIATES. Before me , Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. this A a— day of 1977, personally appeared Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLrNGTO and WILLIAM B. WESSEL, Chairman, Planning Commission of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and they acknowledged the within instrument, by them signed, to be their free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before Notary Public -4- II. 435-DORSET - FINAL PLAT 3 P �p 61s IT7 1) All of the City Manager's and Fire Chief's recommendations have been complied with, excepting a building; separation of 301, and the road width, which has been waived from 30' to 27' by the Commission 2) The recreation fee works out to be $6517. 3) Landscaping review - see Dick Ward's memo. 4) Legalese is in order. 5) The application for the entire project (104 units) is complete. rs. 1�illiar B. Wessel Ghairr-an 6oath Burlington x-la ni ng Connissiom 1175 ►-•illiston iioad ' :mouth Lurlinl;ton, Vca -^cnt 05401 !Dear Kr liessel, Ln Thursday April 21, 1977 :�r. I"illian Szyi;znski and 1 reviewed the plans on the apart.-nent complex off Dorset ";treet and the following should be corrected to enable the fire deprrt?.ent to give proper fire prctection. 1. i•A"F_ in roads to be 30 feet wide. 2. Iivdrants to be located as narked on plans by Ia•. ,zy—zns1:i and Vself. 3. :11 buildings rust be 30 feet froL. another building. If you have any questions on the above please feel free to call r-..e at E63-6455. "incerely _ 3ar_ec 1.. Godcette -r. Chief cc; Ex. uilliarn Szymanski VEVE ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 2361 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 864-7766 3 September 1991 Mr. Joe Weith / City Planner 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Dorset Commons Apartments Parking Dear Mr. Weith, We are in receipt of your letter dated August 28th concerning parking problems related to safety. We have been a good neighbor for the past 14 years. Little has changed since the inception of Dorset Commons Apartments. From time to time Fire Chief Goddette has complained about choke points and cars parked in front of fire hydrants. We have responded in every case and policed those areas. In order to alleviate some of your concerns, we propose to upgrade, repair and reinstall fire lane tow away signs in front of hydrants. In addition we will paint several choke points in the roadway to block parking and establish new tow away zones. Those areas that have been singled out are towards the main entrance around the corner of buildings 2 and 3 next to the fire station side, along the west side of Coral Lane in front of buildings 6 and 7, along the corner of buildings 8 and 9 and in front of fire hydrants. Please note that the existing main entrance will be shifted next year creating some parking as a new entrance gets realigned towards the middle on Dorset St. to share a street light and intersection with the new school entrance. In all the years that we have operated and maintained Dorset Commons Apartments we have yet to suffer from an access safety situation. We have had our share of apartment fires and medical emergencies with no detriment to the rescue job at hand. On the contrary, Dorset Commons enjoys a safe, free -flowing oval with center lane accommodating a most comodius flow. Yet we share your concern for safety and are willing to cooperate in making Dorset Commons an even safer place to live. sincere ly, lyat h eve Landlord :Vril 22, i ;' Mr. William D. Wessel Chairran :youth Lurlington rlanning Commission 1175 killiston hoad ' :youth Lurlington, Vermont 05401 Dear hr liessel, On Thursday ,pril 21, 1977 Itr. .ailliam Szymanski and I reviewed the plans on the apartment complex off Dorset Street and the following should be corrected to enable the fire department to give proper fire protection. 1. l,;ain roads to be 30 feet hide. 2. Hydrants to be located as narked on plans by I''r. Szymanski and nays elf . 3. JU buildings must be 30 feet from another building. If you have any questions on the above please feel free to call me at 863-6455. "incerely T� -_ec k. Goddette ter. Chief. cc; Mr. vli11ian Szymanski r-4 C) c., C) > Q C) (J co 5 i ro 4-) C'i ro C: 4-) 1 -ri f A 4-j ILI oivis o�nrr`cEr.nTrpEr r OF HFAtfik 8c CAL HEALTH Burlington, ; s.,t i; :;ant 05401 July 11, 1977 1,A(11ui veve vem Associates Jericho, Vera nl-- 05465 Re. 435 D'orset Common South Burlinyt:ou, i%ervant :j"x * r. veve Plans submttcud on your Oela if by elm cnvi. � t sesguierrt GrouTs co"alating of 5 plan sbaets for aria construction o ,n- aters stam to serve tijo proposed 435 aareet Cmusa z develo�u rt in Sout' lin � including opprox- iatoly 2100, of 8" water liree+ with fires hy4 bavI eviered. In al6•Co2dSt7CEi witi'z StlCtloTl .} Of t`j€ Public rgtt r acion s`, Lijese platLq are approved W!" th& following, c ions. 1..'.A& Project must be anc s0ec1t1Cat:10A9. A:,y daVlations be suomitted In writing for review ,ixf,lccor lance with t,•ze approved calains �e►ed ��iana ar sped fica bons r-!vst before hie. changes are made. �.'.arrpsite insr.�ectlon ckf f corps t cf ion s:,al1 be performej by a competent inspactor under tee qvner".uperv1s1Qd-Pf a professional angrine er. This office coral iers It to be CIia owner's Insure that reasonable and adequate ins;nection of construction is carri«x: tee tact tlize rkmject is constructed In accordance r1th the approved plaits. 3. The profess owier ,'as -built" drawings d field ch,errye*s. : /11 Co. imvEe Cards Alain Airy* John Stuart City of South .Burlin57ton anginaer aball supply to tal s division aad to the ng t,1W system as it sad conatructed including mizzor lnc 4Arel y , Barula &. Sargent, P.G. Publid health Engineer faivtsioza of "viroe nta.i aealttz rA State of )ermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Engineering Division of Environmental Protection Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. William Szymanski City Manager City of So. Burlington So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Szymanski: RECEIVED J U L 18 1977 MANA F-R' ' QF"F'1 "'F CITY SO. RURLINGTON AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Division of Environmental Engineering July 12, 1977 Re: So. Burlington Water Supply 435 Dorset Street This office has completed its review of the plans and specifications entitled, "City of So. Burlington - 435 Dorset Street", and hereby approves the same as a basis for construction pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Chapter 37, Section 910. If questions arise, feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, William C. Brierley ' P.E. Environmental Engineering Executive WCB/lg cc: Alan Nye, Regional Engineer Steven Goodkind, Department of Health John Stuart, Environmental Assessment Group CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number t V t 2. 3. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application Nature of the Development or Subdivision AyilwTina)T11 - 4. Location_ of Development or Subdivision's tA °-ice 43' ruv� -.:...High and Low Elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision • Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont %. Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) 2 - 8. If the Applicant is not an individual, the Form, Date, and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM: DATE: PLACE: 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not hswer) 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any Deed(s) to be issued? -'I"—Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) _Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. (4) Include a contour map of the land involved drawn on a scale _of_ 5_ foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and width of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development or Subdivis- ion including information, if available, on Soils, Streams or Other bodies of [dater, Bedrocks, Etc. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest B. Number of acres in this project C. Number of acres previously developed D. When do you anticipate beginning the project E. When will this development or, subdivision be completed 16. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. p B. Where is the nearest municipal water system and is it available and feasible to use it? ° 1 _-" 17. Sewage System: A. What type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system,or municipal system? - 4 - B. Where is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? C. If the sewage system is other than a community, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching fields include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. 18. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and owners. c addresses of adjacent property B. What is the adjacent property used for at present C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? 19. Zoning: A. Which"District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? DATE ?. SIGNATURE A.DMIN I STRAT IV E CHECKLIST PROJECT N.`'.E/FILE REFNCE 1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL IiOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER 2. BONDING OR ESCRO'V`7 AG111FE.1ENTS LANDSCAPING ROADS CURBS 4p' S !DE, ?ALK S (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LI'ST N.PPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND P - NIITS GRANTED & SITE4�r I + INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: 4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE RECORDED � L QL-?S'�` ,g' Z4 i ( r7 ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x¢p 7llzl7% 6. ROPD3dAYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x 7. FIN'zL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - TAMPED SIGNID;V & FILED OR RECORDED'-'- B. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILM 9. MISCELLANEOUS AGRE:.-ME�ii TS LAID FOR ROAD WIDENING O OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS SHARED ACCESS POINTS OTHER 10. COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES)YE:� 11. FEES - PAID DATE Sx .;iuR 2 RECREATIOiI W +04 D y?-' 12. 1:P CT FOLLO, UP :v¢- �'t � "�5�� (jot - "ON i.e.,, LIME" �V' LUAT-� Gi 0L M.�l .� Z� 78 «s E; State of Vermont ont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation Department of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION August 22, 1984 Monipelier, Ver►nont 05602 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering Ralph F. Veve Box 243: Jericho, Vermont 05465 RE: 4CO259-3; Dorset Commons - Manager's Apartment with Maintenance and Operation Building, Dorset Street, South Burlington Dear Mr. Veve: The Division of Protection has received a written request to allow the commencement of construction for the foundation of the above referenced project. In accordance with the Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 4 - Public Buildings, Section 4-03(2), authorization is hereby granted by the Protection Division for commencement of construction with the following conditions: (1) Construction of the actual structure is limited, at this time, to foundation work only and does not include nor is permission granted for the installation of interior plumbing either above or below grade. (Please note, interior plumbing is defined to include waste and water piping beginning 3 feet outside of the foundation wall and extending into the building. (2) Permission for foundation construction does not include authorization for the installation of the exterior sewer and water line services to the building. No exterior sewer or water lines are authorized for installation until the Certification of Compliance has been issued by the Protection Division. (3) This letter authorizing foundation construction does not relieve you, as applicant, from obtaining all approvals and permits as may be required from the Act 250 District Environmental Commission #4 and the City of South Burlington prior to construction. Site & Foundation Approval Letter Page 2 Please note, this office has the plans for the interior plumbing and ventilation. Before approval of these plans can be granted we will need the following information and revisions to the plans. 1. Indicate the scale of drawing #5, as a ten foot horizontal separation must be maintained between the one inch water service entrance into the building and the nearby 2 inch waste line garage slop sink. 2. The waste and vent riser diagram on drawing #6 does not coincide with the horizontal waste piping layout shown on drawing #5 for both floors. 3. The garage toilet room lavatory is not vented as the second floor kitchen skink/dishwasher discharges into the 2 inch vent for this lst floor fixture. 4. The trap and waste line for the lst floor shower must be 2 inches in diameter. 5. Indicate the type and quantity of waste that will be discharged into the condensate drain in that a trap primer may be required. Show appropriate air gap fitting above trap for this type if discharge. 6. Indicate if the floor drains will be equipped with a removable sand interceptor bucket. 7. Indicate the make and model of the air gap device to be installed for the dishwaster and submit a detail for the waste to the kitchen sink waste drain tail piece. 8. The first floor water closets must be elongated with open front seats and must be indicated on the plumbing plans or specifications. 9. Install a backflow preventor on the water line to the boiler instead of a check valve. 10. A backflow preventor on the water line to the dishwaster is not required as all dishwashers have a built-in air gap. The hot water line to the dishwasher must be 3/4 inch in diameter. I Veve: Site & Foundation, Initial Review Page 3 11. Submit exhaust ventilation plans for the three bathrooms indicating the CFM of the fans and showing duct work to the outside air. In the meantime, should you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer cc: Katherine Vose City of South Burlington Department of Health Fire Prevention Leonard Duffy City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 863-2882 658-2486 May 30, 1984 Ralph Veve 98-B Snipe Island Rd. Jericho, Vermont 05465 RE: Sewer Allocation for 435 Dorset Commons Dear Mr. Veve : This letter is to notify you that the 250 gallons per day allocated to the above mentioned project is now available and you are no longer on a waiting list. The Planning Commission received and approved a revised Preliminary Plat application from a developer whose lower, revised request freed up sewer capacity for your project. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel City Planner �W State of firer n-ion t Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Ern ronrnentai Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Rec;-eation Divisi in of PZL , ,ring Natural Corsen"ation Council mX. Stephen Page City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont' 05401 Dear Steve: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MARTIN L. JOHNSON, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS P. 0. Box 132 Essex Junction, VT 05452 March 10, 1977 On February 16th I met with N1r. Ralph Veve to inspect the site of his proposed apartment complex at 435 Dorset Street. The site is flat, soils being Scantic poorly drained silt, and Duane - Deerfield sands with high water table. The forest growth is a pole stand of gray birch and red maple with admixtures of red oak and white pine. The decadent condition of many of the birch stems indicate that this stand, though small in diameter, is over —nature. This is confirmed by studying the 1942 aerial photos, which show a dense, young stand on this site at that time. The existing trees will be an asset, and should be preserved in three locations - the buffer'strip along Dorset Street, and each of the court -yards in phase one and phase two. On a relative scale these are large areas which, according to the plan of 1/26/77, will not be subjected to construction disturbance. In order to preserve the integrity of the court -yard, I did recommend to Mr. Veve that he run the rater and sewer lines around the periphery. The maximum benefit will be realized from these areas if they are left completely natural, except for periodic removal of dead material. In such a natural condition the red maple, oak, and pine regeneration will become dominant as the gray birches die, however, if the area is mowed or otherwise subjected to intensive maintenance the demise of the gray birch will leave the area completely open and in need of landscaping. Within the limits of construction no effort should be made to protect any of the trees. Gray birch is very intolerant of root disturbance, and, as the plan is drawn, extensive disturbance cannot be avoided. A well -executed landscane design would be much more complementary to this project than would a patchwork of decadent trees with a short life span. r'r. Stephen Page Page 2 '"larch 10, 1977 In considering the landscape needs of this complex, I would caution the City against mixing new landscape plants with the existing ve,gitation. The shade of the present overstory would be detrimental to the survival and ,gro-.th of most nursery F,-roi�m trees. "Ile _ Resell `? .-ay hssistan z y Fores r RSR:mis w State of Vermont LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE No. 4CO259-1 APPLICANT Veve Associates* LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED ADDRESS Snipe Island Road 10 VSA, Chapter 151 (Act 250) Jericho, Vermont 05465 and Vermont State Board of Health Regulations, Chapter 5, Sanitary Engineering, Subchapter 1, Public Buildings DISTRICT COMMISSION # it HEREBY GRANTS THE REQUEST TO AMEND LAND USE PERMIT # 4CO259_,.,_,_r FOR THE PURPOSE OF approving Phase II THE APPLICANT IS REMINDED THAT THIS PERMIT IS BEING ISSUED ONLY FOR THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS STATED ABOVE. ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL PERMIT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE MUST BE OBTAINED IN ADDITION TO THIS PERMIT. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions on the original permit not amended remain in full effect and are hereby incorporated by reference. 2.. hand Use Permit M(()25) will expire on June f, 1997, and mist be renewed prior to that date to remain in effect. Construction on Phase II shall be completed by November-1, 1979. For the District #4 environmental Commission Curtis W. Carter, environmental Coordinator Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 16th day of February, 1978. EB-A-11/3/75 *rTnme of annljcant lrfl n.7,nirntion darn. rnrrE>rrntl T'r1,r,tnr,, 1/,, ].o7B. August 19, 1983 Attorney Stephen Crarq)ton 109 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, Vearnont 05401 Re: 425 Dorset Street Dear Steve: Per our conversation, be advised that all required zoning permits were applied for by Vekle Associates and were issued over a period from 6/11/77 to 8/11/78. Certificates of occupancy were issued as the project was in total conUliance. If you. have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/rrcq CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Q-0-e P© 3cpx ;-3tv9 +I b. Applicant IoAe - - - - ---- �O c . Contact. I 0 S4 () 7 �,A , 4- 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed �ujse(s). {`\-} ` t eaT f r D t.c;� 11 ��C��u`rerr Dt- A0 Moebw-��A MIS AWAMMMIN11. 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc. e- e �-� % m n� 4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. ReFec In rrcard-ed -ale � eyc /4sn ie-4e s- a,ncL 11 V Ca,L& rr4 b t 12arc e wr,,�j Q a, t I I i- ki e a il 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affects the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such a do s: i rti 4��� Lyn F, r � �er�_ a �6r► Pr Ana - /O%3/ 95'A 1�Ia 5- I A ? I - , 8) Submit ve copies an one reduced cop ( } x 11, 8J x 14 or 11 x 17) of a Sketch p following information: a) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. b) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. c) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). d) Boundaries and area of: 1) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record, and 2) proposed subdivision. e) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. f) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. g) Existing zoning boundaries. h) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded f areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. i) Location of existing septic systems and wells. j) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. k) All applicable information required for a site plan, as provided in the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, planned unit develo m nt, or planned residential development. a (Signature) applican ont c ot person D to Memorandum Re: Next Meeting's March 9, 1978 Page III Agenda Items a) the stretch of Williston Road from Route 116 to Kennedy Drive is projected to be at from 65 to 79% of capacity westbound, excluding Pyramid but including Digital. b) in 1979 and 1982 (projections including Digital and excluding Pyramid), for the intersection of Nilliston Road and Kennedy Drive, the east and south approaches will be operating at from 82 to 104/ of capacity,while the north and west approaches will be at 26 to 60/ of capacity. As far as the site plan is concerned, access, circulation and parking are adequate. ,To provide adequate circulation area, the existing cedar trees will have to be cut dorm - the landscaping plan will conform to ordinance requirements 4. Peterson Site Plan This proposal is to construct a 3360 sq. ft. addition to the existing office building at the corner of Cottace Grove Ave. and Zilliston Road. (see enclosed map). Access - is being improved considerably, by closing two S•;illiston Road curb cuts and sharing an existing curb cut with an adjoining property. Two access points are proposed for Cottage Grove, ihich I feel are warranted because of the on site circulation pattern and low traffic volumes on Cottage Grove, Landscaping - proposed landscaping will consist of new plantings plus relocation of some existing trees. I feel the estimated construction cost of $40,000 is too low for a 3300 sq. ft. plus building and the required amount of landscaping should be raised from the present $1200. No screening is necessary. Circulation and Parkin 30 parking spaces are required. proposed parking, which consists of 3-5 transient or short term parhers. A waiver ;gill be necessary for the 22 permanent spaces, and room for Circulation room is comrioJious in front of the building, and adequate in the rear. 5. 435 Dorset �i�ended Subdivision This request is for apr.roval of a minor „codification to the an:iroved plat. sir. Veve .aould like to delete the tennis court originally_ sho-,•rn, and add "tot lots" instead. In vie -a of the fact that there are existing tennis courts access -the street at the Hich School, that a r=-cr.e3tion =ae of about $6500 is beirc paid, and that the pro»osed chance is a suristitutic and not a deletion of recreation facili-:'.;?,:, I have no res _rvations about the request. 5/18/77 Draft 3 SSP SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL - 435 DORSET COMMON I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan and final plat application of Mr. Ralph Veve,, for a two phase, 104 unit apartment project known as "435 Dorset Common" as depicted on a plan entitled "Final Plat and Site Plan - 435 Dorset Common", (5 sheets), drawn by Environmental Assessment Group, undated, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A recreation fee of $6,517.00 shall be paid in an amount proportional to the number of building permits issued, when they are issued. 2. Phase II landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to construction of Phase II; a landscaping bond of $15,600.00 shall be posted for Phase I prior to issuance of building permits. 3. A Performance Bond of shall be posted for utilities and other necessary site improvements, 4. Temporary fencing shall be installed around existing vegetation to be saved, to prevent damage or encroachment during construction. 5. The plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Assistant,, prior to recording. 6., ';This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date, persuant to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations), 7. Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II, the Commission must find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construc- tion of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. II. 435-n0PSET - FINAL, PL AT vP' A. of L.+1-., al ,y j ilcilna <.1 .S rxfl'U F i1 have been complied with, excepting a building separation of 3011 and the road width, which has been waived from 30' to 27' by the Commission 2) The recreation fee works out to be $6517. 3) Landscaping review - see 0ick Ward's memo, 4) LeCalese is in order. 5) The application "or the entire project (104 units) is completer I r r ��/A �IJ�.►_/J '`7/iZ/ 77 VjqI This approval shall expire six 6 months from this date may.. - _.__. - - ----- - --- 7� l --..__..-._.-_-.__)___tom.-L 7) Prior to issuance of building -or iaid deN'eloi'Lent ,=riits for the Co��is ind r __ �_ al ter a wo _ duly ,;- ned public nearing, the const�1ctio_A4 ,osed phase w' P,��,.�� +I,- ability to pro Vide ad quate se;;a6e disPosalt edu c'ue to tiie <_ntl�i�ed zesidents in the -,n; se p ro `ion? -I, and hi r}; er i )sed . 435 s -This��roval shall eire six(6) months from July 1, 1978 for - se 2 and from July 1, 1980 for phase 3. �- 13.. Prior to issuance of building or land develo ment , _�_ permits for Phase II a 11-seTrTL, the Commission may find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construction of the proposed phase will exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and highway services -cTue -�Eo the anticipated. residents in the phase proposed, and may alter or or -&its approval as based on those findings. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Mr. Steve Page Asst. City Planner South Burlington, Vermont Dear Mr. Page: P.O. Box 77 Essex Junction, Vermont Re: DORSET COMMON Mr. Ralph Veve was in my office on February 10, 1977 and asked that I submit the following information to you regarding the proposed develop- ment on Dorset Street, South Burlington (See Approximate location on Soil Survey Map ##33 attached.) The soils on the map indicate Duane and Deerfield (DdA) moderately well drained sand and Scantic (ScA) a poorly drained silt over clay material. See Soil Survey Interpretation sheets enclosed describing the Duane and Scantic soils. The larger part of the 120 units as drawn on plan by Site Planner Terrence Boyle, will be build on the Duane and Deerfield soils which as stated on the Soil Survey Interpretation sheet has SLIGHT limitations for buildings WITHOUT BASETaNTS. I recommend that buildings should be build without basements. Scantic (ScA) soil as indicated on Soil Survey Map ##33 attached has SEVERE limitations. I Would Recommend that a drainage plan be dev- eloped before any work is preformed on this soil. Drainage with the use of 41r tile, back -filled with crushed stone at a depth of 31would be recommended. Please contact this office for further information. Sincerely, eginal cz. Thompson Soil ConservationService 0 SOIL SUR VEY INTER PRETATIONS MAPSYMBOLS- DCIH SOIL SERIES - D U A N E DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL Soils in this aeries are moderately well drained and sand range to 25 percent or more water -deposited deposited sand IOY. They occupy deltas, kame terraces, sand, places, Y material. Slopes are dominantly 0 to 15 percent, and old The subsoil to a depth of about 2The surface layer is material below 2 feet is feet is typically sandy, loam but they available gravelly sand or very gravelly or very gravellyY sand, or loamy fine moisture capacit Y gravelly sand, loamy sand or sand, The during wet moisture and de Y is low; and natural permeability is rapid depth to bedrock typically is very low, De Pit to very rapid; ypically exceeds 5 feet, Depth to water table is 1 to 2 feet OIL INTERPRETATIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR FARMING AND RELATED USES S SLOPE CAPABILITY CULTIVATED PASTURE AND PHASE SUBCLASS ARTIFICIAL CROPS HAY WATERWAYS POND DRAINAGE RESERVOIR POND A IIIW MODERATE AREAS EMBANKMENTS r MOi1RaAmc _ MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING USE- The excess wetness and sand result of a seasonally Y texture are the main limitations for into tile trenches Y high water table. Artificial growing and ditches when wet. drainage is difficultbecause The excess wetness is the embankments because the see This soil during Page rate is co generally has a severe limitations sandy material caves g wet seasons because of e r se is ce mondirapid also Y P The soil material also for reservoir areas and becomes more difficult, As alo a is difficult to excavate P gradient increases construction and layout SOIL SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR WILDLIFE SLOPE OPENLAND WILDLIFE PHASE WOODLAND WILDLIFE A,B,C,D MODERATE WETLAND WILDLIFE SEVERE __ -- ------ SEVERE °IA10R FACTORS AFFECTING USE - — The seasonally high water table and sand ondition cause habitat and a aevere limitation for woodland cwildlife habitat. and maintaining wetland wildlife habitat because a moderate limitation for The limitation is severeefor a wildlife the soil is moderately well drained and sandyetablishing SOIL SLOPE SEEDLING WOODLAND INTERPRETATIONS PHASE MORTALITY EROSION H—A-ARD WINDTHROW PLANT HAZARD COMPETITION EQUIPMENT A,B,C HA.ROWOODS CONIFEROUS LI14ITATION SLIGHT SLIGHT ----_.___ SLIGHT SLIGHT MODERATE SLIGHT NORTHERN ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY RATING FOR RED SELECTED SPECIE HARD1'IOODS OAK WHITE RED PINE WHITEWHITE SPRUCE RED SPRUCE 60_70 Site index 50_60 40_50 Site index Site index ITED STATES TMENT I INCOOPERAT ON01 THRVERMONOT AF AGRICULTURE SOIL C GRICULTURAL EXFERONSERVAAITON SERVIICE June 1969 VER:"ONT DEPART'JENT OF FORESTS A'ID PARKS USDA, FOREST SERAND VICE ORDINATION SUBCLASS 4o To To Favor Plant W.P. W.P. R.S. B.Fir W.S. Larch 3.F. ADVANCE COPY- SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS COORDINATION BETWEEN STATES IS CO'APLETED November 1969 i SOIL SERIES- DUANE FOR RECREATION SOIL LIMITATIONS ATHLETIC FIELDS PATHS AND PARKING SOIL CA?AP PICNIC AND TRAILS AREAS SLOPE AREAS AREAS PLAYGROUNDS PHASE l�DERATE MODERATE MODERATE A'B MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SEVERE MODERATE C MODERATE MODERATE SEVERE SEVERE ERE SEVERE SEVERE - - D —. MA10R FACTORS AFFECTING USE FOR RECREATION - vet seasons and sCtrecreational itemsthese time has nbecomea capacity to as The basic limitation for all recreational items is moderate because of the seasonal high cater table an sandy texture. This soil is saturated during support vehicular traffic. The layout and construction of mo slope becomes steeper. septic lank seHage systems, ponds, and access roads refer to other sections. NOTE: For buildings, SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAYINS, GOLF STREETS AND BUILDINGS EXCAVATIONS FAIRWAYS AND SOIL SEPTIC TANK SANITARY ACCESS WITH WITHOUT PIPELINES, ETC. LANDSCAPING SLOPE SEWAGE . LAND FILL ROADS BASEMENTS BASEMENTS PHASE DISPOSAL SLIGHT SEVERE SEVERE MODERATE SEVERE MODERATE ---- MODERATE - - SEVERE SEVERE Ag — MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE_ __ C SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE - SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE __ --SEVERE SEVERE rMAj��'R FACTORS AFFECTING USE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- and other vet periods seasonal high eater table is -a moderate limitation forresidential devethelopmspringth d othewt disposal systems. Septic tank disposal fields are conmronly thereby causing effluent to come to the surface. Special design and construction is needed to prevent ground eater from seeping into basements and other excavations. The sandy material floes into trenches and excavations when vet. FOR ENGINEERING ESTIMATED PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AVAIL. SHRINK- Qo OF MATERIAL PASSING SIEVE PERMEA- WATER SOIL SWELL SOIL CLASSIFICATION >•q0 a200 BILITY CAP. pH POTENTIAL HORIZON USDA UNIFIED AASHO @4 410 DEPTH TEXTURE n✓hr. in.im. Less Low Inches A-1 or 65-90 55-80 40-60 LO-30 More than .04-.06 than 0-10 and, loamy or p-SM A-2 6.3 5.5 and, loamy ine sand 30-50 15-40 0-10 ess Less than Low 10-22 ravelly or PGP, , A-1 ¢ 40-60 than than 6.3 than .04 5.5 ery gravelly P-SM r and or loamy r GP -GM and 20-45 10-35 0-10 Tiore ess 4.5-6. Low ery gravelly �Sp A-1 30-55 than than 22_40 r gravelly P-SM 6.3 .02 plus and r Cp-CM — June 1969 SUITABILITY OF SOIL AS A SOURCE OF water table table GRAVEL- Fair* seasonal high TOPSOIL- Fair, seasonal high water Fair to poor, gravelly sand but seasonally SAND- Fair, seasonal high water table ROADFILL- high water table sil overcame. Moderate- limitations need to be recognized, buttan be overcome with good management and careful design_ DEFINITION OF RATING TERrdS: The Soil is evaluated to a depth of 5 feet or less. The three classes of soil limitations are: Slight -relatively free o limitations or limitations are ea Y ■.. urx Severe— limitations are severe enough to make use questionable. (Back) SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS MAP SYMBOLS SOIL SERIES - S C A N T I C -� A DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL Soils in this series are poorly drained and formed in silty over clayey material. They Occupy beds. Slopes are dominantly 0 to 3Y8 material is and a percent, but range to 15 percent or more. Stones and cobble lare oseldom present. The surface layerlake and the underlying pper part of the subsoil is y ctypically silt heavy loam. The lower part of the subsoil slow; available moisture capacity is moderately high; and tnatlay uralloam or clay. ty is Permeability is slow or moderately water table ranges from 1/2 to 2 feet during wet seasons . Depth tf bedrock typically exceeds 5 feet. high. Depth to seasonal high INTERPRETATIONS AND LIMITATIONS SOIL FOR FARMING AND RELATED SLOPE CAPABILITY CULTIVATED PASTURE AND USES PHASE SUBCLASS CROPS ARTIFICIAL POND - HAY DRAINAGE WATERWAYS RESERVOIR POND A IVw MODERATE MODERATE AREAS EMBANKMENTS B IVw MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SEVERE SLIGHT SEVERE C IVe MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SEVERE SLIGHT SEVERE MODERATE SEVERE SLIGHT SEVERE. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING USE A high water table and the clayey crops and for installing artificial drainage waterways,, and upond aembankments. Ttum are the his limitations for growing faun because of the clayey substratum. Surface water disposal is commonlyneeded, tilth in places severely restricts the growth ofThe excess wetness and poor This soil is difficult to drain especially when it is wet; and therefore has severe plants material is is not too high then adequate compaction is possible, SOIL SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR WILDLIFE SLOPE OPENLAND WILDLIFE PHASE WOODLAND WILDLIFE WETLAND WILDLIFE A MODERATE MODERATE B,C MODERATE' SLIGHT MODERATE SEVERE MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING USE- The excess wetness as a, result of a high water table, is the major restriction for establishing and maintaining habitat elements for openland and woodland wildlife. However the excess wetness is a favorable feature for establishing wetland habitat elements. SOIL WOODLAND INTERPRETATIONS SLOPE SEEDLING EROSION WINDTHROW PLANT PHASE MORTALITY HAZARD HAZARD COMPETITION EQUIPMENT ORDINATION HARDWOODS CONIFEROUS LIMITATION SUBCLASS A,B SEVERE SLIGHT SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE Sw ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY RATING FOR SELECTED SPECIES NORTHERN RED WHITE HARDWOODS OAK RED PINE WHITE RED PINE SPRUCE 66 SPRUCE To TO Favor Plant 50-60* Sitteo index 50-60 W.P. W.S. Site index B Site index .Fir W.C. W.A. W.P. Hemlock UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE dune 1969 IN COOPERATION WITH VERMONT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AND ADVANCE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS COORDINATION YBETWEEN STATES -SUBJECT TOAAS USDA FOREST SERVICE IS COMPLETED JANUARY 1974 SOIL SERIES - SCANTIC FOR RECREATION SOIL LIMITATIONS ATHLETIC FIELDS PATHS AND PARKING SOIL CAMP PICNIC AND TRAILS AREAS SLOPE AREAS AREAS PLAYGROUNDS PHASE SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE A'B C SEVERE RE SEVERE - 4 ------------ -T-- I I . .1 - h water table are the texture, and seasonal high foot and vehicular poor capacity to support MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING USE FOR RECREATION - The excess wetness, si tY drainagerovided, and recreational major soil features affecting use for recreation. This soil has p traffic during wet periods. It dries out slowly even When hen artificial iswet. is p use is delayed. Paths and trails tend to be slippery tank sewage systems, ponds, and access toads refer to other sections. NOTE: For buildings, septic LIMITATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAWNS, GOLF SOIL BUILDINGS EXCAVATIONS FAIRWAYS AND SEPTIC TANK SANITARY STREETS AND WITHOUT ACCESS WITH PIPELINES, ETC NG LANDSCAPING _ SOIL SLOPE SEWAGE LAND FILL ROADS BASEMENTS BASEMENTS MODERATE PHASE DISPOSAL SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE SEVE.PE_ SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE __ A,B,C I + of the soil to support loads when wet. The ty ere limitation fo poor capacity MAJOR because AFFECTING sUSE easORa0tdhiNhYwaterOtable and ip �oi1 Pas a nofrthe soabsorptionrofleffluentlfromeseptPcen uses because of the season g g year hi poor cover material for sanitary landfill trenches to be wet. The clayey material is p saturated condition of this soil throughout most of the Y rovides a poor surface for vehicular traffic. systems and cause sanitary h water table. Lawns and golf fair - land fill because it is difficultbo handle when it is wet and p Basements and other excand delayed ortend to ewet b, restrictedacausbecausee of eofethenexcess wetness. ways dry out Is —`--- FOR ENGINEERING ESTIMATED PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AVAIL. SHRINK- ------- % OF MATERIAL PASSING SIEVE PERMEA- WATER SOIL SWELL CLASSIFICATION 440 4200 BILITY CAP, pH POTENTIAL SOIL HORIZON UNIFIED USDA AASHO #4 #10 n /ia. DEPTH TEXTURE 85-100 0.2-2.0 18-.23 5.1-6.5 Low Inches A-4 or 100 100 95-100 0-20 Silt loam ML or CL A-5 12-•20 5.6-7.0 Low to 100 100 95-100 90-100 Less moderate 20-60 heavy silty CL, CH, A-6 or than 0.20 plus clay loam, or MIA silty clay, or clay June 1,3149 SUITABILITY OF SOIL AS AA SOURCE OF ravel water table GRAVEL- Not suitable, no g TOPSOIL - Poor, seasonal highROADFILL- poor, high moisture content because of tablenal high water table SAND- Not sui, small sand content, seasonal excess fines p a I' ht—relativety free of DEFINITION OF RATING TERMS, The soil is evaluated to a de th cf 5 fe,t or less. The three classes of soil limitations 'ood are: S� g_ limitations or limitations are easily oh tro make come ose question abletion,s need to be recognized, but can be overco!ne with good management and careful design. Severe— I;mitatlons are severe eno ( Back) LANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 1977 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 1977 in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT William Wessel, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, David Morency, Sidney Poger, James Ewing, Kirk Woolery. MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Tom Davis, Mary Sweeney, Arthur Sweeney, Dave Krieger, Bill Duff, Ralph Veve, Bill Schuele, Jean Foster, Doris Buley, Miles Strella, Tom Henry, Terry Boyle, Mike Flaherty, Kay Neubert. The meeting was called to order by Chairman at 7:30 p.m. Reading of Minutes of March 8, 1977 This item was deferred until the next meeting. Public Hearing: Final Plat Application of Mr. Raymond Conchieri for a 3 lot Subdivision at 62 Laurel Hill Drive Mr. Wessel read a Memo from Mr. Conchieri dated March 14, 1977, asking for cancellation of all actions relative to his application. Mr. Poger then --moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission disapprove the final plat application of Mr. Raymond Conchieri based on the demo submitted by him. The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and passed unanimously. - Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Application of Mr. Ralph Veve to construct 102 apartment units at 435 Dorset Street Mr. Boyle described the layout and design of the project. The project is to be built, he added, in two phases: 1) 1977 - 48 two bedroom units and 2) 1978 - 44 two bedroom and 10 three bedroom units. In responce to a question from Mr. Poger, Mr. Boyle indicated the applicant would prefer a curb cut at either the north or south end of the property. Mr. Poger said he understood the developer's concern for the location of the curb cut, but felt that the final determination of the curb cut location should be based on the Citv's overall best interests, considering future access plans to the School Department property across the street, as well as the plans for widening Dorset Street. Mr. Veve summarized his traffic study, indicating that the residents of the project would tend to use the Kennedy Drive intersection, rather thed-.- the Williston Road intersection, and, in sum, that the project would have a negligible affect on the current traffic situation on Dorset Street. 2) PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 1977 Mr. Page said he had arrived at similar conclusions with respect to morning and evening peak hour traffic, but indicated that residents of the project could anticipate afternoon congestion along Dorset Street and also when travelling against the flow of rush hour traffic. The Commission then reviewed the project according to the 14 RPUD criteria. During this review, Mr. Schuele and another member of the audience questioned the adequacy of 1 1/2 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Morency noted that the proposed tennis court infringed on the CO district. Mr. Boyle said it could be corrected. The Commission concluded its review under the 14 criteria, after having heard summaries of pertinent letters (from fire chief, police chief, Soil Conservation Service, county forester, etc.) by Mr. Page. Mr. Poger then moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary p at app ication ot Ralph eve, for a unit apartment project known as Dorse as epic e on o plans_,_ each entitled "435 Dorset", drawn by Terrence Boyle, dated 2/21/77, and 3/8/77. This approval is b se on Positive tindings reached by the commission under major-- suhd-'ivision and R-PLDreview, and is subject to the following stipulations: 1) The following information is to be added prior to warning I) List improvement s y Phase _b) List number of units by building number & number of units c) Show outdoor lighting 11 easements, i.e., utilit, e) Show access to the Sweeney lot. f) Show additional walkways as req info on the two pre 41 ired edestrian, etc..- ary plans into one, minus profusion of tree stRmps h) Final location of access point & turn -out,' 2) The School --Board shall give its reaction to the proposal-' City Manaqer shall curb cut to the project. 3) Both phases of this project are subject to City's growth po icy. 4) A recreation fee shall be assessed. 5) A landscaping plan be submitted prior to issuance of building permits 6) The City Engineers' approval of utilities such as storm drainage, sewer, a , and also -t-he 1 cation of the bus turneut an si ewa 7) The City Manager, on advice of the Fire Chief, shall determine the width ot the s re 8) Relocate tennis court. 9) There shall be 15' minimum distance between structures. �* CHITTENDEN COUNTY, VERMONT — SHEET NUMBER 33 r' 33 724 000 1- EE I (Joins sheet 27) Wo `�C Fu JHI �o � Wo Hi -HIB HID ,. AdE '* Sd.--. _.. Au AdA' :.,.. q N Fu a Ag Le,. o AdB O Ad6 Ad : w /emu Fu JI �CS/il �__-.- E ,'>✓� a HIB 9� AdD F' AdA \ ' BrLf __ - AgA Z A Le Pao HIE HIE c__ Myg HIB CoB a Mp AdA MP DdA MnC P `` fY 0 GREENM UN 7� AdE 'Fu CEME ER Y I O -.. / WO FU �. HIB .Z` 'r' a 'E G A� m AdA FaC ?�.Wo tLf DdA AdB gA AdA \ Au _ - ° N %n HID 4 Le CsD AdA Mu Mp HIB HIE HIE BIB �_ Br AgE AdB HID \ HIB Br v Fu HIE AdA / A 4 V FI f 5P u F .. F m /- --- / COA P F� ILL E Q i 0 Ad.D �Br -._, _ CsE Bra o d % 4 �AdA'��' gf GPU we. HIDA/iiE HIE AA E '�'�.�--_ �� ''��HIB AHf�Au AdE �i� Wo H f AdE B�. HIE d ~` r �— � Ad B Lf a AdA MyB ` AgA c BIB TQ MYC AdA ID \� J , W- \� Br E HIE AdA �'� - NATIONAL GUARD ���� - / �c6 V WINO BIBS MYB w E O AdA 1 Hf Ag : GeB Scf MYC �� -' C Hf An m (1) � � i � Le �� AdE � y� HnA w E Fu m AdE I AdE AdA \AdA MD Wd v BIA L O v Fu S I AdE AdA/ 7 EwB i �� An Z 'c \ I\ AdA _ BURLI?JGTON Wo Hf o B r VeB `-- Z O .� ' � � I � \ b4U1VIC'LPAL x �.� ,'" MYB m N o $ Fw SOUTH LINGTO AIRPo�t'r AdA AdA �; sfA SO BUR N � .,, � W w A FsC �� i � � A � � 'AgA ScA AdE , y A o C Au �- w - ' '� - DdA t AdB � Pe B ch v DdA --` AdA DdA AdA fi I o c W 9 ¢ v a AdE Br O c / Cpp Le / / ! c ! {/ UFaE ¢ 1 66 9 BIB 0 W An� �I w m Au , / _ New Eldridge �-� F Ln r, School - -- 1 t. 1 0 0: tl BIA e ' DdA e S � AdA _- MYB O F E� aP / t - AdE m -- , W N DdA At- Fu 9 u Be II 0 cA BIB N �`- - AdA a AdA v AdA sa 11 — 3_ ' _ - — �I . o U BIB I l Au ii i' AdE AdA /"V� MP if AdD ' / 2A o �� SURRECvv(Ol d m HnA DdA RETION q Cvu� RARIC A Sd ? MP AdA HIE �> AdD �p w E HnA � Ad / Lf Q \ DdA Pd� 1' � Atl ----_ 1 / EwB ETw7A r� - -__- AdB , Pd Bo AdD a AdA AdA o o ° f HnB v 1 H // R L 1 N \� 0 � ScA ��'9 x' •AdA DdA 0 E _ AdA AdA � AdB HnB / VeD FaE AdE Au n AdB Ew6 Ad- AdA ScA _ AdA HnD AdD AdA / HnA AdB AdA Ad 1c��n MYB Q Lh \\!�i AdD + EwA AdA o AdD �BIA vI AdA �� AdB 1 n r Fs6rz �eG �% 0 - �• AdA DdA EwA AdA FaC P ScA Hn a7 BIB—' P Kirby,Corner o qaq FaC AdD G AdA \ ,� DdP ¢ Uc � _ HnE AdA HnB o 'O �o ScA BIA AdD� ScB o DdA �V Au AdA Pd BIA � �6/ AdD \ � MYC NA HnD m m VeB FaC Cv Hn _A AdA MYC MYB m AdA S HnB Hn6 / DdA O �! - >1 189 O� uD n0 HnC qa VeB ,¢ - - AdA HnG PP 6 s Lf BIA /Q Le ' SxC N HnA dA C/ EwA < Hn6 VeC Cv \ HnA AdB j ��i Au ul o0 _ HnE h An / Q y cQ MuD Le Cv v Cv Sd i Lu ScA Sc8 MuD TeE c� BIA TeE nD HnC HnB — -DdA 89 0� HnB Q //` O ScA AdA DdA Sc�A aB- Cv AdB Ad HnC h \ VeB716 - --1\-B- w cr BIA i •_ o +I (Joins sheet 39) 711 000 Fl El AGREEMENT AND WAIVER THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of , 1977, by and between RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. of Fajardo, Puerto Rico, and RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR. of Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont. WHEREAS, Owners have come before the South Burlington Planning Commission and the South Burlington City Administration for approval of a subdivision as defined under Section 103 Definitions of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, said application being known and designated as "435 Dorset Common", and WHEREAS, the subdivision will be serviced by a private roadway of X' in width which shall remain private, and the Owners have no intention at the present time that the roadway be dedicated, accepted, and/or maintained by the City of South Burlington, and WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission and City Administration, has approved the application with said private roadway subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval of said private roadway and other consideration, each to the other party given, the Owners do hereby acknowledge and agree that they will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations or other applicable municipal ordinances, the expense of complying with said requirements and specifications to be borne solely by the Owners, their heirs, successors or assigns. Further, the Owners waive any rights they may have or any claim they may allege by virtue of the City of South Burlington's approval of said private roadway to request the City of South Burlington to maintain and/or accept said private roadway without first completing at their own expense all necessary improvements to said private roadway as set forth. hereinabove; and until such time of acceptance, Owners acknowledge that they shall be responsible for and shall maintain said roadway and right of way in a proper manner necessary to adequately service said subdivision. The Owners also acknowledge and agree that they will not change the location of said private roadway nor extend said private roadway without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration, nor shall they permit said private roadway to service more than -2- the presently approved 102 dwelling units without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration. The Owners further agree and acknowledge that the City of South Burlington, prior to any approval and acceptance of said private roadway as a public street, shall have and bear no liability or claim of liability arising from the approval of said private roadway. This Agreement and Waiver is binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands this day of , 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: Owners Rafael F. Veve, Sr. Rafael F. Veve, Jr. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly Authorized Agent -3- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Chairman, Planning Commission STATE OF COUNTY, SS. At , this day of , 1977, personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., individually, and as attorney in fact for RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR., and he acknowl- edged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. Before me, Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of , 1977, personally appeared Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and WILLIAM B. WESSEL, Chairman, Planning Commission of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and they acknowledged the within instru- ment, by them signed, to be their free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, Notary Public -4- Richard ^ /iatesA�rpplicaLioa �1 t.. )pokes, , Etain, c`x "poLes ( Q6 St. ra.u]. Ltre:ct burlington, .VT 054 Red : 435 Dors =' VLve Foss Dear Dick: ` I'ursLlilht t:o 0 r phone conversation, 1 e:nclose. the { ! i f: ieil.izeu dueuirile:ti with regard to the Veve subdivision i; ��piicatiott at: �S Dorset Gotuaon.. It is my uriderstandin hat, exe 3:or the possibility of minor changes in the A; t and VIli.vE>r concer-njxT private road` ays, we are in ap reetient . I further their unciex.s t:,.nd tf a t you may advise the IGity to pursue a dedication rai,t;e rather than obtain an easement. I have no problem with this and am sure agreement j! can be easily reached. Cordially, t� Gl'.AVEI,, SHEA & WRIGHT Stephen E.. Grampton SRC: vlim Enclosures cc: William B. Wessel William J. Szymanski✓ Steven Page Richard Ward SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL - 435 DORSET COM?ION I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan and final plat application of Mr. Ralph Veve, for a two phase, 104 unit apartment project known as 11435 Dorset Common" as depicted on a plan entitled "Final Plat and Site Plan - 435 Dorset Common", (5 sheets), drawn by Environmental Assessment Group, undated, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A recreation fee of $6,517.00 shall be paid in an amount proportional to the number of building permits issued, when they are issued. 2. Phase II landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to construction of Phase II; a landscaping bond of $15,600.00 shall be posted for Phase I prior to issuance of building permits. 3. A Performance Bond of shall be posted for utilities and other necessary site improvements. 4. Temporary fencing shall be installed around existing vegetation to be saved, to prevent damage or encroachment during construction. 5. The plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Assistant, prior to recording. 6. Pursuant to section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations, this approval shall expire 6 months from the date of its issuance, unless the Commission determines, at a duly warned public hearing, that there has been adequate evidence of intent to pursue Phase I of the project. 7. Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II, the Commission must find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construc- tion of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: 435 DOESET COMIN-'ONI LANDSCAPING PLAN PHASE I DATE: MAY 5, 1977 Developer is attempting to save existing trees. This plan has been reviewed with Mr. Raey, Assistant County Forester. 1) Construction damage will occur within activity area of 10' - 15', this means the use of equipment or construction of buildings, walks, utilities. 2) Larger clusters of trees should survive, those clusters near building #5, 4, 3 and 1 will be affected by construction activity (marked in red on plan). 3) The proposed woodchip walk will require replacement yearly, woodchip will decompose. 4) Winter creeper, lady fern and day lilies provide a forest atmosphere not considered landscaping under provisions of zoning regulations. 5) Landscaping plan does conform to provisions of zoning regulations, bonding requirements $15,600.00. -436� ►� c �;091!/��j� � July 1, 1977 DISCHARGE PERMIT LEGAL NOTICE RECEIVro JUL Cn 1977 LEGAL NOTICE '4ANAGER's OFr1C:" CITY a'J. ` URLING / orq Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of 10 V.S.A., Section 1263 that the State of Vermont, Agency of Environmental Conservation, Department of Water Resources proposes to issue a Discharge Permit to Veve Associates of Jericho, Vermont for the discharge of storm drainage into a tributary of Potash Brook, a tributary of Lake Champlain in Sough Burlington, Vermont until August 1, 1982. Receiving Expiration Name Volume Nature Location Stream Date Veve Unspecified Storm So. Burlington Trib. Potash 8-1-82 Associates Drainage Brook, trib. Lake Champlain Written notice of objection may be filed with the Department of Water Resources, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. All objections filed within the thirty (30) day period will be considered by the Department. Martin L. Johnson, Secretary Agency of Environmental Conservation J:_:ly 14, Vx. ',.� 'alph Veve B . 'nirc Jer4;,C `.o . .' , \Jerr,int CO- .- ur final ,)l,.';t aprrovol (435 Dorset il""orn.mcn) Do- -- il: , D I nh: z - Scoutl Sur!_".nv�tcn lam-, Iinn, Tn accor,( '�'Dul' am-:mdcdV 1-Y resc-lutlon, the, vlorkain- Of SIX and c- %rcn t-,..� final 1 ;t fo'l" zA, i-s meetir", 0JuIv 12, COTY -n-L' these C,nc c I o S' idso, livit- rcrjrd 11.0 5)"..dnt G c-E ost's lett-er of J,kmc, C,,77 ( conc" err, in�-.i ct 250 restrictions recfuestod fly the ili -� , 'itor "eve"orcrtient) it is the i n7 Com:i:lssic,'s firm in- tention c t_eal: all andic,.tions on an equal b: s I S c, a r t.L c,-,, 1 � r -1. y in li-ht' c--" cur error in ird--lz�.1iy treziting JL,V di-_-ere-tly from yc; u r s,� 1 f . Call -L�' ",;,)u any questions. Yours truly, 'hen age S TPAI c g c c : :.',",er)hen Crampton 1 Tncl auL.LXAWa luwww oLt> R.f� d �riN c-A j Dg.,s, �+s d/LV1J1G . �, (qOv tC � � 44- 04 A(za -I 66" A,, .xarT - -Fi1-4,d!_--- uIsS . Sao C c*.," �cr o.t�� D Ts� S�w� s W4xgm— Ta kt-� L4��6%&uese : Off. 0-4 2. x . Q4 = z44 4� x zzz� ��s State of Verm. onz . AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Engineering Division of Environmental Protection Division of Planning Natural .Resources Conservation Council DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 25, 1977 TO: Parties to Application #4CO259, Ralph Veve FROM: District #4 Environmental Commission SUBJECT: Reconvening of Hearing 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 The District #4 Environmental Commission will reconvene the hearing on the application of Ralph Veve for the construction of a 104 unit apartment complex, Dorset Street, South Burlington. The hearing will be held on June B, 1977 at 1:00 P.M. at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, 58 Pearl Street, Essex Junction. Any party wishing to participate in the hearing should notify the Commission prior to the date of the hearing. If all the additional information submitted as requested at the original hearing is satisfactory and the requested statements from the City of South Burlington are received, the Commission reserves the right to adjourn'the hearing without taking further testimony. &L- P, )&W, �/- Maur 27, 1977 r. William: Szymanski South Burlingtoxa City Manager 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: R.a1 h 'Veve - 435 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Szymanski: As you know, my client, Ralph Veve, recently obtained his final plat approvals for his entire project, approval, of Phase I bring; without additional conditions, approval of Phase II being subject to review with regard to municipal facilities at the time Mr. sieve is ready to construct sane. We are now scheduled for a final hearing before Environmental District Commission No. 4 on Wednesday, June 3, at I p.m. As I am sure you are familiar with the criteria of Act 250, 1 a.m. sure you are equally aware that we would like letters from you indicating that all municipal. facilities,(i.e., police, fire, water, sewage, education, etc.) are sufficient to handle Phase I of Mr. V'eve's development and in fact his project will not cause an undue burden upon the ability of the municipality to provide same. I trust that you can have these letters delivered to Curt Carter within the next meek.. 4 Tank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Cordially, GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT Stephen R. Cr ton SRC: vrmm ccs Steven gaga Ralph 'Veve, Jr. City of South Burlington 1175 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 .. •' TEL. 863-2891 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI May 31, 1977 Mr. Curtis W. Carter, Environmental Coordinator District #4, Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Dorset Common 435 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Carter: The water and sewer services for the above referenced project will be connected to the municipal systems. Final design and construction will conform to the city standards. Very truly yours, William J. Szymanski City Manager WJS/h /AC7704 411111141, -6� This auzroval shall eanire six (6) zonths from this date, persu a -Tat to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Re,-u lations. 7) rrior to issuance of building or land develoz,ment ler7-its for r;:ase II, the Commission _ust find, after a duly ..arned 2uub1ic hearine, that the const-,nietion of the pro 4 osed phase :ai 11 not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and hi�h::ay services due to the anticipated residents in the phase p roposed. C Or- - — . This approval shall expire siz(Q months from July--1,- 1978 -for —1 hase 2 anal from July 1, 1980-for phase 3. 13..Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II or Phase III, the Commission may find, after a duly `yarned public hearing, that the construction of the�_proposed phase will exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and highway. services ue to anticipated.residents in the phase proposed, and may alter or recInd its approval as based on those findings. o 2- uV4 cr.5 LAW OFFICES OF SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 July 22, 1977 William Szymanski City Manager Steven Page Planning Assistant nn 1175 Williston Road IlU South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Veve Escrow Bonding Agreement Dear Bill and Steve: Enclosed please find a draft of an escrow agreement which Steve Crampton sent to me. Would you both review it care- fully and let me know your thoughts. I am particularly interested in the following: 11_r_.Steve, is Paragraph 3 consistent with the Planning Commission approval. �.What do you both think about Paragraph 4. -What is the sum which should be inserted in Para gr ph 5. 4. *hat is the schedule which should be inserted in Pa:tagr4h 5A. 5. steve, is Paragraph 13 correct. Please get back to me. Very �truly yours, Ric A. Spokes RAS/tb Enclosure 1 GRAVEL, SI-i':A 8 WRIGi-i / ATTORNI'. Y S AT L A W CLARKE A. GRAVEL CHARLES T. SHFA LAWRENCE A. WRIGHT THOMAS S. CONLON STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON STEWART H.-C;ONAUGHY I Y ROBERT B. HEMLEY JOHN C.GRAVEL WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BROOKE PEARSON 1 0 9 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE B U R L I N G T O N, VERMONT 0 5 4 0 2 Richard A. Spokes, Esq. Spokes & Obuchowski 86 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: 435 Dorset Common Dear Dick: June 29, 1977 TELEPHONE BS8-0220 AREA CODE 802 G3/7) In Steve Crampton's absence, I am writing with regard to three questions which have arisen in connection with the South Burlington Planning Commission approval of the 435 Dorset Common development off of Dorset Street and the ICV apartment development on Kennedy Drive. Because it has always been our understanding that 435 Dorset Common and ICV were going to be treated equally by the Planning Commission, we have some questions about the form of the approval for ICV. 1. Paragraph 13 of the proposed ICV approval, as amended by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1977, corresponds to Paragraph 7 of the 435 Dorset Common approval. With respect to Dorset Common, Paragraph 7 requires the Planning Commission to have a public hearing prior to the commencement of phase II of the development and to find that the proposed phase will not exceed the city's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, education and highway services due to the increase in residents ,resulting from the second phase. Originally, Paragraph way. However, at the final paragraph was changed to sa may find that the second ph provide the mentioned servi modify or rescind the appro Planning Commission appears prior to the commencement o 13 of the ICV approval read the same hearing on the ICV matter, the y simply that the Planning Commission ase will exceed the city's ability to ces, and if it does so find it may val. Thus, with respect to ICV, the not to be required to have a hearing f ICV's,phase II or phase III. One of the purposes of this letter is to ask the Planning Commission to clarify the language in Paragraph 13 of the ICV approval and let us know in writing that the Planning Commission intends to hold a hearing prior to the commencement of ICV's phase Richard A. Spokes, Esq. June 29, 1977 Page Two II, as it is required to do prior to the commencement of the 435 phase II. We are unclear as to why 435 Dorset Common should be required to proceed through a Planning Commission public hearing prior to commencing phase II when ICV should not be so required. 2. In a letter dated May 31, 1977 to Curtis Carter, Steven Page listed various conditions which the Planning Commission requested the District Environmental Commission to impose on any land use permit issued to 435 Dorset Common. In the interest of having 435 Dorset Common, ICV and others treated similarly, we would hope that Mr. Page would request the District Commission to impose the same restrictions on th-e ICV and any other South Burlington development environmental permit. 3. Finally, we wish to point out that 435 Dorset Common is proceeding under the assumption that the City of South Burlington has adequate sewage treatment reserve to accomodate both phases of the 435 development. It was pointed out by Bill Szymanski in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 1977 that after the completion of the first two phases of all of the proposed developments approved or pending as of June 10, 1977, there would be approximately 27,000 gallons of reserve. As you know, 435 Dorset Common only contemplates two phases. We would appreciate hearing from you or from the Planning. Commission with respect to the first two items covered in this letter at your earliest convenience. Kindest regards. Very truly yours, GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT William G. Post, Jr. WGP,JR.:kg cc: William B. Wessel Stephen Page No Text ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, in triplicate, by and between VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, hereinafter referred to as "Developer"; the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality, hereinafter referred to as "City"; and BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK, a Vermont corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Bank". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Developer has received final subdivision approval for Phase I pursuant to Developer's Plat of Land as depicted in Map Volume at Page of the South Burlington City Land Records, and additionally pursuant to a letter under date of May 27, 1977 from Stephen Page, Planning Assistant, which incorporates the approval as set forth in the South Burlington Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1977, and all with regard to "435 Dorset Common"; and WHEREAS, Developer is required by said approvals, at its own expense, to complete certain improvements as follows: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements, all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application (except sidewalk along Dorset Street considered part of Phase II); and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to establish an escrow account to secure the obligations of the Developer set forth above; and WHEREAS, the Bank executes this Agreement solely in the capacity of an escrow agent. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will, at its own expense, complete the following improvements in connection with its development entitled 435 Dorset Common: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application (except sidewalk along Dorset Street considered part of Phase II); and 2. Developer will convey to the City by properly executed Bill of Sale and Easement Deed, free and clear of all encumbrances, its proposed conveyance of the piping and -2- other accessories in conjunction with water conduction, sanitary sewage conduction and storm drainage conduction, and all as depicted on said Plan; and further will convey an easement and right of way for a 10 foot pedestrian walkway over the most westerly portion of the property known as 435 Dorset Common. 3. Developer shall complete the improvements for Phase I of 435 Dorset Common as set forth in Subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of Paragraph 1 on or before the expiration of July 1, 1978. 4. The Developer shall repair or replace any faulty or defective work or improper material which may occur and which result from hidden defects or from failure to comply with City or other applicable governmental specifications or requirements. However, any repairs or replacements which become necessary after acceptance by the City, and after approval as being in conformance with the applicable specifications and which do not arise as a result of hidden defects or failure to comply with Town or other applicable specifications or requirements shall be the responsibility of the City. 5. To provide security to the City and as a guarantee of Developer's performance of all requirements as set forth hereinabove, Developer and Bank agree that the sum of $115,600.00 dollars shall be set -3- aside and held in escrow by the Bank and shall be available for payment to the City, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth or shall be available for payment to the Developer in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth: (A) The following shall be a schedule of allocation of escrow monies for the improvements to be made: 1) Install underground utilities: 2) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system: 3) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements: (B) Upon completion of each, all or any one of the above -mentioned improvements under Subparagraph (A) immediately hereinabove, Developer shall notify City in writing of the completion of same and City shall immediately inspect said improvements to assure that it has been completed to its satisfaction. Upon approval after inspection, City shall notify Developer in writing that said improvement is complete and approved, and upon tender by Developer to Bank of said written approval, Bank shall release to Developer the escrow money allocated to that improvement which has been approved by City according to the schedule set forth in Subparagraph (A) hereinabove. -4- 6. If the City shall file with the Bank a statement that Developer is in the ,judgment of the City in 60-day default under the terms of this Agreement, the Bank shall from time to time pay monies from said escrow fund to the City, in amounts not to exceed a total enabling the City to complete the improvements and requirements set forth in this Agreement. 7. The City will promptly submit to the Developer a copy of any such statement that it files with the Bank. The consent of the Developer to any payments by the Bank to the City shall not be required. The Bank shall incur no liability to Developer on account of making such payment to the City, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim by the City of default on the part of the Developer or into the use of such funds by the City in completing said improvements. 8. The City shall not file a statement of default with the Bank until 60 days after notice has been sent by it to the Developer by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth the City`s intention to so notify the Bank of default. 9. All monies released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 shall be used by the City solely for the -5- purpose of performing obligations imposed upon the Developer by that portion of this Agreement upon which the Developer is then in default in conjunction with Phase I of 435 Dorset Common. Any work contracted for by the City pursuant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the City with its own work force and equipment or shall be accomplished in such other manner as in the judgment of the City shall accomplish the work more expeditiously and economically. 10. If monies are released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 and if it shall later develop that a portion of the released monies are surplus to the City's needs, for the completion of the improvements in default, any such surplus shall be refunded by the Town to the Bank to be held and distributed by the Bank pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 11. The Bank will not refuse or delay to make such payments to the Town when requested by the Town by the appropriate statement, and Developer will not interfere with or hinder such payments by the Bank to the City. Said statement shall contain a certificate of compliance with the notice requirements of Paragraph 8 of this Agreement. 12. This Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no force or effect upon performance of all requirements contemplated hereby, except as contained in Paragraph 4 hereof. 13. City acknowledges and agrees that the improvements contained herein are all the improvements required and set forth under Planning Commission approval for Phase I of 435 Dorset Common as hereinbefore mentioned. 14. This Agreement shall not only be binding upon the parties hereto, but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 15. For purposes of notification, the following shall be the persons and addresses to which notification shall be sent, unless changed by any party by giving notice in writing to the other parties: Developer: Veve Associates c/o Ralph F. Veve, Jr. Snipe Island Road Jericho, Vermont City: William Szymanski City Manager City Hall South Burlington, Vermont Bank: Burlington Savings Bank Attention: P;*, 6#, 1XI- S Ca.313 148 College Street Burlington, Vermont Na Dated this � '*day of IN PRESENCE OF: C4W-t , 1977. 20 Developer VEVE ASSOCIATES r \, )9 A�-� 1, � - Duly'Authorized Partner City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly Authak4o Agent Bank BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK Duly Aut orize ge ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, in triplicate, by and between VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, hereinafter referred to as "Developer"; the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality, hereinafter referred to as "City"; and BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK, a Vermont corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Bank". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Developer had received final subdivision approval for Phase I, and subsequently has received final approval for Phase II of said subdivision, all as depicted on Developer's Plat of Land recorded in Map Volume JO.� at Page ;76 of the South Burlington City Land Records; and WHEREAS, Developer is required by said approvals, at its own expense, to complete certain improvements as follows: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements, all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to establish an escrow account to secure the obligations of the Developer set forth above; and WHEREAS, the Bank executes this Agreement solely in the capacity of an escrow agent. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will, at its own expense, complete the following improvements in connection with its development entitled 435 Dorset Common: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application; and 2. Developer will convey to the City by properly executed Bill of Sale and Easement Deed, free and clear of all encumbrances, its proposed conveyance of the piping and other accessories in conjunction with water conduction, sani- tary sewage conduction and storm drainage conduction, and all as depicted on said Plan; and further will convey an easement and right of way for a 10 foot pedestrian walkway over the most westerly portion of the property known as 435 Dorset Common. 3. Developer shall complete the total improvements called for in Phases I and II of 435 Dorset Common, said Phases consisting of the entire project, and all as set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of Paragraph 1 on or before the expiration of July 1, 1979. 4. The Developer shall repair or replace any faulty or defective work or improper material which may occur and which result from hidden defects or from failure to comply with City or other applicable governmental specifications or requirements. However, any repairs or replacements which become necessary after acceptance by the City, and after approval as being in conformance with the applicable specifica- tions and which do not arise as a result of hidden defects or failure to comply with City or other applicable specifications or requirements shall be the responsibility of the City. 5. To provide security to the City and as a guarantee of Developer's performance of all requirements as set forth hereinabove, Developer and Bank agree that the sum of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars shall be set aside and held in escrow by the Bank and shall be available for payment to the City, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth or shall be available for payment to the Developer in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth: -3 - (A) The following shall be a schedule of allocation of escrow monies for the improvements to be made: 1) Install underground. utilities: $30,000.00 2) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system: $70,000.00 3) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements: $15 , 600. 00 (B) Upon completion of each, all or any one of the above -mentioned improvements under Subparagraph (A) immediately hereinabove, Developer shall notify City in writing of the completion of same and City shall immediately inspect said improvements to assure that it has been completed to its satisfaction. Upon approval after inspection, City shall notify Developer in writing that said improvement is complete and approved, and upon tender by Developer to Bank of said written approval, Bank shall release to Developer the escrow money allocated to that improvement which has been approved by City according to the schedule set forth in Subparagraph (A) hereinabove. 6. If the City shall file with the Bank a statement that Developer is in the judgment of the City in 60-day default under the terms of this Agreement, the Bank shall from time to time pay monies from said escrow fund to the City, in amounts not to exceed a total enabling the City to -4- complete the improvements and requirements set forth in this Agreement. 7. The City will promptly submit to the Developer a copy of any such statement that it files with the Bank. The consent of the Developer to any payments by the Bank to the City shall not be required. The Bank shall incur no liability to Developer on account of making such payment to the City, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim by the City of default on the part of the Developer or into the use of such funds by the City in completing said improvements. 8. The City shall not file a statement of default with the Bank until 60 days after notice has been sent by it to the Developer by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth the City's intention to so notify the Bank of default. 9. All monies released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 shall be used by the City solely for the nur pose of performing obligations imposed upon the Developer by that portion of this Agreement upon which the Developer is then in default in conjunction with Phases I and/or II of 435 Dorset Common. Any work contracted for by the City pur- suant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the City with its -5- own work force and equipment or shall be accomplishes in such other manner as in the judgment of the City shall accomplish the work more expeditiously and economically. 10. If monies are released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 and if it shall later develop that a portion of the released monies are surplus to the City's needs, for the completion of the improvements in default, any such surplus shall be refunded by the City to the Bank to be held and distributed by the Bank pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 11. The Bank will not refuse or delay to make such payments to the City when requested by the City by the appropriate statement, and Developer will not interfere with or hinder such payments by the Bank to the City. Said statement shall contain a certificate of compliance with the notice requirements of Paragraph 8 of this Agreement. 12. This Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no force or effect upon performance of all requirements con- templated hereby, except as contained in Paragraph 4 hereof. 13. City acknowledges and agrees that the improvements contained herein are all the improvements required and set forth under Planning Commission approval for Phases I and II of 435 Dorset Common as hereir_before mentioned, and comprise the total improvements called for in the construction of the total development. m2 14. This Agreement shall not only be binding upon the parties hereto, but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 15. For purposes of notification, the following shall be the persons and addresses to which notification shall be sent, unless changed by any party by giving notice in writing to the other parties: Developer: Veve Associates c/o Ralph F. Veve, Jr. Snipe Island Road Jericho, Vermont City: William Szymanski City Manager City Hall South Burlington, Vermont Bank: Burlington Savings Bank Attention: Perley Adams 148 College Street Burlington, Vermont Dated this 'k\A ,day of 1978. IN PRESENCE OF: By: Developer VEVE ASSOCIATES _7_ City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By. /l J� Du y Authorized Agent Bank BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK By: Du y Aut orized Ager ma April 4, 1977 Mr. Gerald C. Milot 1504 Hegeman Avenue Colchester, Vermont 05446 Dear Mr. Milot, At their regular meeting on March 23, 1977 the South Burlington School ! Board voted that the proposed Dorset Cormion Apartment Development outlined in your communication dated February 23, 1977 would not place an unreasonable burden on this municipality to provide, educational services. , Because of our concern for the safety of our students, it is requested that sidewalks be provided in conjunction with the roads to be constructed. This will allow students to walk safely to and from bus stops. I am enclosing a copy of our transportation policy for your informations Please note item 04 under the administrative guidelines - "Buses will not be routed over private roads." We request that the entrance to your development be located as close to the northern boundry of your property as possible. This location will tie in better with the entrances and exits of the ?diddle School and High School and also should help ease potential traffic problems. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Frederick H. Tuttle Superintendent of Schools FKT:cI enc. Vkc: 'fir. Stephen Page, Planning Assistant � Mr. .Sohn Lucas, Business Manager M E M 0 R A N .D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 435 DORSET DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 I. Layout and Design Based on the plat and supporting documents which have been submitted to date, I am satisfied this proposal is a sound one in terms of design and layout. (subject to forthcoming memo from Fire Chief) The following additional information should be supplied at the h-aring,,or prior to warning for the final plat: 1) Phasing - list improvements (i.e. units, utilities, recreation facilities) by phaseand furnish timetable. 2) List number of units by building number and number of bedrooms. 3) Location of outdoor lighting. 4) Location of utility easements: sewer, water, phone, power, etc. 5) Review of preliminary utility layout by City Engineer. The following changes to the plat should be considered: 1) Location of access point in accord with future plans of School Department. 2) Incorporation of a turn. -out into the curb cut to serve entering traffic, possibly schoolbuses and CCTA buses as well. 3) Applicant should contact CCTA re bustop on this site, as well as desirability of turn out. 4) Reserve an area for land swap with Sweeney at extreme northwest corner so that further subdivision review to accomplish this is not necessary. I -2- 5) Utilities, such as water, should be relocated away from proposed structures to allow easements of adequate --width. 6) There should be two or more walkways to provide access to the sidewalk and Dorset Street. Walkways along the perimeter road should be considered to facilitate pedestrian circulation. 7) An option for a potential bikepath or pedestrian easement sh Ould be considered in the CO district along the Interstate. 8) The revised preliminary plat should be updated to include missing information (shown on first submission) such as sidewalk on Dorset Street, internal walkways, number of units in each building, etc. Omit tree stAmps. II. Impact on Municipal Facilities/Services 1) Traffic - the ability of the Dorset Street intersection with Williston Road to accomodate the anticipated increase in traffic (from this project as well as others currently under construction or seeking approval) must be established. The improvements which have been funded for this intersection do not increase the capacity of the Dorset Street approach. I will have traffic data prepared for the meeting. 2) Schools - we have yet to hear from the School Board. 3) Sewer capacity - there is adequate capacity at the present time. 4) Growth Policy- every effort should be made to keep the applicant fully informed as this policy moves toward implementation. 5) Recreation - a fee shall be required - the applicant should be kept informed (as above). 435 DORSET STREET APARTMENT COMPLEX IMPACT ON TRAFFIC The contents of this report are based on: traffic counts in existing apartment complexes; data provided by the "Greater Burlington Urban Area Urban Transportation Study - Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission"; and a interview with Gordon McArthur (Traffic Engineer and Planner for the Vermont Department of Highways) in which the data was analysed as to the effect of the traffic impact created by the proposed 435 Dorset Street (102) apartment complex. Regardless of the renter profile traffice data has been compiled based on the 1977 "New England Average" count of 6.43 daily car trips per apartment unit. Although recent traffic counts surveyed at Manor Woods and Georgetown Apartments show a lower average count than the 6.43 it was felt that it was close enough to the New England Average to be meaningful for this study and that had it been conducted in the summer, would have shown the count truer to the above mentioned figure. A turning movement data sheet has been prepared based on the following assumptions: -first 48 unit phase would generate 310 (6.43 x 48) vehicle trips per day and 650 vehicle trips per day on the completed 102 unit phase. -in and out movement from 435 Dorset Street during peak hours based on 41 cars per hour would constitute 13.40 of the average daily traffic of the development. -15% of the Dorset Street traffic volume is already represented (at present) by the would be renters of the 102 unit complex. -the Directional Distribution factor is two fold (1) 650 of the outgoing daily traffic would turn south to the Kennedy Drive inter- (2) section and that 350 of the outgoing daily traffic would turn north to the Williston Road intersection. (2) During morning and evening peak hours 90% of the in -out bound traffic would flow south towards the Dorset/Kennedy intersection. It is our opinion that in general drivers will avoid more congested traffic routes such as the Dorset/Williston Road intersection. Not only is the Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street intersection closer to the development.in the distant future it will also be an alternate route to the Williston Road intersection when driving into Burlington by using the proposed north bound ramp and entering the next exit to downtown Burlington. In addition the Kennedy/Dorset intersection affords easy access to I 189 to Sears and vicinity; and to points east such as Williston and Essex Junction. d �T 7 r�* t 1 d / II� v M77 IP Hv' �1 J� j = tic.:-���� �P ► �.� � '�:�� DDN PI"' J 1 0 �11 Zf -77 T �ooc►) 077 l { _ �z y�1 = p Tioti4� DfS ALA r /U L') } (5) CONCLUSIONS: The Dorst Street/Kennedy Drive intersection has a capacity of handling 650 vehicles per hour (VPH). The actual count for the intersection is 325-330 VPH or with 50o capacity remaining. The proposed 102 unit complex would add between 75-80 VPH at peak hours to the intersection allowing it to operate at an acceptable level of service. -The proposed 102 unit development would add 5 to 10 VPH at peak hours to Dorset Street north of the development or a 1% increase to the northbound lane to the Williston Road intersection. This figure would be further reduced with that portion of traffic turning into the University Mall or the Dorset Street Mall rather than continuing through the Williston Road intersection. -The proposed 102 unit development would add 75-80 VPH at peak hours to Dorset Street south of the development southbound to the Kennedy Drive intersection or a 15% increase to the southbound lane to Kennedy Drive. -On a daily basis the proposed 102 unit complex would add 200 to 420 vehicles per day to Dorset Street south of the development and add 110-230 vehicles per day to Dorset Street north of the development. (6) SUMMARY: It would appear from this data that the proposed 435 Dorset Street 102 unit apartment complex would not pose a severe impact on the traffic volume on Dorset Street. Even though it is known that the Dorset Stteet and Williston Road intersection is heavily congested during peak hours; proposed improved curb changes (which generally do not increase overall traffic volume capacity but will accomodate existing volume in a more orderly fashion; better accomodating peak loads) combined with a expected tennant traffic behavior to use faster, less congested roads such as Kennedy Drive, Dorset Street south, I 1891 will not result in overstraining this northern section of Dorset Street. As for the southern section of Dorset Street where the majority of tennant traffic will occur, the impact will be limited due to the 50o capacity remaining at the Kennedy Drive intersection. Of much less impact to traffic will be the initial first 48 unit phase. 74) 1; G Qci Tu U- b-i 0-1 A\ 'Al ENTIZ %I '71 f� A Vi E rn C7 __Ic C_ I I'S III tail ,,. • ;�� CCU . �:�\ 1�I�' l�C •Vv 1 j r / III n � / II .3 /1 A i 11 mom;' ` �,•,. <,r� r <�y v AGREEMENT AND WAIVER THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of , 1977, by and between RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. of Fajardo, Puerto Rico, and RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR. of Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont. WHEREAS, Owners have come before the South Burlington Planning Commission and the South Burlington City Administration for approval of a subdivision as defined under Section 103 Definitions of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, said application being known and designated as "435 Dorset Common", and WHEREAS, the subdivision will be serviced by a private 7 roadway of 5' in width which shall remain private, and the Owners have no intention at the present time that the roadway be dedicated, accepted, and/or maintained by the City of South Burlington, and WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission and City Administration, has approved the application with said private roadway subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval of said private roadway and other consideration, each to the other party given, the Owners do hereby acknowledge and agree that they will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations or other applicable municipal ordinances, the expense of complying with said requirements and specifications to be borne solely by the Owners, their heirs, successors or assigns. Further, the Owners waive any rights they may have or any claim they may allege by virtue of the City of South Burlington's approval of said private roadway to request the City of South Burlington to maintain and/or accept said private roadway without first completing at their own expense all necessary improvements to said private roadway as set forth hereinabove; and until such time of acceptance, Owners acknowledge that they shall be responsible for and shall maintain said roadway and right of way in a proper manner necessary to adequately service said subdivision. The Owners also acknowledge and agree that they will not change the location of said private roadway nor extend said private roadway without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration, nor shall they permit said private roadway to service more than -2- the presently approved 102 dwelling units without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration. The Owners further agree and acknowledge that the City of South Burlington, prior to any approval and acceptance of said private roadway as a public street, shall have and bear no liability or claim of liability arising from the approval of said private roadway. This Agreement and Waiver is binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands this day of , 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: -3- Ralael F. Veve, Sr. Rafael F. Veve, Jr. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly Authorized Agent STATE OF COUNTY, SS. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Chairman, Planning Commission At , this day of , 1977, personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., individually, and as attorney in fact for RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR., and he acknowl- edged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. Before me, Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of , 1977, personally appeared , Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and WILLIAM B. WESSEL, Chairman, Planning Commission of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and they acknowledged the within instru- ment, by them signed, to be their free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, otary Public -4- 1%v. ril 26, 1()7'7 Richard P.. Spokes, Esq . Ewinl>; iY 'SpoL-es 36 St. Paul :"t-rect Btirlingt:on, VT 05401 Re : 435 Dorset_ Common Verve Associates Ap)lication Dear Uick: I'UX-SUMIL to our phone conversation, i, e,11close thefitial.i..ed docuuietits with reZard to the Ve.!ve subdivision applicatiUu at: 4-5 Dorset Cotiraon. It is Tay understanding that, except for. the possibility of minor changes in the Agreement and l�faa.v(>r concerning private roadways, we are in agreetu!ttt. L further undersuant] that you may advise the City to pursue a. dedication route rather than obtain an easement. I have no problem with this and KLi sure agreement can be easily reached. Cordially, Gi'.AUL, SHF A & WRIGHT Stephen R. Crampton SRC: ut:iri Ianclostires CC: William B. i,esselV. William J. Szymanski Steven Page Richard Ward CLARKE A. GRAVEL CHARLES T. SHEA LAWRENCE A. WRIGHT THOMAS S. CONLON STEPHEN R.CRAMPTON STEWART H. McCONAUGHY JOHN C. GRAVEL WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BROOKE PEARSON GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT ATTORNEYS AT L A W TELEPHONE 109 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE e5e-0220 B U R L I N G T O N, VERMONT 0 5 4 01 AREA CODE 802 Mr. Stephen Paige, City Planner South Burlington Town Hall South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Veve Application Dear Mr. Paige: February 22, 1977 Ralph Veve has asked me to advise you, as additional information in conjunction with his application, that the lot shown on the Plat as owned by Arthur E. Sweeney, Jr. in fact has a 50 foot easement and right of way to Oakwood Drive. This legal right will certainly be recognized if and when the property the subject of the application is transferred from the DesLauriers to Mr. Veve. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to call. Cordially, G EL, SHEA & WRIGHT '/ i Stephen R. Cram on SRC:vmm CC: Ralph Veve OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICTION THIS AGREEMENT, by and between VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Planning Commission has approved a final subdivision plat entitled "435 Dorset Common" as of May 27, 1977; and WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission dated said May 27, 1977, contains among other the following condition: the conveyance for dedication for the City of South Burlington of a strip of property 10 feet in uniform width to be used for a pedestrian easement and located on the westerly most 10 feet of property owned by Owner; said pedestrian easement being as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; and WHEREAS, the above -described pedestrian easement and right of way is to be conveyed for dedication 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 10 foot wide pedestrian path, a copy of which is attached hereto, and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, said delivery meaning 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, or by its successor legislative body. 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 and/or successors of the Owner. 4. Until said time that the City legally and properly accepts said dedication and records the Easement Deed aforementioned, the City shall have no right, title or ability to enter upon the property of Owner or to make use of said property in any manner whatsoever. -2- Dated this Ilk day of j` , 1977 IN PRESENCE OF: Owner VEVE ASSOCIATES By )LQ-q Du y A th ized Par ner City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly �qjot/d Agent STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, % '�X' At,2t1-9 +OY\ this UW� day of 1977, personally appeareR RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., Duly Authorized Partner of VEVE ASSOCIATES, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of VEVE ASSOCIATES. SS. Before me, 1,Q Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At,& t it -11—day of -J-nty', 1977, personally appeare 14 Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH URLINGTON, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me �� C ✓// � Notary Pudic -3- RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership, having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration paid to its full satisfaction, does hereby Give, Grant, Convey and Confirm unto the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Vermont, a right of way and easement in perpetuity for the purpose of a ground level pedestrian right of way 10 feet in width for the purpose of passing and repairing through Grantor's property by the general public, together with the right of entry upon said 10 foot strip for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining or replacing a pathway or walkway, or other similar improvement on the property, said 10 foot strip located in the City of South Burlington and being more particularly described as follows, viz: Being a strip of land, 10 feet in uniform width, said strip located easterly of the following described line: Beginning at an iron pin marking the most northwesterly corner of the property of the within Grantor; thence proceeding S 8° 38' 30" W 240 feet to an iron pin marking the northwesterly corner of property presently of Arthur E. Sweeney, Jr.; thence turning to the left and proceeding S 810 21' 30" E 120.00 feet to an iron pin; thence turning to the right and proceeding S 8° 38' 30" W 115.00 feet to an iron pin; thence turning to the right and proceeding N 81' 21' 30" W 120.00 feet to an iron pin marking the southwesterly corner of said Sweeney lot; thence turning to the left and proceeding S 8° 38' 3)" W 140 feet to a concrete monument; thence turning to the left and proceeding S 840 59' 40" E 31.98 feet to a concrete monument; thence turning to the right and proceeding on a curve in a southeasterly direction 256.44 feet along the line of said curve to a point; thence proceeding S 48' 55' 05" E 301.78 feet to an iron pin marking the most westerly corner of property of the City of South Burlington. Said 10 foot easement and right of way is located on the most westerly 10 feet of the within Grantor's property as conveyed to said Grantor by Warranty Deed of Roland and Evangeline DesLauriers, said Deed dated July 13, 1977 and recorded in Volume at Pages , of the South Burlington City Land Records, and property conveyed to the within Grantor by Warranty Deed of Amos and Susan Eaton, said Deed dated July 13, 1977 and recorded in Volume at Pages , of said South Burlington City Land Records. Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the land subject to this right of way and easement, such as shall not be inconsistent with the use of the right of way, and specifically shall place no structures, landscaping or other improvements within said easement and right of way which shall prevent or interfere with Grantee's ability to repair, replace and/or maintain said line. The City of South Burlington agrees that it shall strive to construct and maintain said walkway in as natural state as possible to blend with the surrounding conservation area and prevent trespass by the general public on the remaining lands of the within Grantors. Said City of South Burlington shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, replacement, upkeep and repair and any paths or walkways installed by the within Grantee. Any and all landscaping, structures or other changes in the remaining lands of the Grantor that are affected by the City's installation of any improvements shall be returned to the same condition as they were prior to any change by the City and within a reasonable time after said installation of improvements. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto this said City of South Burlington, its successors and assigns, forever, and the within Grantor does covenant that it is the sole owner of the premises and has good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, free and clear of every encumbrance, and Grantor herein engages to warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims whatever. -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor hereunto sets its hand this /11-1 day of Dkk�uot, 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: VEVE ASSOCIAT By Duf—Y-Au�--hotized Partn r STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY,,SS. At �o �� this -��day of , 1977, personally ap ared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., Dul� Authorized partner, of VEVE ASSOCIATES, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of VEVE ASSOCIATES. Before me, ` otary Public -3 BILL OF SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership, having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, in consideration of One Dollar and More, does hereby Grant, Sell, Transfer and Deliver unto the CITY OF SOUTH BURLIGTON, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Vermont, the following described property: Being all that piping, joints, T's, valves, gates, gauges and all other items and appurtenances installed by the within Grantor for the purpose of water conduction, sanitary sewage conduction a+i-d yr drainage.- cedetion )in, under and through land and premises of the within Grantor located on the westerly side and adjacent to Dorset Street, the location of same being approximately as depicted on a Plat entitled "Final Plan and Site Plan", 435 Dorset Common, South Burlington, Vermont, as approved by the City of South Burlington Planning Commission and recorded, or to be recorded in the Land Map Records of said City of South Burlington. Said piping is described as being 8" water mains, 8" sewer mains- �. ,ewer mains, all as depicted on said Plat. The above -described property is conveyed in an "as is" condition and is conveyed "as located" under and through said real property. With the acceptance of this Bill of Sale, the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all property conveyed hereunder, and Grantor shall have no responsibility or liability for the repair, maintenance and/or replacement of same. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said property unto the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns, to its own use and behoove forever, and VEVE ASSOCIATES does hereby warrant and represent that it is duly authorized to transfer said property and that there are no liens, claims or encumbrances of any kind against said property. This Bill of Sale is executed in duplicate, each copy to be considered a duplicate original. Reference is also made to a Right of Way and Easement Agreement of 15 feet in width given by the within Grantor to the within Grantee and conveying certain rights to the real property in which the within piping and its appurtenances are presently located. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the within Grantor hereunto sets its hand this 0 1�' day of vdc� , 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: VEVE ASSOCIATES BY N j .� Duly A t on Partne STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At Burlington, in said County, this — " day of 1977, personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., Duly Authorized Partner of VEVE ASSOCIATES, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of VEVE ASSOCIATES. Before me, N, tary Public -2- RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration paid to its full satisfaction, does hereby Give, Grant, Convey and Confirm unto the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Vermont, 15 foot �\\ kV wide easements and rights of way in perpetuity for the \ purpose of installing, maintaining, repairing, restoring and/or replacing underground sanitary and -storm sewer lines and water lines, together with all fixtures required therefor or appurtenant thereto, together with the right of entry on said 15 foot wide easements and rights of way for the aforesaid purposes, the location of same being as depicted on a Plat entitled "Final Plan and Site Plan", 435 Dorset Common, South Burlington, Vermont, as approved by the City of South Burlington Planning Commission and dated , 1977 and recorded in Land Map Volume at Pages , of the City of South Burlington Land Records, Said 15 foot wide easements and rights of way extend for 7 1/2 feet on either side of the 8" water mains; 8" sewer mains , ,and 12" storm sewer mains as depicted on said Plat. The within conveyance does not include easements and rights of way along the water service and sewer service leading from said mains to the individual apartment buildings, The within easements and rights of way are given on portions of property conveyed to the within Grantor by Warranty Deed of Roland J. DesLauriers and Evangeline S. DesLauriers, said Deed dated July 13, 1977 and recorded in Warranty Volume at Pages of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the lands, subject to these rights of way and easements such as shall not be inconsistent with the use of said easements and rights of way, and specifically shall place no structures, landscaping or other improvements within said easements and rights of way which shall prevent or interfere with Grantee's ability to repair, replace and/or maintain said lines, other than improvements to roadways where said easements and rights of way are within the roadways as depicted on said plat. The City of South Burlington agrees that any structures, improvements and/or landscaping affected by said City's maintenance and/or replacement shall be returned to the same condition that they were in prior to any change by the City and within a reasonable time after said maintenance and/or replacement. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the said City of South Burlington, its successors and assigns, forever, and the within Grantor does covenant that it is the sole owner of the premises and has good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, free and clear of every encumbrance, and Grantor herein engages to warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims whatever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, day of ())-0 Un 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: 4CO-C-4-,- Grantor hereunto sets its hand this IE1V� VEVE -AS OCT _ By Duly A thdrized Partner STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At-. 't W-,& I,�(n this 0 day of aLKI U-A 1977, personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., Duly Authorized Partner of VEVE ASSOCIATES, and he acknowledged the within instrument, by him signed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of VEVE ASSOCIATES. Before me,�: dNotary Public -2- r i a RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR. of Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, and RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. of Fajardo, Puerto Rico, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration paid to their full satisfaction, do hereby Give, Grant, Convey and Confirm unto the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Vermont, 15-foot wide easements and rights of way in perpetuity for the purpose of installing, maintaining, repairing, restoring and/or replacing underground sanitary and storm sewer lines and water lines, together with all fixtures required therefor or appurtenant thereto, together with the right of entry on said 15-foot wide easements and rights of way for the aforesaid purposes, the location of same being as depicted on a Plat entitled "Final Plan and Site Plan", 435 Dorset Common, South Burlington, Vermont, as approved by the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Planning Commission and recorded, or to be recorded, in the Land Map Records of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Said 15-foot wide easements and rights of way extend for 7 1/2 feet on either side of the 8" water mains, 8" sewer mains, and 12" storm sewer mains as depicted on said Plat. The within conveyance does not include easements and rights of way along the water service and sewer service leading from said mains to the individual apartment buildings. The within easements and rights of way are given on portions of property conveyed to the within Grantors by Warranty DeedSof Roland J DesLauriers and Evangeline S. DesLaurierst, as recorded in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns, shall have the right to make use of the surface of the lands, subject to these rights of way and easements such as shall not be inconsistent with the use of said easements and rights of way. The CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON agrees that any structures, improvements and/or landscaping affected by said City's installation, maintenance and/or replacement shall be returned to the same condition that they were in prior to any change by the City and within a reasonable time after said installa- tion. The City agrees to hold the Grantors harmless from any and all liability arising out of the City's installation, maintenance and/or use of said sanitary and storm sewer lines and water lines and said easements and rights of way. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the said CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns, forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors hereunto set their hands this day of 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: Rafael F. Veve, Jr. Rafael F. Veve, Sr. -2- State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Engineering Division of Environmental Protection Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. William Syzmanski City Manager City of South Burlington So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Syzmanski: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Division of Environmental Engineering RECEIVED June 27, 1977 JUN 28 1911 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY So. EIURLINGTON Re: So. Burlington Water Supply This office is in receipt of plans submitted by the Environmental Assessment Group for an extension of the water system to service a develop- ment entitled, "435 Dorset Common, So. Burlington." Our involvement is only to review and approve plans which are extensions to municipal water supplies. Does the City of So. Burlington plan to own, operate and maintain these lines as part of the municipally -owned water system upon completion of the project? If this is the case, please provide a letter to this effect to this office. Also, please indicate that you have approved these plans for construction. If questions arise, feel free to contact this office. Sinc ly)urtis David J. Water Supply Project Engineer DJC/lg cc: John Stuart, Environmental Assessment Group Steve Goodkind, Health Department Alan Nye, Regional Engineer i N July 7-1, 1977 1.1r. bavid j. Curtis Water ,upply projoQt ALngineer 3 Of J.�Ji :IvrunW lt,ltal Conservation t Division of Environmental "nginearing Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Re; 435 .)orset (�Oizmon South , I 4-Irlingrton, Vermont 05401 wear Davo., Tile wat-er and seu-ar mains serving tjLe -;11:)Ove referenced conc�ominiu:m ljousiliq develolplaent 1,ailj ije a Part of t,le city SYS tel"'. %- L Plans have been reviewed by the city and construction will .100 supervised by the city. WJS1h very truly yours, City i-Tanager 1 I Y 4 ' ,.ugus t 14, 1978 . Lurlir:gton Savings rank 143d ;:ollegc 6tract Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re. L•Ors.:t cruet (435 Dorset Coaunon) �evc :_ssociates Veve) ..ttention: C llarles ::o �b .)ear c�iucl_: + �,iu i:scrOW ill t i al."Ount of Y115,600.00 dollars, for trio co.,;,piotion or for t::c a:-)ovc rcf er i cck-' project as per agrec::.ieiit uatec_ :'.Ll ust 4, 1�-77 ',-nc work is complete and acceptable tc the City. ,'cry truly hours, viilliam J. Szyaanski City '1ana,Ter VIUS/b t.-Pr, 1 w6, 1977 Richard A. Spokes, Esq. Ewing, & Spokes '6 St. Paul. i trect Burlington, VT 05401 P.e: 435 Dorset Common Veve Associates ApplicaLiou Dear :Dick: i t'ux.ivaltt: to our phone conve:i satiori, l- (-:riclose the I� Iilia l.lZed doc"Ments with ref,ard to the Veve sub(aivisiou apl) ica.tion at: 435 Dorset Couunon. It is my understanding; that, except for the possibility of minor changes in the Agreement a.ncl 17aivex- concez:ninj- private roadways, we nre in agreement. I f_ur.ther understand tb.at you may advise: the 1 I City to pursue a dedication route rather than obtain an ! easement. 1 have no problem with this anu am sure agreement a can be; easily reached. IA Lordially, GRAVEL, SHIA & WRIGHT Stephen 1". Crampton SKc : vr_1r.1 fInclosures CC: William B. Wessel William J. Szymanski Steven Pzagei/ Richard Ward 1 APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR 235 DORSET COMMONS APARTMENTS, RALPH F. VEVE, OWNER Information regarding 10 Criteria: 1. Water and Air Pollution Air: Building is to 6e heated by bottled gas forced air. No significant emissions expected. Water: Expected sewage flow to be approximately 120 gallons per day (3 bedroom apartment). This is less than 1% of applicants existing permitted flow for 104 similar units. Low flush toilets and flow restricted faucets and shower heads will be used. Stormwater Runoff: Project will not produce any significant stormwater runoff. 2 & 3. Water �Su�pppp1_y Water s to provided by the existing municipal water system. 4. Soil Erosion Construction is confined to a very small area on existing flat sandy soils. No signicant soil erosion is expected. 5. Highway Congestion & Safety Project wiTT—ut ilize existing internal road system. No significant highway impact is expected. 6. Educational Services No significantimpact should be expected from the project. (See original letter from So. Burlington School District). 7. Municipal Services No sign icant increase and impact is expected. 8. Natural Beautj and Aesthetics Project in located in a wooded, screened area, little landscaping is required. Power service will be an extension of existing underground service. Exterior lighting will be concealed type. 9. Capability & Development Plan Project wild conform with energy conservation guidelines of R-19 walls, R-38 ceilings. No other impact is expected under this criteria. 10. Plan Conformance Project represents minor addition (less than 1%) to existing approved project. Density has been approved by local zoning board of adjustment on April 16, 1984. SUMMARY: This application is sought for the purpose of increasing maintenance and operations effectiveness for an eixsting 104 unit apartment complex. The project was originally approved on July 19, 1977 under application #4CO259. �u�•F -��'. G-- (moo o ���,=, � -� 7? M ( bct� z�czcs."To �s� I o! O � 4g = Z7%b gor�,��" INTERS TA TE :q ,P kp lV 84 ° 59 ' 40 `� W /40.0 ' lV g° 3 (% PARC L o L„ N ti � � o -to , A i� ry 0 .38 Ares ' _ 00 ; PA RCEL N C I 3830" E 256 240.00 , � 3 PARCEL / 66 Acres o 140. 7 //5.00 Z YIWz.o.00• N 8 J 38 30 ! E P6 at �L Acres N 8' // ' 20' E J ���t.sr�Pit I i i �Sru 1 i 2- �c li3 110 1 GRAVEL. SHEA 8 WRIGH i' ATTORNEYS AT L A W CLARKE A. GRAVEL TELEPHONE C H A R L E S T. SHEA 1 0 9 SOUTH W I N O O S K I AVENUE 6 S S- 0 2 2 0 LAWHENi:E A. WRIGHT B U R L I N G T O N, VERMONT 05402 AREA CODE 802 THOMAS S. CONLON STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON STEWART H. McCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY J OHN GRAVEL WILLIAM G.POST,JR. April 18, 1977 POST, BROOKE PEARSON � * 611 7 Mr. Stephen Page City Planner South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Steve: Purusant to a condition of the Planning Commission Application of Ralph Veve, I enclose a proposed Easement and Right of Way with regard to the 10-foot pedestrian strip which Mr. Veve has stipulated shall be conveyed to the City. I also enclose a proposed Easement and Right of Way for utilities. I am this day sending copies of same to Attorney Spokes for his review. I would expect that either you or he will be in touch with me with regard to any changes or additions you may wish to make. Cordially, GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT Stephen R. Crampton SRC:vmm Enclosures CC: Richard A. Spokes, Esq. (w. enc.) Rafael F. Veve, Jr. (w. enc.) MEMORANDU,M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COhIlISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: 435 DORSET APARMENT PROJECT - SKETCH PLAN DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 1) Necessary Reviews Site Plan Review, Subdivision, RPUD, Private RUA' Impact on Municipal_ Services & Facilities Ability to accomodate sewage effluent and school aged children must be resolved. The burden on recreation police, fire and utility services I 1 9 and facilities must be assessed. 3) Access Type and alignment of access to Dorset Street should take into account school's curb cuts, and substantail expected increases in Dorset Street traffic. A right of way must be provided to a pre-existing, land- locked lot. 4). Site Consideration The property is fairly wet and heavily wooded. Provisions for storm drainage, and site preparation and landscaping merit particular attention. Landscaping should be installed to serve as a sound buffer from the heavily traveled roads to the east and west. MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 435 DORSET STREET DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 1. C.O. District along Interstate provides approximately 15% open space land. 2. Existing vegetation provides for adequate screening - plan should be reviewed by County Forester and/or Tree Committee. 3. Bus shelter should be considered, to serve CCTA and school children. 4. Sidewalk required along entire lot frontage. 5. Plan is in conformance with City Plan and regulations. TO L SUBJECT: A pf P' Lvi I 111ANAGISIV15 Of-Fk--g J, J_ CITy 60, V.URWNGTON l, A4 a eeli.^ ZIDATE FOLD 77- E �d s A G f) E REG EIVE FOLD SIGNED rflAjqA(31!W5 OFFIEG So. PURLINGTON R E p L y DATE: SIGNED CASCADEG L.1-102374 PRINTED IN U S A /-' I\�✓s : ��crc i�"t 0 C.-c�c '�dc��-ct1c� = � ��-'1�i2- "Z' tZ..e� • , F ,'�� , 1Vv.��t� \WA-.1 rMT2-1 16-it,tsgr to Col-h".ryzn 102 VWLSC-,G�xC L ,� 4"61 N4 (; ss. 2- C�im Cis '��+h %* SC4: �vE'��ldks covml T2o1:►A% 044 =4.Z': T�� Ctkwr-v-- 'U./, Ccc,.c ¢� L,&Nzb. 6.Q�tAaq 9 op ov 'mac . tyi� triers T-�- l�r�Tc��.s � �-��t�s I Co►r��t !,� � �a ate. r'-�t�s�vdc_tc dhl �oR�'- 71 30 Sb��S i l.voK ci� ror- ?L-cv-=S WA4h 77 AA m M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 435 DORSET DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 I. Layout and Design Based on the plat and supporting documents which have been submitted to date, I am satisfied this proposal is a sound one in terms of design and layout. (subject to forthcoming memo from Fire Chief) The following additional information should be supplied at the ring, or prior to warning for the final plat: 1) Phasing - list improvements (i.e. units, utilities, recreation facilities) by phaseand furnish timetable. 2) List number of units by building number and number of bedrooms. 3) Location of outdoor lighting. 4) Location of utility easements: sewer, water, phone, power, etc. 5) Review of preliminary utility layout by City Engineer. The following changes to the plat should be considered: 1) Location of access point in accord with future plans of School Department. 2) Incorporation of a turn -out into the curb cut to serve entering traffic, possibly schoolbuses and CCTA buses as well. 3) Applicant should contact CCTA re bustop on this site, as well as desirability of turn out. 4) Reserve an area for land swap with Sweeney at extreme northwest corner so that further subdivision review to accomplish this is not necessary. -2- I 5) Utilities, such as water, should be relocated away from proposed structures to allow easements of adequate width. 6) There should be two or more walkways to provide access to the sidewalk and Dorset Street. Walkways along the perimeter road should be considered to facilitate pedestrian circulation. 7) An option for a potential bikepath or pedestrian easement should be considered in the CO district along the Interstate. 8) The revised preliminary plat should be updated to include missing information (shown on first submission) such as sidewalk on Dorset Street, internal walkways, number of units in each building, etc. Omit tree stAmps. II. Impact on Municipal Facilities/Services 1) Traffic - the ability of the Dorset Street intersection with Williston Road to accomodate the anticipated increase in traffic (from this project as well as others currently under construction or seeking approval) must be established. The improvements which have been funded for this intersection do not increase the capacity of the Dorset Street approach. I will have traffic data prepared for the meeting. 2) Schools - we have yet to hear from the School Board. 3) Sewer capacity - there is adequate capacity at the present time. 4) Growth Policy- every effort should be made to keep the applicant fully informed as this policy moves toward implementation. 5) Recreation - a fee shall be required - the applicant should be kept informed (as above). OFFICE OF TERRENCE J. BOYLE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 301 COLLEGE ST., BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 658-3555 February 22, 1977 Mr. Stephen Page So. Burlington Planning Commission Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 435 Dorset St. - Ralph Veve Dear Steve: Enclosed please find the information required for a "pre- liminary plat" under section 203 of the So. Burlington Regula- tions. We include: 1) Key Map 2) Site Plan at 1"=50' 3) Typical section through building and site - 1/8 scale 4) Typical Floor Plans �n13 s�.u.4('o�►! ;Z-3�;�,�1�1 urn"iT 5) Base Survey and Topo We request waiver of the flagging requirement of 203.1 Item (15) as the dimensional configurations are indicated on the plans and suggestions. We would like to appear on March 15th if this is acceptable to the commission. Please let me know if there is additional infor- mation the commission needs prior to the hearing date. Sincerely yours, J Terrence J. B le TJB:ds cc: R. Veve W. Du.f_f R. Trudell RESOURCE PLANNING TOWN AND URBAN DESIGN PARKS AND RECREATION HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES I M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: W. J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Dorset Common, Dorset Street Date: February 4, 1977 1. There is a sewer and water easement along the westerly side. This should be shown on plan. 2. The status of the single lot must be resolved or an easement provided. 3. Walkways for internal pedestrian movement should be provided. 4. A sidewalk along Dorset Street should be provided. 5. There is no sewer on Dorset Street within the frontage of this parcel. 6. This project will contribute approximately 25,000 gallons of sewerage per day. Respectfully su mitted, fit! i / - William J. Szymanski, City Manager MEXTRANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COM14ISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: DOESET COMI"ON - SKETCH PLAN RIWIEW DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 1. Area zoned R-7 - -maximum density 102 units - maximum density is proposed. 2. Proposed parking for 193 vehicles - minimum required 153. 3. Sewer on Dorset Street ends at Town Square Apart-menUs. Existing sewer line to rear of property. Airport Parkway treatment facility is near capacity - information for City Engineer should be furnished by fleveloper i.e. number of bedrooms. 4. Entrance to complex should be minimum of 30 feet. 5. Area is heavily treed - Tree Committee and County Forester should be consulted. Developer should save as much of existing vegetation as possible. 6. Additional recreation area should be a consideration of developer. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE NO. Filed: (Location) (Date) ISignature of Coordinator/Com. Member I 1. Name, address and phone number of the person �seeking this permit? t_ 2. Name, address and phone number of the person to be contacted regarding this application? (Complete this only if different from #1 above.) r _ 3. Describe the project briefly including its location, type, number of units, lots, etc. Indicate the high and low elevations and outline the tract of land on a county highway map and attach the map to this form. 4. Give the address of each of the applicant's offices in Vermont, if any. 5. Does the applicant own the tract of land in fee simple? If not, what is the applicant's legal interest in the land, what is the name and address of the owner? 1 _� • { -�� When did the applicant acquire ownership or control of the land? 6. If the applicant is not applying as an individual, what kind of legal entity is the applicant filing as, e.g. partnership, corporation, etc., and the date and place the legal entity was formed. (Foreign corpora- tions must supply the date they registered with the Secretary of State for the State of Vermont, and the name of the person upon whom legal processes are to be served.) 7. a. How riiany acres are in the entire tract of land? In answering this, include the total acreage of the landowner. J, b. How many acres are directly involved in this project? 8. On the back side of this page, write in the names and addresses of all adjoining property owners. If you are not the landowner, list the names and addresses of all property owners adjoining the landowner's tract of land. 9. When do you plan to begin this project? = t a When will this project be completed? 10. Attach, when applicable, a copy of: restrictive covenants to be used in deeds, restrictive provisions set forth in leases, bylaws of condominium associations, or any other restrictions. 11. Financing: a. Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project? Applicants for subdivisions should include cost of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc. b. How will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and what additional financing will be necessary? c. If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details of the bonds, ^< ✓, _ �_ .>._ , is 12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? police; fire protection; solid waste disposal; road maintenance; '; sewage disposal; water supply; other. (explain). 13. Will this project involve any of the following: (check those that apply.) a. Fuel burning equipment c. Incinerators b. Process equipment d. Air pollution control equipment NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to do so by a district coordina- tor. 14. I/we hereby certify and affirm under oath that I/we have notified by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled to notice of my/our application pursuant to Title 10 VSA, §6084, as follows: (Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans): Name and Address of ^unicipa ,ty (Name and Address o Municipal -Planning Commission Name and Address of RegionalPlanningCommission) 4 Signature 15. I/we have arranged for a notice of application to be placed in to be published for one day on _ (Newspaper) ate under legal notices, and I/we have given a copy to the Town Clerk of and requested that it be posted. MASTER APPLICATION SCHEDULES TO BE ATTACHED: The checklist of schedules below refers to specific application material described in pages 11 through 15 of this manual. Before completing any sched- ule, call the district coordinator for your area. His address and phone number is on the map on page 5. The district coordinator will tell you which schedules to complete and the number of copies to file with your application. A - Plans and Specifications copies Q B - Act 250 copies �—] C - Sewage Disposal copies Q D - Water Supply copies �7 E - Public Buildings copies Q F - Air Pollution Control copies CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPLICATION READINESS This is to certify that has submitted a complete application to the South Burlington Planning Commission on , for the purpose of • The Zoning Administrator finds that the applicant has filed all applicable submissions and is in conformance with the city's zoning regulations. s/ Zoning Administrator Date The applicant was granted a Zoning Board of Adjustment variance on • CDSee attached memo The Planning Assistant finds the application is in con- formance with the master plan and that it answers all questions raised by the review process. s/ Planning Assistant Date CDSee attached memo The Fire Chief certifies that this application does r adversely affect the fire department's ability to protect life and property in the city or at this site or create a need for additional personnel, programs or equipment. GDSee attached memo The School Directors certify that the proposed project (to be specifically named) will/will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of this municipality to provide educational services. If a negative response is given, information will be provided to explain the Board's decision. Chairman Date C]See attached memo PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPLICATION READINESS Page 2 The Police Chief certifies that this adversely affect the Police Department's life and property in the city or at this need for, -additional personnel, programs, s/ i�� .� Police Chie CZSee attached memo application does not ability to protect site or create a or equipment. Date The undersigned City Engineer certifies that this applica- tion is in conformance with the city's transportation plan, represents sound engineering practice and will not create an unsafe traffic condition. s/ City Engineer Date CDSee attached memo The Planning Assistant certifies that this application raises no legal questions that he can foresee, or if it does that they have been answered by the City Attorney in the attached opihion. s/ Planning Assistant Date t7 See attached memo The City Engineer certifies that the application is in conformance with city engineering standards and represents sound engineering practice as shown. s/ City Engineer Date EDSee attached memo This completed certificate shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Chairman rior to the applicant's being placed on the agenda of a regu ar y scheduled meeting. This certificate is required for site plan review, sketch plans, preliminary plats, final plats and right-of-way approvals. The Chairman shall determine with the advice of the Planning Assistant if any of the above signatures are not necessary, however, it is assumed that all apply. PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COI,.qvjISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room,, 1175 Vvilliston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 26, I977 at 7:30p.m. to consider the following: Final Plat application of Mlri,Ralph Veve for approval of two phagaresiden al subdivision consisting of 102 apartment units on a parcel of 14.6 acres located at 435 Dorset Street. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the east by Dorset Street, on the south by lands of -the city of South Burlington, on the west by lands of the State of Vermont, Arthur Sweeney, and Clement Couillard, and on the north by lands of Roland Deslauriers and Town Square Associates, as per plans on file at City Hall, 1175 1Villiston ]Road. William B. Wessell, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 4/10/77 Mate of Vermont of Fish and Game „i cnt of I:otests, Parks and Recreation 0I Watet Resources n, iiuuuu_nl it Itomd mi,W)nIcntal Lnrineering .,•„ of l wuunntental Protection �nu�ai [<.'unuces Conservation Council Mr. Ralph F. Veve Box 97-B Snipe Island Road Jericho, Vermont 05465 AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 L Jane 17, 1977 RE: Land Use Permit #11CO259000W00c, Dear Mr. Veve: The District #4 Environmental Commission, following the hearing on June 8, 1977, voted to issue to you Land Use Permit #4CO259 for Phase I of your apartment project, consisting -of 118 units. This approval is based upon the file, testimony presented at the hearing and supplemental information submitted by yourself and the City of South Burlington. The District Commission also voted to issue Findings with respect to Phase II of the project making it possible for ,you to obtain the approval for that phase as soon as South Burlington finds that they can provide adequate sewage disposal, education, and highway services. In order to comply with Rule 13 (C) of the Environmental Board. it will not be possible for the Commission to issue the permit itself until the external water and sewer service has been certified to conform to the Vermont Health Public Building Regulations. Although this certification has not been received it is understood that everythir; is in order except for some minor details. The Certification under the Public Building Regulations will also depend upon the Department of Iealth approval of the municipal water line extension. At such time as this office receives the necessary certification we will issue the formal permit. This letter may be considered approval of the project until that occurs. If you have any questions, please call me. CvIr • m� cerety, ,r , Carter i City of South Burlington 1175 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 ....'' TEL. 863-2891 March 24, 1977 Mr. Ralph Veve Box 97-B Snipe Island Road Jericho, Vermont 05465 Dear Mr. Veve: This is to formally confirm the action of the South Burlington Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 15, 1977, in approving your preliminary plat application with conditions. A copy of the approval is enclosed. Your application for final plat approval will be warned when the conditions of the preliminary approval, plus the final plat requirements of the subdivision regulations, have been complied with. Yours truly, Stephen Page, Planning Assistant SP/dlg MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:_ RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE: 435 DORSET COIO:ON, LANDSCAPING PLAN PRASE I DATE: MAY 57 1977 Developer is attempting to save existing trees. This plan has been reviewed with Mr. Raey, Assistant County Forester. 1) Construction damage will occur within activity area of 10' - 15', this means the use of equipment or construction of buildinzs, walks, utilities. 2) Lar-7er clusters of trees should survive, those clusters near building #5, 4, 3 and 1 will be affected by construction activity (marked in red on plan). 3) The proposed woodchip walk will require replacement yearly, woodchip will decompose. 4) Winter creeper, lady fern and day lilies provide a forest atmosphere not considered landscaping under provisions of zoning regulations. 5) Landscaping plan does conform to provisions of zoning regulations, bonding requirements $15,600.00. SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 555 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Richard G. Carter, Chief Telephone 658-1050 March 11, 1977 William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vermont Dear Sir: The South Burlington Police Department is presently operating at itE maximum for the size of our City. Any new development will seriously over -tax our present capabilities to efficiently enforce the law and protect life and property. It is my opinion that any new development, both residential and industrial, will make it imparative that the department be expanded, not only in personnel, but in equipment, dramatically and imme- diately. Ve truly yours, Richard G. Carter RGC:mb s PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BU-RLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, A¢arnirj, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following:"t �- "�'�`� Prel4a14"&-y- Plat pplication of Mr. Ralph Veve for approval of a esidential subdivision consist- ing of 102 apartment units on a parcel of 14.6 acres located at 435 Dorset Street. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the east by Dorset Street, on the south by lands of the City of South Burlington, on the west by lands of the State of Vermont, Arthur Sweeney, and Clement Couillard, and on the north by lands of Roland Deslauriers and Town Square Associates, as per plans on file at City Hall, 1175 Williston Road. ztzo-rir William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, March 15, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following: Preliminary Plat application of Mr. Ralph Veve for approval of a residential subdivision consist- ing of 102 apartment units on a parcel of 14.6 acres located at 435 Dorset Street. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the east by Dorset Street, on the south by lands of the City of South Burlington, on the west by lands of the State of Vermont, Arthur Sweeney, and Clement Couillard, and on the north by lands of Roland Deslauriers and Town Square Associates, as per plans on file at City Hall, 1175 Williston Road. William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 2/26/77 II Red Tape Form - Circulation c cp H H v N -H H o oCD 01 N M-P w -H fa is w C a) v ca a� ca C rts -►-' > FI: a n c M ,c CO ril- a ¢ a. ¢ N 0 o Zoning Administrator Planning Assistant City blanager (Engineer) Fire Chief Police Chief School Directors Recreation Director City Attorney Transportation Engineer (RPC) Natural Resources Comm. Tree Planting Comm. Other -gelL- loq seo1lc: CC-' Cam. Cz_.. ✓ = no adverse comment x = memo enclosed ..�. ...� �.wa �... .. av'• sar.-c. ,.wr. .. y.✓..,i.ii Vf �.'-a'4I ".'�.*>'p..'roVd1iU-'Rwt {fn,:.. WS�{9t •..._...a.1M.AA<.N.ir. h�.:.:flT. M, .�rit.�lpr� Red Tape Form - Circulation / C > > U •ri .-i O O it N 4--' M4J O -H $-, H C) C N M > n. x� k r-+ •H O a a o ,C +� W, Q. a. a. wa, U) pC CL d a. Q N 0 O Zoning Administrator Planning Assistant City Manager (Engineer) Fire Chief Police Chief School Directors Recreation Director City Attorney Transportation Engineer (RPC) Natural Resources Comm. Tree Planting Comm. Other ✓ = no adverse comment x = memo enclosed M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: 435 Dorset Common Date: April 22, 1977 1. Roads should be crowned and not pitched to one side as proposed. Additional drainage structures will be required. 2. Roads shall be 30 feet in width with curbs. 3. Drainage structures will be required in the grassed areas to facilitate surface drainage. 4. An additional drainage inlet will be required along Dorset Street across from the High School entrance. 5. Fire Chief has recommendations for the placement of fire hydrants. 6. Sewer pipe to be bedded in crushed stone. 7. Manhole inverts shall be paved to the depth of the intercepting pipes. 8. Water installation materials, location of valves, meters, shut -offs, shall be approved by the Water Department Superintendent. 9. Storm drain pipe shall be asbestoes cement or concrete. 10. Road base shall be 18" of gravel. Respectfully submitted, William J. zy nski, City Manager Mr. William B, Wessel Chairman .`>outh urlington rlannin,g Commission 1175 "illiston itoad 6outh Lurlington, Clermont 05401 Deer �r iressel, tm Thursday ipril 21, 1977 ajr. 'Alliam Szymanski and I reviewed the plans on the apartment complex off Dorset Street and the following should be corrected to enable the fire depc.rba,ent to give proper fire protection. 1. 1,1ain roads to be 30 feet wide. 2. hydrants to be located as marked on plans by 1's. :,zyTmns1:i and myself. 3. j11 buildings must be 30 feet from another building. If you have any questions on the above please feel free to call me at 6 G3-6455. incerely Jaxaes ln. Goddette Lr. Chief cc; Mr. William Szymanski 4-?6-- . e va r` 7., '3t--\Vsav- / %Oes w6►( l N 67 SIC*- 2t>,4> Et-E6"l N� � ,1N5c..: CveP cur +✓occ�rvrt, (��YI p�(5� sin ant, B��Q1T, `3/�u l t-i✓�d � Svv�✓n� �� %vav Zv., p -rL�m r=Es ?aGve!� - appw-A45A4-qauc- V=r O-- -eD dp Gvr.t<:,Aje=-- s(� a :1:4 Fl �AAL: uqeej�:. -To koa Uwt3r- � aOgC-o-s Vlotl2oaw,�� sue,, VtC-� VAOV wltnt AGREEMENT AND WAIVER THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of , 1977, by and between RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. of Fajardo, Puerto Rico, and RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR. of Jericho; Chittenden County, State of Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont. WHEREAS, Owners have come before the South Burlington Planning Commission and the South Burlington City Administration for approval of a subdivision as defined under Section 103 Definitions of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, said application being known and designated as "435 Dorset Common", and WHEREAS, the subdivision will be serviced by a private roadway of 30' in width which shall remain private, and the Owners have no intention at the present time that the roadway be dedicated, accepted, and/or maintained by the City of South Burlington, and WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, acting through its Planning Commission and City Administration, has approved the application with said private roadway subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval of said private roadway and other consideration, each to the other party given, the Owners do hereby acknowledge and agree that they will not apply to the City of South Burlington to have said right of way accepted as a public street without first complying with all applicable construction requirements and specifications set forth in the then existing South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations or other applicable municipal ordinances, the expense of complying with said requirements and specifications to be borne solely by the Owners, their heirs, successors or assigns. Further, the Owners waive any rights they may have or any claim they may allege by virtue of the City of South Burlington's approval of said private roadway to request the City of South Burlington_to maintain and/or accept said private roadway without first completing at their own expense all necessary improvements to said private roadway as set forth hereinabove. The Owners also acknowledge and agree that they will not .change the location of said private roadway nor extend said private roadway without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration, nor shall they permit said private roadway to service more than the presently approved 101k dwelling units without the prior approval of the South Burlington Planning Commission and City Administration. -2- The Owners further agree and acknowledge that the City of South Burlington, prior to any approval and acceptance of said private roadway as a public street, shall have and bear no liability or claim of liability arising from the approval of said private roadway. This Agreement and Waiver is binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands this day of , 1977. IN PRESENCE OF: Owners Rafael F. Veve, Sr. Rafael F. Veve, Jr. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly Authorized Agent By Chairman, Planning Commission BE STATE OF COUNTY, SS. At , this day of , 1977 personally appeared RAFAEL F. VEVE, SR. and RAFAEL F. VEVE, JR., and they acknowledged the within instrument, by them signed, to be their free act and deed. Before me, Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At , this day of , 1977 personally appeared Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and WILLIAM B. WESSEL, Chaiman, Planning Commission of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and they acknowledged the within instrument, by them signed, to be their free act and deed, and the free act,and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, Notary Public -4- CLARKE A. GRAVEL CHARLES T. S-EA LAWRENCE A. WRIGHT THOMAS S. CONLON STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLF_Y JOHN C. GRAVEL WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BROOKE PEARSON GRAVEL, SHI-A 8 WRIGHT ATTORNEYS AT L A W TELEPHONE 1 0 9 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE 6 5 6- 0 2 2 0 B U R L I N G T O N, VERMONT 0 5 4 02 AREA CODE 802 Richard A. Spokes, Esq. Ewing & Spokes 86 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Dick: April 21, 1977 Pursuant to our recent phone conversation, I enclose a proposed Agreement and Waiver between my clients.and the City of South Burlington with regard to the private roadway included in the application for 435 Dorset Common. While using the City's Agreement as a guideline, I agree with you that it merely is a guideline and that our proposal could and should be a more complete document. I believe, with this submission, that the documentation requested by the City and required by its Subdivision Regulations has been completed and is in order. Should you have any comments, questions or changes, I trust you will relay them to me today and I will make the appropriate alterations. Cordially, GRAVEL, SHEA & WRIGHT Stephen R. Crampton SRC:vmm Enclosures CC: Steven Page (w. enc.) William B. Wessel (w. enc.) William J. Szymanski (w. enc.) April 21, 1977 Mr. William J. Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: 435 Dorset Commons Dear Mr. Szymanski: HACKETT VALINE & MACDONALD, INC. INSURANCE 198 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON VERMONT 05401 802-658-1100 We have reviewed financial statements regarding 435 Dorset Commons and have forwarded them to the Aetna Casualty and Surety Insurance Company with a request that they furnish sub division bonds as requested by the City of South Burlington. We do not have a final answer regarding this request but anticipate no problem in providing the bonds as required. Yours very truly, HACKETT, VALINE MacDONALD, INC. L. David Smith Commercial Accounts Manager LDS/tb ✓cc: Mr. Richard Ward Mr. William Wessel NOTICE OP APPLICATION AND HEARING 10 VSA, Chapter 151 (Act 250) Pursuant to 10 VSA, §60811(b) notice is hereby made that Mr. Ralph Veve, Box 97-13, Snipe Island Road, Jericho, Vt. filed an application with District Commission # 4 on April 15, 1977 for a land use permit for the construction of loll unit apartment complex located on Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Pursuant to 10 VSA, 06085 a hearing open to the public will be held on May 62 1977 at 1:30 P.M. atChittenden County Regional Planning Commission, 58 Pearl Street, Essex Junction, Vt. District Environmental Commission # �1 1 43s- fir- t.sc- cam•--e Butz S�v� 1(� l /rlAi,4 ro w �-1 At-6GG5 �/i`.it • � 1 Li m^ �, 1 r TO 4r '� /' SUBJECT: nATG 44 � - - - �� • - - � FOLD �) �� ��. r S A G i Foin _ SIGNED Ro P L Y' DATE: FSINED CASCADE® Ll-C2374 PRINTED IN u s A April 4, 1977 ,4r. Gerald C. Milot 1504 Hegeman Avenue Colchester, VerMont 05446 [?ear Mr. �,Iilot, At tl,.eir regular meeting on Mlarch 27,, 1977 the south Burlington �`,c!1001 Board voted that, the proposed Dorset Common Apwart:nemt 1)evelOPrlent Outlined in your communication dated February 23, 1977 would not place an unreasonable burden on this TrUliciPS11tY to provido educational services. Because of our concern for the it is requested �,,jfety of our students, that gi(jewalks be provided in conjunction wit") the roads to be constructed. ,pqjs will allow students to wall; safely to and from bus stops. T ate; enclosing a copy of our transportation policy for your information. Please note item #4 under t-re ad,inisstrative ouidellnes - -ruses will not be routed over private roads .- 1,,,e request t,,Iat the entrance to our develom,,i.ent be located as close to the northern boundry of your j-,,roperty 1Yas This location will tie in better with the entrances and exits of the licidle School an(, Eiph {,cljool and also should help ease potential traffic proble vis. if you ?,,ave any questions, please contact ile. ,incerely yours, Frederick !I. Tuttle Sup erintendent of ',c!'1()ol5 Ff IT , cl en c. Occ: 'Ir. `;tephen Page, Planning Assistant k John Lucas, Business Manager Mr. Stephen Page Page 2 March 103, 1977 In considering the landscape needs of this complex, I would caution the City against mixing new landscape plants with the existing vegitation. The shade of the present overstory would be detrimental to the survival and growth of most nursery grown trees. Sinc y, s11S , ay Assistan y Fores r RSR:mis Oe I , jd� �e k State of Vermont Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning Natural Resources Conservation Council Mr. Stephen Page City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Steve: AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MARTIN L. JOHNSON, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS P. 0. Box 132 Essex Junction, VT 05452 March 10, 1977 On February 16th I met with Mr. Ralph Veve to inspect the site of his proposed apartment complex at 435 Dorset Street. The site is flat, soils being Scantic poorly drained silt, and Duane - Deerfield sands with high water table. The forest growth is a pole stand of gray birch and red maple with admixtures of red oak and white pine. The decadent condition of many of the birch stems indicate that this stand, though small in diameter, is over -mature. This is confirmed by studying the 102 aerial photos, which show a dense, young stand on this site at that time. The existing trees will. be an asset, and should be preserved in three locations - the buffer strip along Dorset Street, and each of the court -yards in phase one and phase two. On a relative scale these are large areas which, according to the plan of 1/26/77, will not be subjected to construction disturbance. In order to preserve the integrity of the court -yard, I did recommend to Mr. Veve that he run the water and sewer lines around the periphery. The max3rm benefit will be realized from these areas if they are left completely natural, except for periodic removal of dead material. In such a natural condition the red maple, oak, and pine regeneration will become dominant as the gray birches die, however, if the area is mowed or otherwise subjected to intensive maintenance the demise of the gray birch will leave the area completely open and in need of landscaping. Within the limits of construction no effort should be made to protect any of the trees. Gray birch is very intolerant of root disturbance, and, as the plan is drawn, extensive disturbance cannot be avoided. A well -executed landscape design would be much more complementary to this project than would a patchwork of decadent trees with a short life span. r. u- t r tcr c I'llO 0. -)c�cir Curt: T is � t -" ', n:) s r 0 c c, I v -1-nal �1. t I k 77 cccf�, C h- 7 c ony in 0 c I r) -. ,, 6, t la n,--, L n r.: t I lJ E,I ii. � S G 1,71 5 IS C, "l.. - .- - I S rA c a un.- cm o; , c, c, (2,V tE t r,.-� n s ;rta t Ilon -'C": r c, S C. r V 1 C,'- S 11 v 7 -L-' _ 1 c C, - permit, r'!S t'' l r o TI ro i n ',.?C • S V! - jnrl �qordjjj, c t,-"1"� U. L c s t 27 u c t 4�,,r 1"hase I :-,,u s t c-, com le-z' �Jl U rl s S t: JJ U 7 Mens tll,,E'-,.1-11" 1 S - reviov: t of D-Anci use rir, t c, u ir e (;,-,)! i r, `ancC v.? i t 0 p Mr, Gurt "artcr Page A condition 7, an , urthar, that ; deanline for complAinn of cinstructim he imrosed Es abive (i,e., June C, 154). if the "AArict Camission Sew fit to OpOCC the cond- itions of the land usc pormit unich have cen rep quest.A, the soun Pur!Lwton Plannih- CommissV- n k7c nc Q:40"n t the vp iqw-nml o: the Orrinn. .10"SO cQ! if you have �lny ques-''io-S. ?or the Vouth !ur1QqtO,..! DWI im CmAinsiori mwhm Age in S E is a M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 435 DORSET DATE: MARCH 11, 1977 , I. Lavout and Design Based on the plat and supporting documents which have been submitted to date, I am satisfied this proposal is a sound one in terms of design and layout. (subject to forthcoming memo from Fire Chief) The following additional information should be supplied at the h-aring,,or prior to warning for the final plat: 1) Phasing - list improvements (i.e. units, utilities, recreation facilities) by phaseand furnish timetable. 2) List number of units by building number and number of bedrooms. 3) Location of outdoor lighting. 4) Location of utility easements: sewer, water, phone, power, etc. 5) Review of preliminary utility layout by City Engineer. The following changes to the plat should be considered: 1) Location of access point in accord with future plans of School Department. 2) Incorporation of a turn. -out into the curb cut to serve entering traffic, possibly schoolbuses and CCTA buses as well. 3) Applicant should contact CCTA re bustop on this site, as well as desirability of turn out. 4) Reserve an area for land swap with Sweeney at extreme northwest corner so that further subdivision review to accomplish this is not necessary. 5) Utilities, such as water, should be relocated away from proposed structures to allow easements of. adequat6width. 6) There should be two: or more walkways to provide access to the sidewalk and Dorset Street. Walkways along the perimeter road should be considered to facilitate pedestrian circulation. 7) An option for a potential bikepath or pedestrian easement should be considered in the CO district along the Interstate. S) The revised preliminary plat should be updated to include missing information (shown on first submission) such as sidewalk on Dorset Street, internal walkways, number of units in each building, etc. Omit tree stAmps. II. Impact on Municipal Facilities/Services 1) Traffic - the ability of the Dorset Street intersection with Williston Road to accomodate the anticipated increase in traffic (from this project as well as others currently under construction or seeking approval) must be established. The improvements which have been funded for this intersection do not increase the capacity of the Dorset Street approach. I will have traffic data prepared for the meeting. 2) Schools - we have yet to hear from the School Board. 3) Sewer capacity - there is adequate capacity at the present time. 4) Growth Policy- every effort should be made to keep the applicant fully informed as this policy moves toward implementation. 5) Recreation - a fee shall be required - the applicant should be kept informed (as above).. April 17, 1964 Mr. Ralph Veve P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Veve: Be advised that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has granted your request for a zoning variance. The Board will issue formal findings at a later date. This office will issue a permit upon request. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to all me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mCg �-_ _____ °� -- * �«�t��"��~� -- `------'------- , ^ _'-_ _ __--__ __ -- _____ ____ _ ____ ___________________________________________ _ VEVE 435 Dorset Street Dorset Common Apartments Area zoned R-7 District Section 18.00 area, density and dimensional requirements 7 units per acre x 14.9 acres = 1043 units Existing 104 units Proposed construction of a 28' x 48' operational building with a second story dwelling unit Accessory uses allows garage March 27, 1984 Mr. Ralph Veve P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re.- Zoning appeal Dear Mr. Veve: Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, April 9, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer LE(iAl NOTICES SOUTH 8mmF4 TON ZONING NOTICE In accordant. with f Z the South R?U'o and ter 117, ude �j V.S.A. the South &.4-Vtat Zoning Board to,�f �A�d'j�ust n.W will hold a ImgtanKK of the South Syr hrsmcs R � Offices, Can - Street, South 575 Daraet BurlingtonV as Malayermont , Aprilid9, , 1984, at "S:00 P.M. ro conser the fapow- 0 TAppeal of Mode" L. Rocicot seeking a variance, from Section 9.204, and Section 9.20 Condi- tional uses of the South ton Regulations- Request iisf son to keep domestic i nn anirruals (chickens) on a lot Octe, at 655 Ki R one(l) M2 Appeal of Road. Dmmrr.g. Peter Akf.n, Pnsudertt seek_ 14.05,approval, henna Section Conditional uses sub -sec. Lion 19.056 extension of the, South quest i strucl a 1for 5'x J-6V— Regulations. R.- psrrrwssion to con - addition to the existing medical center compl.x, at 1 Timber lane. N3 Appeal of Ralph V.vs seek- nwgg o variance, from Section 18.00, Ara, density and dlm.n- sional requirenants of the South Burlington Regulotk— Request is Permission to Constnut a 28'x48' operationsdto inck+ds a second story w unit, which exceeds the moxr- mom density W Dorset Commons APartmeMs, 435 Dorset Sheet. yMon Realty Trust ssokmunapproval,pr�v, under Section 22.007, Conditio- nal use of the S B:�kroion Regulations. Request is for per_ mission to extend the conwnercial 1 District iota the Conservation - Open Space District up to Un' isef in the vicinity of the of cads MON for the purpose porki and occ vas at t 155 Dorset Skeet. W Richard Ward, March249 d vWstrative Officer NOTICE OF APPEAL SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Name, address and telephone # of applicant Ralph VPye, P.O. Box 2361. So. Burlington, Vt. 899-2096 Architect: Leonard Duffy & Associates, P.O. Box 555, Hinesburg, Vt. 482-3040 Name, address of property owner same as above d/b/a Veve Associates Property location and description 235 Dorset Street, So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 14.933 acre site known as Dorset Commons Apartments I hereby appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following: conditional use, variance or decision of the administrative officer. I understand the meetings are held twicea month (second and fourth Mondays). The legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days before the hearing. I agree to pay the hearing fee of $`30.00 which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Hearing Date gignature ofAppellant Do not write below this line ---------------------=----------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on , at (day of week) month and date) time to consider the following: Appeal of seeking a from Section Burlington Regulations. Request is 4.44-t,* of the South for permission to r 4 II RECEIVED RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI LAW OFFICES OF SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI 86 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS401 July 22, 1977 William Szymanski City Manager Steven Page Planning Assistant 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Veve Escrow Bonding Agreement Dear Bill and Steve: Jul. 2 5 1977 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY Sr. PURUNGiON AREA CODE 802 863-2857 Enclosed please find a draft of an escrow agreement which Steve Crampton sent to me. Would you both review it care- fully and let me know your thoughts. I am particularly interested in the following: 1. Steve, is Paragraph 3 consistent with the Planning Commission approval. 2. What do you both think about Paragraph 4. 3. What is the sum which should be inserted in Para- graph 5. 4. What is the schedule which should be inserted in Paragraph 5A. 5. Steve, is Paragraph 13 correct. Please get back to me. Very truly yours, Rich -a- A. Spokes RAS/tb Enclosure Y w ESCROW ACRE NT THIS AGREEMENT, in triplicate, by and between VEVE ASSOCIATES, a Vermont partnership having a place of business in Jericho, Chittenden County, State of Vermont, hereinafter referred to as "Developer"; the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a Vermont municipality, hereinafter referred to as "City"; and BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK, a Vermont corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Bank". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Developer has received final subdivision approval for Phase I pursuant to Developer's Plat of Land as depicted in Map Volume at Page of the South Burlington City Land Records, and additionally pursuant to a letter under date of May 27, 1977 from Stephen Page, Planning Assistant, which incorporates the approval as set forth in the South Burlington Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1977, and all with regard to "435 Dorset Common"; and WHEREAS, Developer is required by said approvals, at its own expense, to complete certain improvements as follows: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements, all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to establish an escrow account to secure the obligations of the Developer set forth above; and WHEREAS, the Bank executes this Agreement solely in the capacity of an escrow agent. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will, at its own expense, complete the following improvements in connection with its development entitled 435 Dorset Common: (A) Install underground utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical and telephonic); (B) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system as depicted on said aforementioned Plat; (C) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements all as depicted on the Site Plan for 435 Dorset Common as submitted with the application; and 2. Developer will convey to the City by properly executed Bill of Sale and Easement Deed, free and clear of all encumbrances, its proposed conveyance of the piping and other accessories in conjunction with water conduction, -2- 0 sanitary sewage conduction and storm drainage conduction, and all as depicted on said Plan; and further will convey an easement and right of way for a 10 foot pedestrian walkway over the most westerly portion of the property known as 435 Dorset Common. 3. Developer shall complete the improvements for Phase I of 435 Dorset Common as set forth in Subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of Paragraph 1 on or before the expiration of Jul 1, 1978. 4. The Developer shall repair or replace any faulty or defective work or improper material which may occur and which result from hidden defects or from failure to comply with City or other applicable governmental specifications or requirements. However, any repairs or replacements which become necessary after acceptance by the City, and after approval as being in conformance with the applicable specifications ID 4 and which do nQt arise as a result of hidden defects or failure to comply with Town or other applicable specifications or requirements shall be the responsibility of the City. 5. To provide security to the City and as a guarantee of Developer's performance of all requirements as set forth hereinabove, Developer and Bank agree that the sum of -3- shall be set aside and held in escrow by the Bank and shall be available for payment to the City, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth or shall be available for payment to the Developer in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth: (A) The following shall be a schedule of allocation of escrow monies for the improvements to be made: 1) Install underground utilities: 2) Construct and complete a storm sewer drainage system: 3) Landscape and make other necessary site improvements: (B) Upon completion of each, all or any one of the above -mentioned improvements under Subparagraph (A) immediately hereinabove, Developer shall notify City in writing of the completion of same and City shall immediately inspect said improvements to assure that it has been completed to its satisfaction. Upon approval after inspection, City shall notify Developer in writing that said improvement is complete and approved, and upon tender by Developer to Bank of said written approval, Bank shall release to Developer the escrow money allocated to that improvement which has been approved by City according to the schedule set forth in Subparagraph (A) hereinabove. -4- 6. If the City shall file with the Bank a statement that Developer is in the judgment of the City in 60-day default under the terms of this Agreement, the Bank shall from time to time pay monies from said escrow fund to the City, in amounts not to exceed a total enabling the City to complete the improvements and requirements set forth in this Agreement. 7. The City will promptly submit to the Developer a copy of any such statement that it files with the Bank. The consent of the Developer to any payments by the Bank to the City shall not be required. The Bank shall incur no liability to Developer on account of making such payment to the City, nor shall the Bank be required to inquire into the propriety of any claim by the City of default on the part of the Developer or into the use of such funds by the City in completing said improvements. 8. The City shall not file a statement of default with the Bank until 60 days after notice has been sent by it to the Developer by certified mail, return receipt -requested, setting forth the City's intention to so notify the Bank of default. 9. All monies released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 shall be used by the City solely for the -5- purpose of performing obligations imposed upon the Developer by that portion of this Agreement upon which the Developer is then in default in conjunction with Phase I of 435 Dorset Common. Any work contracted for by the City pursuant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the City with its own work force and equipment or shall be accomplished in such other manner as in the judgment of the City shall accomplish the work more expeditiously and economically. 10. If monies are released by the Bank to the City pursuant to Paragraph 6 and if it shall later develop that a portion of the released monies are surplus to the City's needs, for the completion of the improvements in default, any such surplus shall be refunded by the Town to the Bank to be held and distributed by the Bank pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 11. The Bank will not refuse or delay to make such payments to the Town when requested by the Town by the appropriate statement, and Developer will not interfere with or hinder such payments by the Bank to the City. Said statement shall contain a certificate of compliance with the notice requirements of paragraph 8 of this Agreement. 12. This Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no M force or effect upon performance of all requirements contemplated hereby, except as contained in Paragraph 4 hereof. 13. City acknowledges and agrees that the improvements contained herein are all the improvements required and set forth under Planning Commission approval for Phase I of 435 Dorset Common as hereinbefore mentioned. 14. This Agreement shall not only be binding upon the parties hereto, but also their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 15. For purposes of notification, the following shall be the persons and addresses to which notification shall be sent, unless changed by any party by giving notice in writing to the other parties: Developer: Veve Associates c/o Ralph F. Veve, Jr. Snipe Island Road Jericho, Vermont City: William Szymanski City Manager City Hall South Burlington, Vermont Bank: Burlington Savings Bank Attention: Perley Adams 148 College Street Burlington, Vermont -7- Dated this IN PRESENCE OF: day of , 1977. Developer VEVE ASSOCIATES By Duly Authorized Partner City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By Duly Authorized Agent Bank BURLINGTON SAVINGS BANK By Duly Authorize Agent LEONARO OUFFY architects 0 planners - MAIN STREET BOX 149 HINESBURG March 19, 1984 Mr. Dick Ward Zoning Admisnitrator South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Ward: and ASSOCIATES development consultants I VERMONT 08481 809 482 3040 Enclosed, please find an application for Zoning Board appeal for Dorset Commons Apartments, c/o Mr. Ralph Veve. As you will recall from our previous conversation, Mr. Veve is requesting approval for construction of a maintenance and operation building which would include a second floor apartment for a resident manager of the complex. The reason for the appeal is that current zoning at seven units per acre allows 104.53 units on the 14.933 acres of involved land. There are presently 104 apartment units on the site, leaving a net .53 units for this use. Yours very truly, Leonard A. Duffy, Architect LAD :cg Enclosure 435 DORSET STREET APARTMENT COMPLEX IMPACT ON TRAFFIC The contents of this report are based on: traffic counts in existing apartment complexes; data provided by the "Greater Burlington Urban Area Urban Transportation Study - Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission"; and a interview with Gordon McArthur (Traffic Engineer and Planner for the Vermont Department of Highways) in which the data was analysed as to the effect of the traffic impact created by the proposed 435 Dorset Street (102) apartment complex. Regardless of the renter profile traffice data has been compiled based on the 1977 "New England Average" count of 6.43 daily +i car trips per apartment unit. Although recent traffic counts surveyed at Manor Woods and Georgetown Apartments show a lower average count than the 6.43 it was felt that it was close enough to the New England Average to be meaningful for this study and that had it been conducted in the summer, would have shown the count truer to the above mentioned figure. A turning movement data sheet has been prepared based on the following assumptions: -first 48 unit phase would generate 310 (6.43 x 48) vehicle trips per day and 650 vehicle trips per day on the completed 102 unit phase. -in and out movement from 435 Dorset Street during peak hours based on 41 cars per hour would constitute 13.40 of the average daily traffic of the development. -15% of the Dorset Street traffic volume is already represented (at present) by the would be renters of the 102 unit complex. -the Directional Distribution factor is two fold (1) 650 of the outgoing daily traffic would turn south to the Kennedy Drive inter- ► (2) section and that 350 of the outgoing daily traffic would turn north to the Williston Road intersection. (2) During morning and evening peak hours 90% of the in -out bound traffic would flow south towards the Dorset/Kennedy intersection. It is our opinion that in general drivers will avoid more congested traffic routes such as the Dorset/Williston Road intersection. Not only is the Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street intersection closer to the development in the distant future it will also be an alternate route to the Williston Road intersection when driving into Burlington by using the proposed north bound ramp and entering the next exit to downtown Burlington. In addition the Kennedy }/Dorset intersection affords easy access to I 189 to Sears and vicinity; and to points east such as ? Williston and Essex Junction. w R oce I T M- (om) � S�o� Of/ 0 421 �u�tv►�U, Cif ���� iN J�7 ,� - Co ��rE h �= ®;L VAOS -fi �Q l�c 0 -J r.� v i`777 I on DES 41 Vakm* = D1REc � . i M K-,m: I IV v\) CONCLUSIONS: The Dorst Street/Kennedy Drive intersection has a capacity of handling 650 vehicles per hour (VPH). The actual count for the intersection is 325-330 VPH or with 50a capacity remaining. The proposed 102 unit complex would add between 75-80 VPH at peak hours to the intersection allowing it to operate at an acceptable level of service. -The proposed 102 unit development would add 5 to 10 VPH at peak hours to Dorset Street north of the development or a 1% increase to the northbound lane to the Williston Road intersection. This figure would be further reduced with that portion of traffic turning into the University Mall or the Dorset Street Mall rather than continuing through the Williston Road intersection. -The proposed 102 unit development would add 75-80 VPH at peak hours to Dorset Street south of the development southbound to the Kennedy Drive intersection or a 15$ increase to the southbound lane to Kennedy Drive. -On a daily basis the proposed 102 unit complex would add 200 to 420 vehicles per day to Dorset Street south of the development and add 110-230 vehicles per day to Dorset Street north of the development. (6) ) SUMMARY: It would appear from this data that the proposed 435 Dorset Street 102 unit apartment complex would not pose a severe impact on the traffic volume on Dorset Street. Even though it is known that the Dorset Stteet and Williston Road intersection is heavily congested during peak hours; proposed improved curb changes (which generally do not increase overall traffic volume capacity but will accomodate existing volume in a more orderly fashion; better accomodating peak loads) combined with a expected tennant traffic behavior to use faster, less congested roads such as Kennedy Drive, Dorset Street south, I 189, will not result in overstraining this northern section of Dorset Street. As for the southern section of Dorset Street where the majority of tennant traffic will occur, the impact will be limited due to the SO% capacity remaining at the Kennedy Drive intersection. Of much less impact to traffic will be the initial first 48 unit phase. t;-Ai I 7,10Z -s 7 M fill -7 )w 110 7s f-7. c j �Ial LV Ou. A. I �= I m ,1 Q c' f S —��s i {lam li I i t i i ij tilt ---- j 1 I \ I 1\ 7 i// l - :7 r*4 ill/ 4 5 I .47 Iv 1 IMA- ZONING BOARD September 25, 1995 page 7 Mr. Blais asked for further comments, then called the question. The appeal was granted unanimously. 13 - Continued Appeal of Veve Associates (Appeal #1 of September 11, 1995) Rafael Veve, seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Density requirements at Dorset Commons, 435 Dorset Street. Mr. Blais announced that the appellant requested a further continuance. Maureen O'Brien moved to continue the appeal to the next regular meeting of the Board (October 23, 1995) unless an earlier meeting is duly called for by the Chair. Mr. Randazzo seconded the motion and all voted aye. Maureen O'Brien moved to accept the minutes and the findings of fact of September 11, 1995. This was seconded by Mr. Johnson and all voted aye. Dan King moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment 0 C T 2 3 e95