Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1000 Hinesburg RoadCity of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 863.2882 June 10, 1981 Joseph Landry Vermont Agency of Transportation Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Landry, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-2486 In the recent approval of the Mitel industrial building on Hinesburg Road, the South Burlington Planning Commission has required certain improvements to be made at the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road intersection. This requirement is in line with our standards for maintenance of level of service C for at least a 5 year design period. We also understand that the State has not required any improvements of Mitel at this location. Even though we have made the general requirement, we cannot determine the final design because of two factors. First, this intersection is under State jurisdiction. Second, proper design must include a time period of longer than 5 years. We expect that certain improvements can be made on the most critical leg now, but this can not be verfied until a complete design is done. We hope that the State will be able to take a large part of responsibility for the design of this intersection. We would like to arrange a meeting with representatives of your department at your earliest convenience to discuss the possibilities. Sincerely, c David H. Spitz, City Planner DS/mcg t300 t —�rvaQ dau,�i��oh 3/a4 -AM r i . per, ocre ?t � ) 3 4�� m fi190�(-"��� A G E N D A South ;Burlington City Council Meeting City Full Mini -Conference Room 2nd Floor - 575 Dorset Street (New Municipal Complex) South Burlington, Vermont SPECIAL MEETING 10:00 A.M. Saturday, June 6, 19al 1. Authorize Council Chairman to sign letter of sti ula on Mitel. P tion Respectful s itted, . , William . Sz nski City Manager TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2W4 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone: (802) 878-5977 June 9, 1981 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT. 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: Location of the Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park access roadway on Vermont Route 116 should be selected to provide adequate sight distances. The follow- ing values, as correlated with design speed, permit drivers exiting from the plant site to have sight distances that are sufficient for not interfering with approaching vehicles on the main road. Design speed, mph 30 35 40 45 50 Sight distance, ft 495 640 805 985 1190 These design values are applicable for a rural highway. If speeds are enforced for a speed limit of 35 mph, then a reasonable design speed for this location should be selected as 40 mph. Although lesser sight distance values can be chosen for design purposes, these levels of design allow for speed differentials on the main highway as a result of vehicles entering from the drive- way. The absolute minimum condition is described as that sight distance required for safe stopping. The engineering firm for this development can determine the degree of acceptability of various driveway locations in terms of the sight dis- tance requirements. In accordance with your directions, no evaluation of on -site conditions has been performed to determine the feasibility of one or more driveway locations. Thank you. Very truly yours, Jos'fe'pph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:rrb cc: Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. i TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone: 878-5977 May 8, 1981 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT. 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: As requested by you, the second version of the document entitled "Report on Traffic for Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park" as prepared by Trudell Con- sulting Engineers, Inc. and dated Revised April 28, 1981, has been reviewed in detail. The following comments have been prepared in addition to those items enumerated in my letter of April 9, 1981, to which still -applicable references are noted below. 1. Because design decisions are reflected in terms of traffic efficiency and safety, the report should be signed and sealed by the registered professional engineer who performed the traffic impact study to pro- tect the interest of the community. 2. Again, item Nos. 3 and 4 in the letter of April 9 are applicable to the determination of directional movements. No rationale is presented to justify the 'assigned probabilities' that are presented in Exhibits 3 and 4 of the traffic report. Normally, travel interchanges in the trip table are assigned by an appropriate algorithm to the major street system. Because no logic is demonstrated to support the 'assigned prob- abilities' for the daily directional movements, it is difficult to con- firm the remaining analysis. 3. In item Nos. 6 and 7 of the April 9th letter, concern was expressed over the lack of development of a.m. and p.m. peak -hour, one-way traffic move- ments for planning and design decision -making purposes. A proper evalua- tion necessitates the addition of these existing volumes for 1981 and 1986 and the corresponding developmental volumes to determine total design hour volumes. Both Old Farm Road and Kimball Drive were dismissed as requiring evaluation without regard, at least in the traffic report, to considerations �r of a.m. and p.m. peak -hour conditions at the respective intersections. Mr. David H. Spitz Page 2 May 8, 1981 o�PvIQ, 4. In regard to the matter of volume forecasting, a value of 4.42 percent com- pounded annually was proposed by justification in the letter of April 9. In your note of May 1, 1981, a growth rate of 3.0 or 3.5 percent was de- rived from information provided by Bruce Houghton's firm. Based upon the two versions of traffic reports prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, CL Inc., it does not appear that this company has the experience and/or the expertise to render the professional opinion that a growth rate higher than 2.5 percent (degree of compounding not stated) would not change the 'magnitude' of suggested improvements without performing a proper analysis. 5. In regard to Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 in the traffic report, design hour vol- 64- umes must be developed in accordance with item No. 3 of this letter and -`NrT��+," not as a percentage of the average daily traffic volume. The latter pro- cedure probably results in underestimates of a.m. and p.m. design hour volumes. In fact, no design hour volumes are specified for 'project traffic' in Exhibits 8 and 9 of the traffic report. J 6. In Exhibit 10, adjustment for seasonal variations would provide average a.m. and p.m. peak hours (130th highest hourly volume) for 1981. To obtain design hour volumes for 1981, the adjusted short counts should be multiplied by the ratio of 30HV to 130HV. Again, this lack of refinement in the analysis tends to underestimate the traffic volumes for 1981 and 1986 during design conditions. A compounding of underestimation appears to be prevalent in this traffic report. a 7. In the study of trip generation rates at Digital Equipment Corporation, no adjustments in shift employment were made for public transit riders and absenteeism. It is also unclear how shift changes were handled for both concerns, if this situation were applicable in the traffic patterns determination. ' 8. Although peak -hour periods did not coincide for volume counts at Digital Equipment Corporation and the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Vermont Route 116, no explanation is provided in this matter for Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park. 9. It is not possible to confirm the generated traffic that would be using the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Vermont Route 116 because of the uncertainties of the 'assigned probabilities' on which the traffic dis- tributions are based. This matter has been discussed earlier in this letter. 10. Although service volume computations were appropriately made for level of service C, total approach service volume is generally not the summa- tion of lane service volumes. Rather, consideration must be given to the relative usage of the various lanes. Each lane -use configuration must be evaluated to determine if the traffic volumes assigned to that lane can be accommodated at the selected level of service. 11. As noted in the letter of April 9 by item Nos. 18 and 19, left -turn checks should be performed whether or not left -turn lanes are provided, and capacities for the left -turn lanes are improperly calculated. These two deficiencies still exist in the second version of the traffic report. Until these calculations are correctly performed, the recommended improve- ments can not be properly evaluated. In addition, the need for any addi- tional intersectional treatment can not be ascertained until the correct analytical procedures are applied. Mr. David H. Spitz Page 3 May 8, 1981 12. Again, item No. 10 in the letter of April 9 is still applicable to the intersection of Vermont Route 116 and Park Access Road. 13. As presented on drawing No. SP24 of Project No. 80129, the lane -width additions on the north and south approaches of Vermont Route 116 at the intersection with Kennedy Drive are just sufficient to accommodate a WB-40 design vehicle, an intermediate -truck combination. The proposed design change is not sufficient for large -truck combination that is designated a WB-50. In conclusion, some assistance is apparently required if the fundamentals of transportation planning and traffic engineering are to be applied in the case of the proposed Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park. Very little of the con- tents of my letter of April 9 was implemented in producing a satisfactory traffic planning report. Please advise me if further assistance is desired on my part. It seems impera- tive that a 'meeting of the minds' be arranged to resolve the stated issues, many of which have been enumerated twice. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President TRANS/OP, INC. JCO:rrb May 4, 1981 Memorandum Re: Traffic counts - Mitel On Monday, May 4, 1981 we received the latest traffic counts from the Agency of Transportation for the Kennedy Drive/Route 116 intersection. A comparison was made to the 1979 Traffic Engineering Associates report that was used as a basis for Mitel traffic report. Traffic Engineering Associates Agency, Percentage Lem_ 1979 1980' Change A 4662 * 3320 -24.5% B 5773 5110 -11.5% C 10858 11010 + 1.4% D 7074 6910 -2.37 Total 28367 26350 * interpolated - not available in report A comparison was then made between the actual 1980 counts and the 1981 projected counts used in the Mitel report. Agency Mitel Percentage Lem_ 1980 1981 __ Change A 3320 4898 47.5% B 5110 6065 18.6% C 11010 11650 5.8% D 6910 7432 7.5% Total. 26350 30045 14.0% 0 A third•comparison was then made between the actual 1980 counts and the projected 1986 counts used in the Mitel report to determine the annual percentage increase. Agency Mitel * Annual Leg_ 1980 1986 Increase Increase A 3320 5562 2242 8.9% 51'10 6862 1752 5.0% C 11010 12906 1896 2.7% n 6910 8409 1499 3.3% Total 26350 33739 7389 4.2% * without project traffic The traffic counts that were projected for Mitel at 2;�% from the 1979 Counts are an average 4.2% annual increase over the 1980 traffic counts that have just been released. This is due to an actual decrease in traffic that has been experienced at this intersection and nearby recording stations on the Interstate. The effects of higher gasoline costs and increased energy conservation have no doubt contributed to this decline. Since there does not appear to be a change in the energy situation in the foreseeable future, the projected traffic counts for this intersection, used in the Mitel report, are likely higher than what will be experienced. MIT L Mitel Semiconductor Division of Mitel of Delaware Inc. Air Guard Road, Building 880, So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Telephone: (802) 658-5039 Estimated truck traffic for Proposed new facility. Tractor Trailer 2/week Oil Delivery (15 ton) 1/month Nitrogen (15 ton) 2/month Cylinder Delivery (10 ton) 2/month General Delivery (Van) 1/day Garbage Pickup (15 ton) 1/week Product Shipping (Van) 1/day Miscellaneous Vans 2/day TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. May 21, 1981 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dave: ROUTE 2A BOX 308 WILLISTON, VT. 05495 879.6331 We have revised our traffic report to include the following changes as per our meeting with Dr. Oppenlander on May 14, 1981. 1. A trip rate of 0.67 trips/employee is used for design purposes instead of the 0.57 trips/employee determined by the traffic count at Digital. Using this factor increases the D.H.V. at the Mitel site from 114 veh./hr. to 134 veh./hr. This should provide an additional factor of safety as we have discussed. This results in 96 veh./hr. introduced into the Kennedy Drive - Route 116 intersection. 2. Capacity calculations have been revised to include the left turn checks for 1981 traffic. The total capacity for each approach leg of the Kennedy Drive -Route 116 intersection is computed as per our meeting with Dr. Oppenlander. With these changes and the use of the most conservative ADT figures available, the conclusions and recommended intersection improvements remain as suggested in our last report. Although capacity is adequate using lane widths of 10 ft. and 11 ft.,we are increasing the lane widths to 12 ft. as recommended by Dr. Oppenlander and the Agency. Also, we are using a 35 ft. radius on the Route 116 approaches. 3. The body of this report is based on a 22% normal growth on all legs of the Kennedy Drive -Route 116 intersection. Additionally, we have computed the peak hour volumes on the Kennedy Drive approaches using a 3% and 32% per year increase in traffic. The improvements are still adequate, for a 32% per year increase in traffic. At a 4% per year growth rate the Leg C PM traffic would exceed capacity. Calculations are attached and tabulated as follows: Page 2 Annual Increase 3% 312% 4% Capacity Leg C AM 660 668 692 813 PM 790 800 830 808 Leg D AM 504 513 529 529 Pb1 502 511 528 536 Hope this finalizes the data base to everyone's satisfaction. Very truly yours, TRUDEI.L CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Tyler Hart, P.E. TH/id /y v /ry)? ( / t,0�5) = iyvr 193(o /03 58 r/,0-3),7 = i 33 54- A m ADr ODH t XX /141T FG. 7-A1IFFiG 7 :15 — 8:15 A .M. A r R B 4-30 - 5 : 30 P.M. N v 89oa f34 i v, _ LO/�v 10&56(1103.5) -r A m 0 7:15 — 8!15 A.M. � �P,rra�chF 1> 7 ¢l" /.035> Z. gOoU 77,C�0IV., ' VOL( M ITEL -/-Rwr/G A m B 4.30 -5:30 P.M. N DFc-?-570 4 ;01 Y� A m B 7:15 - 8:15 A .M. L'a w l4Z,� 66 DR C ?o,74-0,04)% G30,v -rGvv- w/¢Y ✓a vas a,,,E ► AY �- XX /i�lrTE L 8 4.30 - 5 : 30 PM. REPORT ON TRAFFIC for MITEL MOUNTAIN VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK South Burlington, Vermont Prepared By: Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Williston, Vermont March 6, 1981 REVISED April 28, 1981 The purpose of this report is to present information to the South Burlington Planning Commission, the Agency of Transportation and the District Environmental Commission relative to traffic impacts from the proposed industrial use of a 111 acre parcel of land located south of Interstate 89 and east of Vermont Route 116 in South Burlington, Vermont. At the time of this report, the South Burlington City Council has rezoned the property for industrial use. Such zone change becomes effective April 27, 1981. The proposed industrial firm is the Mitel Corporation whith will manufacture telecommunications equipment. Design considerations and parameters discussed in this report reflect the proposed use. The number of vehicle trip ends per day was based on the projected employee level of 300 people. Using "Trip Generation", the average daily traffic generated by this industrial use would be 960 trips. To determine their directional distribution to and from the project site, an analysis was done of the population and housing figures for Chittenden County. Based on the 1980 Census (preliminary figures), the past growth in Chittenden County communities was projected ahead to 1986. For instance, the population of South Burlington increased 662 people (6.6%) from 1970 to 1980; the number of housing units increased by 1150 (40%). This reflects the trend to smaller family size. The average people per housing unit in Chittenden County is 2.79 (2.69 in South Burlington). The 1986 populations were determined by projecting the municipalities' 1980 housing figures at their last 10 year growth rate and assigning a value of 2.8 people per unit to the projected housing. South Burlington's 1986 population is then estimated to be 13863 people. These estimates are probably higher than what will be experienced. Exhibits 1 and 2 depict these tabulations. Using the County Highway Map, the major routes to the project site were determined from each community. These distances were scaled from the map and factors developed to the inverse of the distance squared between the project site and the community. Once the population and distance factors for the surrounding communities were determined, the employee level for each community was estimated. Directional movement to the project site was assigned probabilities along the major routes. Using these probabilities the amount of traffic on Route 11.6, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road was tabulated on a daily basis. This data is shown in Exhibits 3 & 4. The added traffic on Old Farm Road and Kimball. Drive as shown in Exhibit 3 is 115 trips/day. This level of traffic does not warrant additional investigation of those roads and related intersections. Further analysis is warranted for the access road intersection with Route 116 and the Kennedy Drive - Route 116 intersection. The existing traffic patterns on these roads were analyzed by summary of existing data and two hour short counts. Figure 5 summarizes the existing data through 1979. To project traffic levels for 1981 and 1986, the short counts obtained in April, 1981 were compared to the same hour periods of April, 1979. This comparison revealed an 8% decrease in traffic. As further verification of growth levels. permanent stations on I-89 and I-189 were also checked. The closest station on I-189 showed a 1.5% decrease. Since neither conclusion is considergd satisfactory, a growth rate of 2.5% was assumed as a reasonable level of growth. Exhibit 6 tabulates this data and their associated seasonal adjustment factors. The 1979 traffic was then projected ahead to 1981 and 1986, the project traffic added to it and the combination projected ahead to 1986. Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 depict these values for the Kennedy Drive - Route 116 intersection. From these exhibits the percentage of traffic generated by the project on the Kennedy Drive - Route 116 intersection can be tabulated as follows: 1981 1986 1981 - 1986 Traffic Traffic Growth Leg A 12.2 10.9 50.6 Leg B 4.1 3.6 24.6 Leg C 1.5 1.4 12.4 Leg D 3.2 2.8 19.9 Total 4.3 3.9 26.9 KENNEDY DRIVE - ROUTE 116 INTERSECTION To determine the impact of the project on the Kennedy Drive - Route 116 intersection, short counts were taken from 7 to 9 A.M. and 4 to 6 P.M. The counts were taken in 15 minute intervals to determine peak hour factors and percent turning movements. The peak hour periods were determined to be 7:15 to 8:15 A.M. and 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. Exhibit 10 depicts this information. Counts were also taken at both entrances to the Digital Equipment Corporation plant to determine peak hour factors relating vehicle trips to employees. Since both Digital and Mitel have similar types of business and both have a "flex -time" or staggered starting time arrangement the correlation of trips to employees found at Digital is a reasonable assumption for that at Mitel. Counts at the Digital plant from 6 to 9 A.M. and 3 to 6 P.M. indicated peak hours of 6:30 to 7:00 A.M. and 3:15 to 4:15 P.M.; about one hour ahead of the peaks found on Kennedy Drive and Route 11.6. Digital Equipment Corporation Shift employment 770 people A.M. peak traffic 429 trips A.M. peak hour factor .57 P.M. peak traffic 433 trips P.M. peak hour factor .56 Mitel Semiconductor Shift employment 200 people //� Peak hour factor .57 , 67 `®7 Peak hour traffic 114 trips 16 For comparison the Agency of Transportation ADT to DHV conversion for 200 employees (640 trips) would result in a DHV of 116 trips. Exhibit 3 gives the percentage of traffic that would reach the Kennedy Drive Intersection. Route 116 North at access 82.9% Route 116 - Old Farm Road 85.6% Traffic to intersection 114(83%)(86%) = 82 trips Using the percentage turning movements determined in Exhibit 4 for the intersection the following traffic is anticipated. A.M. P.M. eg % Peak Peak A 100 0 82 B 38 31 176' 0 C 26 30 31 0 D 36 21 N—) 0 Using the 1981 and 1986 projected ADT's for the intersection and the A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movements, the design hour volume (DHV) and the directional design hour volume (DDHV) were determined for each leg, and turning movement in the intersection. These are shown in Exhibits 11, 12, 13, & 14 for situations with and without the project traffic. The capacities of all of the legs were then calculated in accordance with the Highway Capacity manual for level of service C. Where no turning lane exists the traffic is included in the thru lane. Present capacity of intersection. Leg A.M. Thru P.M. Left A.M. Turn P.M. Total A.M. P.M. A 389 284 389 284 B 329 260 329 260 C 550 541 335 381 885 922 D 410 525 264 390 674 915 Since the present capacity of the intersection is inadequate for Level of Service C, the following improvements were anticipated. a) 10' left lane and 10' thru lane (Leg A) b) 14' thru lane, 10' left turn lane (Leg B) c) 14' thru lane, 10' left turn lane (Leg C) d) G/C ratios changed to 0.44. The capacity of the intersection was then again analyzed and found to be: Thru Left Turn Total Leg A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A 505 437 548 480 1053 917 B 394 428 425 551 819 979 C 678 606 402 372 1080 978 D 481 509 324 375 805 884 Comparisons were then made with the projected traffic levels for 1981 and 1986, both with and without project traffic and are tabulated as follows: 1981 1981 1986 Leg Without improvements With improvements With improvements W/O project W/project W/project W/O project A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A N.G. IO.K. I O.K. O.K. B O.K. N.G. O.K. O.K. C O.K. N.G. O.K. O.K. D O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. ACCESS ROAD INTERSECTION The only available traffic count located within a reasonable distance to the access road was a 1978 Agency of Transportation count on Hinesburg Road at the I-89 bridge. This count was project ahead to 1986 and project traffic added to this figure. The A.M./P.M. peak directional factors were selected as 0.75 and 0.25 based on 1981 morning counts at the access road location, Old Farm Road and the short counts at the Kennedy Drive intersection. Exhibits 15 & 16'show the design traffic for 1986 at this intersection. The capacity"of Route 116 and the park access road was checked for peak hour traffic. Sight distances at the park access location are 1210' north and over Z mile south. The conclusions reached as a result of this study are as follows: 1. Route 116 will continue to operate at a Level of Service C with the introduction of the project traffic estimated at 960 vehicles/day. 2. The intersection of Route 1.16 with the proposed park road can be accomplished with a tee intersection and a bypass lane. Signalization is not warranted. 3.' The Route 116 - Kennedy Drive intersection presently has reduced levels of service as a result of normal traffic growth. An additional lane is presently needed on the northbound and southbound Route 116 approaches. The Kennedy Drive eastbound approach should be repainted to provide a 14' thru lane and 10' left turn lane. These improvements are needed as a result of present traffic levels in 1981. The improvements recommended are adequate for the projected 1986 traffic at this intersection with the addition of the project traffic. Estimated cost $6000.00. 4. The traffic introduced onto Old Farm Road will. be 115 trips/day. No further analysis is warranted for Old Farm Road. MLN,ICIPALITY 1970 (1) POPULATIO` 1980 (2) POPLI.ATIO% % INCREASE 1970 - 1980 1970 (2) HOUSING 1980 (2) HOUSING % INCREASE 1970 - 1980 Bolton 427 723 + 69.3% 197 363 84.3 Burlington 38633 37727 - 2.3% 12025 13744 14.3 Charlotte 1802 2565 42.3% 714 1042 45.9 Colchester 8776 12624 43.8% 3088 4567 47.9 Essex 17462 21450 22.8% 4910 7392 50.5 Hinesburg 1775 2681 51.0% 610 1025 68.0 Huntington 748 1168 56.17 268 451 68.3 Jericho 2343 4892 108.8% 635 1469 99.8 Milton 5639 8252 46.3% 1750 2792 59.5 Richmond 3184 4024 26.47 933 1385 48.4 St. George 477 679 42.3% 167 244 46.1 Shelburne 3728 5009 34.4% 1122 1721 53.4 South Burlington 10032 10694 6 . 6 % 2824 3978 40.8 Underhill 1198 2:56 79.9% 418 750 79.4 ^estford 991 1419 43.2% 263 471 79.1 Williston 3187 3844 20.6 908 1286 41.6 t.:inooski 7309 6319 - 13.5% 2246 2403 7.0 Chittenden Countv 115589 41359 (i) "The Pcople Book" M >e x W H (2) 1980 Census y (Preliminary figures) MUNICIPALITY 1986 (3) HOUSING 1986 (4) POPULATION % 1986 POPULATION POPULATION FACTOR MILEAGE TO SITE MILEAGE FACTOR(5) EMPLOYEES(6) VEHICLE TRIPS Bolton 546 1529 0.9% .009 20 .007 3 10 Burlington 14923 41784 26.6% .266 5 .091 54 173 Charlotte 1328 3718 2.4% .024 13 .012 6 19 Colchester 5879 16461 10.4% .104 10 .023 19 61 Essex 9631 26967 17.2% .172 12 .016 28 90 Hinesburg 1443 4040 2.5% .025 9 .027 7 22 Huntington 635 1778 1.0% .010 20 .007 3 10 Jericho 2348 6574 4.1% .041 17 .007 7 22 Milton 3788 10606 6.8% .068 18 .007 it 35 Richmond 1787 5004 3.2% .032 13 .014 6 19 St. George 311 871 0.5% .005 6 .064 10 32 Shelburne 2272 6362 4.1% .041 7 .045 13 42 South Burlington 4951 13863 8.9% .089 2 .568 100 320 Underhill 1107 3100 2.0% .020 22 .005 3 10 Westford 694 1943 2.0% .020 19 .007 4 13 Williston 1606 4497 2.9! .029 8 .036 10 32 Winooski 2503 7008 4.5% .045 6 .064 16 50 55752 156105 100.0% 1.000 1.000 300 960 (3) 1980 Housing increased at same historical rate experienced in municipality 1970 - 1980. (4) 1986 Housing x 2.8 people/housing unit. (5) 1/D2 . 1/ D2 (6) C 11ileage factor + Percent Population = 300 2 a MUNICIPALITY SOUTH Prob. Route Trips 116 Prob. NORTH Trips Old Farm Road ROUTE 116 Prob. Trips 5 Route OLD FARM Prob. 116 ROAD Trips Bolton 0.1 1 0.9 9 .8 7 .2 2 Burlington 0.0 0 1.0 173 1.0 173 Charlotte 0.5 10 0.5 9 1.0 9 Colchester 0.0 0 1.0 61 .8 49 .2 12 Essex 0.1 9 0.9 81 .8 65 .2 16 Hinesburg 1.0 22 0.0 0 Huntington 0.7 7 0.3 3 .8 2 .2 1 Jericho 0.1 2 0.9 20 .8 16 .2 4 Milton 0.0 0 1.0 35 .9 31 .1 4 Richmond 0.2 4 0.8 15 .8 12 .2 3 St. George 1.0 32 0.0 0 Shelburne 0.7 29 0.3 13 1.0 13 South Burlington 0.1 32 0.9 288 .8 230 .2 58 Underhill 0.0 0 1.0 10 .8 8 .2 2 Westford 0.0 0 1.0 13 .8 10 .2 3 Williston 0.5 16 0.5 16 .4 6 .6 10 Winooski 0.0 0 1.0 50 1.0 50 164 796 681 115 17.1% 82.9% 85.6% 14.4% W Kimball Drive & Old Farm Road Kennedy Drive Intersection WEST EAST Leg B Leg D Leg C MUNICIPALITY Prob Trips Prob. Trips Prob. Trips Prob. Trips Prob. Trips Bolton 1.0 2 1.0 7 Burlington 0.5 86 0.5 87 Charlotte 1.0 9 Colchester .5 6 .5 6 0.5 24 0.5 25 Essex .5 8 .5 8 1.0 65 Hinesburg Huntington 1.0 1 1.0 2 Jericho .5 2 .5 2 1.0 16 Milton 1.0 4 1.0 31 Richmond .5 2 .5 1 1.0 12 St. George Shelburne 1.0 13 South Burlington 1.0 58 0.3 69 0.4 92 0.3 69 Underhill .5 1 .5 1 1.0 8 Westford .5 2 .5 1 1.0 10 Williston .2 5 .8 5 1.0 6 Winooski 1.0 50 84 31 260 243 178 73.1% 26.9% 38.2% 35.7% 26.1% 4- i i9�� �430 7909w EA -de, i - FE$ l9G8/ 0,-JG /mar /Q $6 1 on ,ciC 7 S 6 2 I g o� /97t-t 48'18 F.-06 C ,C.EN/vE`t>Y Dot ylE e avr� gib �4s S� 7 3 10858 ?o �4- 646 6L /L906 g409 6065 �// ISo 74.3L (/) NoT covN TEL> (z) NoT A)C-W DES 1AJ P---PCCJ- COCMfr E,. rIA'ArED neom /978 alr Ctu UT /►$JD /,u CeEA s� iN 07?46e �4 S lA 3 3 X 3436 ) (3) PeoJ C ra> F '1 ESri MATE /k) (Z (/- 33 X 34 30 } �/, az$) 8 (4) F,2om 4crURL 1981 covaT ,rwrA-sUMm ap-y 6F 4L>7- r-i4 vie&s 67, t� RX HI g/T' 46 .5'7.4-PON /q 713 19'7q 11780 �-99 (I,_-eq svrm/ zZB90 z?61& ZZ9¢Z op- / 69) lw v?NL Y +/AA-� /. /Z /IA/2 A a 04 y .Bq ©Gr "C"Wa Ad ", / /.cc Avt. 9/ /W6/ / 04 AAA' /.ve ✓4Aj /.00 SEPT q7 l5eG, � 9B ✓An/ //7 A /,06 ✓ , 8S a ,e7/ o/ A 83 Al / 06 M / l3 J 96 S .q•�- 0 /•/L (4%-9? AJOJJ// Z/oZ9 ZZ 47¢ ZZZb9 Or vs Z� 6•b'y - 09 0 '7o,74 4�6ZI A to 979 7—RAFF/C DR. C 1�8� RoT (H) ¢ 8 640 A m s 67.5 N i,78/ TeAFF/C D 8409 C1015 �54 '7/5 A co i986 7TPAFF1 C D R. C /Z D Z43 � 380 PecuECT TeAFFiG ft riI D 17675 1S5�79 U co B 63Z� i98/ iegFFiC ava74 Peo j ccr DR. C //$Z$ B 712Z. 1986 T,eA3FFIC N 4of- H PApajKr R. C Nt P E PN` = Z417 A PFfF = 75 _ U.SZ o ¢x23 I A 4- <o _ N W 0 O � N O PHF 325 �S/ 3 Z65 3Z5 13Z 4-17 !J �¢�h �MN s KENNEDY DR.. C 0s37`rKENNEDY OR. C - fi' z47 /.1 a� ,05 SSq 48� 3yZ zg ¢9/ 44PI. Z4f7 9� r o 89q Pl��= 3iZ id d5l o 6\b�, b� ° -gch t oq a �fF = L 56 - O• &9 v� �o phtF = /54- _ D.86 �o 4x7L B ¢x45 B 7:15 — 8:15 A .M. 4:30 - 5 : 30 P.M. N 4- s-91 /98 / 7H4jlt7- 6O UN7— oj 0 D 4/4 s3'J A do B ii 1 7:15 — 8:15 A .M. � 8 DR-- C Io�Nv B�1s�o OAJ /98/ �sr-der eou� D :/66J m B i =945 R. C 4.30 - 5 : 30 P.M. N /98/ PF4K WIT"OUT P,2oJEGT D ca 7 :15 — 8:15 A .M. $98 t(E) DR_ C 9 44Z / 98/ PEA,C' 7-P�3FP/C 6V /TN P,20,/ EC l- 36¢ J B DO♦ 4:30 — 5 : 30 P.M. N IRL DQ� l "" ' boo A m B , 359 7 :15 — 8:15 A .M. uk -cb 0 Zso 479 ?17z i 2 DR.. C D > <KENNEDY DR. C 487 69 34 433 .y BASED z� `zo \ olu SHGti27- COU 7- 4-4:30 - 5 : 30 P.M. N N 8G ,oEA ,K 7-A7A FF/G PRajecr N to w S6 % D ",4 477 �o t A a to °b KENNEDY DR. C UoT: ga L J`79o' 8 a 7:15 — 8:15 M. 54 D ® 4.6 +0 A � m 4� S� /o+Q1`, ; � KENNEDY DR. C 3 433 7# 49% B99, z�yo e a k � 8 46Z �o 4:30 - 5 : 30 P.M. N / 986 PEAS -T,e�F��G i Ly�Tiy Pl�o.1�'GT � 75 /o �q /978 lqor /98b Aar / 9a6 e.>Hv .o7 o UTE I IS d Ir RE 116 7:15 - 8:15 AN. - 4 :130 5 : 30 P.M. 3430 4/79 960 = S 13 9 986 P444 %�«/C s�7 Ac rrgOUT PROJFC7' aD to 6 ir C0 (N W U U 7:15 — 8:15 A.M. 1 co N W U U RI Q v 23¢ UTE 116 418 4/g 4:30 5:30 PM. ROUTE 116 43'7 k H96 PEIIk T,e FFIC oD w fTH PRO ✓ EG% i 671,e7 r ZA/5Ti9 iVc-ES D157/iNCL 5 416," ` 4 Qt D elt" ri-w ois lT QGc� Pci�NT or o4quLcr 4T PwRx 1 IV NEI 5Hr ew oar / /h v/sigrLiTy Ex« �q m 70 ZSovTH In l 0 GNfCe S/GNflt AlffAe y, 7S 47- P/ -Pe rzoam /!�, �,�1�� `7"��l�,F/G E1-019-A'Je�MJG /"1/NO/Z �Ti iG7 /�}DT, 960 p/Jv , A)o,e AD y 5139 o/f✓ 46(o !,r��- /h/p+ox OH V / 14- M4,)Ox ST laN✓ G�6 �► $'ao wfi x,*-PvT -;d�-z (0111w7V;e0VP77ikJ o e'o JT7lJUDvs TArfl=Al ) 41,1./ O)r ST, Dr/V 666 L 950 5lBs�L ti! 0 7 wof�IZWW 716W-"� . C-)o I'j off-- APPLY i kl ' Nay e D �'�✓E )ouraE //4, CaMPtJTL e'iIA$C /7y (,wvo C �D CQM01?,e� G✓ iTN /gff6 x�g�r V .xl sT i,�/G ca,Nd�rr s (19e/) V.zo./,�'�rEv v oC uMES , 8�5✓C SE �ev�tCE i�OG UMW (� r TVl� x ,eT 7VZO" x 7-,trx� KeUS- X APPiebAe# A I f. 95'G�,8ox�,06 W. ox), PI�J, 9sa�Ba)( ,'►9X/.oX1.oX,3wx/ )=Z84 IfpORale-W 45 P.rl. BZs�9Lx.8Sx/,ox�ox.3lvX/23�=Z6a P14 ,17 X /.ox/.ax,;4S3C//5� 5'4/ /9 e6 VXVMi v P';4 600 ✓P4 Z A ✓PN 3,70 vPM 46z ✓ PH SSL vPH 571 G i ���M /taa-4z¢(£3 Xl • L X / o X/• o X 3�SX /.Lo� � 33S I/oi� piv /Zoo -4,4"! 6 x J. Z >e J, o x /. -ox . fi3 X / 19PP9010V Ii Tl,tiZv /}.M• 75o(/3X /,�Z)!/vX/.oX.�75X/•/o) =�i-/O V©14 52.E ✓Pt{ LT,TU,�r/A'Mlluv- 3�,�>C/•L x%•o x/.oX.37SX/,/�= Zb4- VPd v/Y /zcot-4-21( 8X /.,z X9 p x ). oX 457 xl,z;, • 390 JP/4 SAT/vS e^in'o o"/ c%yr7r�G $/6r�L T/MiMG 99 /93 44-7 463 30 z4 MU14—mltri v7►- eldovT-5, .�r-7-xtk*� ; B15 -,"e legS As5amc Na (PN,a •- pop,) otAr ,t(ay.t' m,Ps p Ro,)gw"-" H-Nv F,�z.�1�c �P>� r=.�crv,� o�' /,zs , s�� ��� 6•d N��Hw�►y crlo M�ri2� OxHl8/r i17 Zovri i/4. • it b S 1e,- J L - i9S S UW E 616- i11 5P4/r Oai9710 l=MRbYZ 7A>,1 e 77-0rT714L (JoL [/14 S /AA0 AP,0 `#> cV AZ>7XS . �e�F_' f//GN44l)-- Cf APA, c I rY A,7411 /04L pG. 156. S/G/VAL 5l i t g qvo 5r-*.r TEE v o4. Sr*t cvIAC;W sT JiI too 4 _ : - -, r9 s-i39 30 �ISSUME G �'rJ T//f E /D 50e- , 2� -45�, 5�-G /00(17£ /A. 6r? 6U� g C . CYCLE T)z4x C Jr?lG7 #r- 195 L 7- Z-VA J /'7 --Q1:14v/964 e >4 , _ Cr}ori�/yY p� � pr/r //G NDizTh' C3ov�b Kip M, cRi77e4k) 7-AW - [. r- - vow OX0 /.3 C35 U 9S0 d oN Ar' nA'' ' ¢ % A I Z c .7.69 DDN "ligp6 67� 88� vp� 7 43i c,ipwe l ry of Ae;ar/re //G S o vrm zm) ow-o _C- 74vce ,P�CvvID9' �- j57,r '-7V Z-'A.I 4,,4-NE rt,40 savTY 3o✓.vr) ,a? - p,155- L,4J0 . .So v rNdo v� o D 1FS►189Q 5P19AD 5D 10,P/I 77PPEZ e3o . r-tACL 4v11?7?H /9 S AADAW7*V r.3&-4Q -*0 MOJq lzl>— r j SP0490 77iAg;r- rw w)VIA e3� ,ade-1 a� A:vg:ett N/ewcoowY - /14S LErr_r- 7'vAW 577WA::: I4J 4"- L..,j7vG X:;g e 95 OAF#, /M-e- U 5 4m /Op ' e'� 4.33 ge P, .tSo VIC) Ca HDIJTG' G•rryi,�%AG/7'Y' rtI /TN �/NVgi�'o I/EN�T S �►S /V o7�:D !N /�i'j,icJT�/���5 • IIRRZ04C N 11 -rdr-P /4hl 700(/,3x/A x /.0 X/,o X.44 X/.19) = PM. X 4* x / J r) L -r-TV4V i4M. /Zo O-1./Oi (box/ l ax A-0XJ, o X.~14*7) = J?M./ZGD-Z/QfBxl.j�l.ox/.oX,it4�c/l5�. AAP,COAiCN .0 TH2U, AM, PM �/4' ?Nztu !-1--�AV4C /o' 4-T - VAA,., GANyr � � _ •�� J 67-no/ 4m /zoo-348 ���l.L�/•v�/.o�.4gy�/./�)= PM, /Zco-/M (IP3xl2xl.vXl.or�.4��J.23�= _�7Y 5'o S 437 s46 4b o 3 94- 4Z e 4t 5' 5�S/ APPFe, *,W G (/ ¢' -rH90 LANE , /0- L T. 7-'9W 4,*VO ) 77f,ZU AM • 7r0 (1-3' X 1.04 xto x/. o x .44 X /Zo) = 678 P,M. 950� 1.3 x 77 A/.OX/ 0 X ,447X = dob �� Vl1L UME 39© ZDh Z/ a 68 IV 4 /L 5SL 577 Gr,TU�v At4. /Zcb-4o6 (.6o xi t )e/.o x l,o ve 44 x/.70 ) = 4oZ 99 P.M. /LOO-433(,00X/L>1)0x10A,44>e1�5� ,4oyeogc// D TN•E'v Any. 7510 (!, 3 x P 0L X/ o n P,o x, 44 4 9 l 4A7 PM. 7550 (/,3 Yi,o x ,44)< /,l) " Sol 465 C-T7,F-y Am, 30 RM, /ZAP-f79�.L'�I.LxJ•ox/.ox.�14�`/tj� 3�S Z4-- a M 2 c • ao:ul.Yt.T—rota .ua ..ou. +•cTo• •.o rn.o•x�Ta. ••[• vrt '. --- N 1RO.OL IrM �I .1 rOup 1&CT0* aR[• ro. 1:, s'I. O tO I o 1! j 0 N ' O Os 0 LO ! 0 is ' 00 ' I OV[a I.000 : 00 ' OS I I Of ' I• 'f I t• }f I +!0 !I 094 0 ff r O• I OB ' '• '• ' 27 1 --- --- SOC .. DO, 0M ,OI IU r:• 2• STs ON cfl ON •0! N :4 s '{ I 230 003 C [0 ' 0 f! ' 00 ' 00 ' .0 '! ' r7 0 02 C a+ 0 f! of, 07 of } - — — --- ---- __. 'OC ij 0 00 G H 009 O Of - Tl 0 11 002 of? :Oft ON .' U •owIT YL+• too LOC."o -�-- ♦IT.1Y Y[T•Ofo6.1A. •.[a i Ct.T sus'Ytss IPST I so 00 our l•'.{ sus oIn I : a o .Es'N•TI.L •a[a i 0 — — I I CO.0'Ti0rl LEt1 1u•.1—:0% T aVCa5 -�— T.•OVL. a:.Sts—s% LOtal •.•+5..• i0 >Q •0 7c •c Cc46--�.CUa9 APPROACH WIDTH (FT) •0: u!•Y[.T 10..t•a..Ou. 11CTO. •.G .tT.orouTAM •.[• 0124 i r[••oroura. ►[N-row laclo. ••u rot e,000 sl • 0 fo t o Ts o ao o as o so O N I oc I 1 o+[a I,000 N 01 i 000 I 'so '• O N ' Or I O7 !00 :, O M 0 fs ' 02 ' U 10• I! I I{ I 0 a7 0 ff 00 07 ' D• I.,r I I If f i 214 o oc O fs c or ' co - as I Or I 110 I "I�-OAT OK Of. Cff �0. I1o.;10T 'OC GN CB+ Of ON ON ' 01 Its I Tf 0o ON • t 5•Yt AT 10O LYAT.OR I U.T aY V o4s$ O'lf . I o0 tal■{[ a.EA II as O ow-L1'.6 Bus DIsT I' y O� I 0° i j 1 z7zooI I cORa—eas ' _ aIBRT Tu"s— IR* L err TVR e � a % *hoc A T.aOV{. aVftf—iX '- LOCAL faA*S.T au$as — RORt t0 !O 40 N • CV019-TO.OIVISION-LIME APPROACH WIDTH (ITI Figure 6.7. Urban intersection approach service volume, in vehicles per Figure 6.8. Urban intersection approach service volume, in vehicles per hour of green signal time, ;or one -war streets %. h parking both sides. frour of ten signal time, for two-way streets with no parking. ►i'1 DSO �a BLS i 4" 9 50 iy'• IoSo BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, 1965 2. Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976 3. Traffic Engineering, Louis Pignataro, Prentice -Hall, 1973 4. Technical Memorandum No. 2, CCRPC, September, 1976 5. Trip Generation, Informational report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979 AGF�c� STATE OF VERMONT O DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION 133 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 NSppR�P April 22, 1981 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Rte. 116-Mitell Park entrance Dear Mr. Spitz: Thank you for your letter of April 14, 1981, regarding the entrance to the proposed Mitell Park and associated work along Hinesburg Road. Your consultants' "Best Possible" solution is aligned for high speed, heavy traffic at 70 mph. In my opinion, this is excessive treatment. My recommendation for the situation is a south bound by-pass, 170 feet in advance and 50 feet beyond the centerline of the access. This would provide room for six cars to be stacked waiting to make a left turn. The taper needs to be 230 feet for deceleration from 50 mph and 190 feet on the south end for acceleration to reach 40 mph. The deceleration lane for north bound, right turn can be 190 feet and 135 feet of full width in advance of the right turn. We use the tables in the AASHTO 1965 "A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways", table VII-10, pg. 351. I hope this information is sufficient for your review. Sincerely yours A. Brookins Delano Utilities Engineer 11 April 14, 1981 Brookins Delano Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear NIr. Delano, We would like some input from the State on the intersection of Hinesburg Road with the new MITE, park road. The applicant has agreed to construct a southbound bypass lane and a northbound deceleration lane. As per your previous suggestion, a northbound acceleration is not being constructed. Our question is on lane lengths. Our consultant has suggested the following as a "best possible" solution: 1) or the sou bbound bypass lane, a full -width section should be provided from at least 200 feet in advance of and 50 feet beyond the respective edges of the plant access road. In addition, minimum tapered sections of 275 and 300 feet, respectively, should be constructed on the north and south ends of the bypass lane. 2) Al deceleration lane for the southboun3 traffic on Vermont Route 116 should have a length of 425 feet with a 230 foot taper. The applicant has I?ropased somewhat lesser Lane lengths. We would like to .now what standards you use and what specific lengths you would suggest for these lanes. We hope to wind up our review in another week or two. If you are able to respond before then it would be appreciated. DS/mc9 Sincerely, David H. Spit;, City Planner .F, April 14, 1981 Richard Trudell Trudell Consulting Engineers Route 2A 2L Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Dear Dick, After reviewing Joseph Cppenlander's evaluation of your traffic report, I have discussed with him the minimum points that we feel must be addressed to provide a solid base of information for projecting required traffic improvements. I am sorry if you .feel we are requiring too much of a "textbook" approach to the traffic study. However, in the past several years it has been the City's stand- ard approach to require traffic studies for any major new development. Many of these studies have been undertaken by professional traffic engineers. Because of my respect for your engineering expertise in ocher areas, I have not required sutxnission by a traffic engineer. Instead we have hired a professional in the traffic field at our expense, and we are trying to work with you in developing a satisfactory base of information. Therefore I am r?cluesting you to provide the following, data: 1) TRAVEL TIME FACTORS. Place of residence for plant employees will be a factor of distance of a eoma►unity to the plant as well as the ccimnunity's population. Projected travel routes should be adjusted inversely to the square of the distance, or preferably to the square of total travel time, for each co mlzunity that you have identified. 2) CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNTS. We are only requiring current counts for an evaluation of the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road intersection. Because of the rapid, recent growth along Kennedy Drive the available 1979 traffic counts are not sufficient. You should provide new counts, including turning movements, for each leg of the intersection. These counts may be in the form of a short -count, i.e. a one -day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday), two-hour morning peak (7-9 a.m.) and two Your evening peak (4-6 p.m.), 15 minute interval, seasonally adjusted count. 3) GROWTH RATES. We are not willing to accept the State's projections of 2% annual traffic growth for a rapidly developing suburban area. You should develop a 5-year projected annual growth rate based on the two-year trend from 1979 to 1981. Our 1979 counts are enclosed. For 1981 you may use the counts for 1 leg of the intersection which have already been provided to you or you may use the short counts you will be taking. All count_ should be seasonally adjusted. Because of the sensitivity of this factor, please check with us after developing a projected Richard Trudell April 14, 1981 Page 2 growth rate and before applying it in your revised report. 4) INDUSTRIAL TRIP GENERATION. Morning and evening peak hour trip generation rates entering and exiting) should be developed for the MITEL plant. You may use actual counts for Digital as a comparision or the counts for general light industrial uses, (land use code 110) in the ITE 1979 Trip Generation report. If the latter the proportion of entering and exiting trips (based on 2 studies) should be adjusted to add up to the total trips (based on 10 studies). Mr. Oppenlander also feels that the design rate should lie somewhere in between the average trip rate and the maximum rate. 5) CAPACITY CALCULATIONS. Mr. Oppenlander has identified in his letter a number of capacity calculations that should be included or revised. These are #6, morning and afternoon peak periods; #11, levels of service B and C; #17, peak -hour factors; #18, left -turn checks; and #19, left -turn lane capacities. We are not asking for any revised information for the intersection of the new park road with Hinesburg Road. however, I will be asking the State to verify the lengths of the bypass and deceleration lanes that it feels as necessary (#s 14 and 15). Please call me if you have any questions on which of Mr. Oppenlander's points we are requiring further information. Specific questions on procedure should be directed to Mr. Oppenlander at 656-3800. . Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DS/mcg TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 (802) 878_5977 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT. 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: April 9, 1981 In response to your request, a review of the document entitled "Report on Traffic for Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" and prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. has been completed, and the following de- tailed comments are offered for your information. 1. Improper logic is evident in the employee forecasts for 1986. Both 1986 populations and employees by community are predicated on the extrapolation of housing growth during the period of i,970 to 1980 and on an average dwelling unit occupancy for Chittenden County. Although housing is a symptomatic indicator of population trends, population values themselves should have been forecasted by an apportionment pro- cedure for the communities within Chittenden County. In the traffic report, no considerations were given to the reserve capacities of the communities for future housing development and to the trend in dwelling unit occupancy. 2. However, greater discrepancies in the estimation of employee origin- :,',_,,?. and -destination characteristics result from the omission of spatial separation (some power of distance or travel time) in the allocation of employees to areas of residence. Inclusion of this important param- eter of trip -making for work travel would greatly alter the 'vehicle trips' column in Exhibit 2, and, thus, a more realistic pattern of employee origin -and -destination characteristics would be developed for J this traffic impact evaluation. This final Colunul of two-way trips in Exhibit 2 provides the basic information for assigning traffic flows to the areawide roadway sections and intersections. 1, � 3. In Exhibits 3 and 4, no logic is provided on the allocation of trips by �b!x, direction and by time of day. Directional traffic assignments for employee one-way trips should be developed for morning and afternoon peak period conditions. Suitable trip generation rates for design pur- poses can be developed for the land use category of light manufacturing Quj activity. In addition, these employee traffic loadings by hour of day should reflect the shift populations and the directions of movement. f The use of a two-way average daily traffic volume does not provide an �1' 2,0.Ah� adequate measure of traffic impact. Proper techniques are available to Mr. David Ii. Spitz Page 2 April 9, 1981 determine directional traffic loadings on roadway sections and on inter- section approaches during peak periods of roadway traffic and/or generator �' raffic. Exhibits 3 and 4 lack the details that are normally provided to demonstrate fully the traffic impact of the proposed industrial develop - J�IY�"� I ment. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate adequately the remaining �X7\portions of the traffic report because of the uncertainties in the plan- ning logic and the lack of detail in the generated traffic volumes. How Itkuk,i ever, pertinent comments are offered below in regard to the logic and the A' methodology of the remainder of the report. 4. Although a traffic growth factor of 2.16 percent compounded annually (2.00 [)/x OL ;Pd percent in the report) is descriptive of the temporal patterns on 1189, n sae J! population growth factor of 4.42 compounded annually is evident in Exhibits / a�n'�1 and 2 for South Burlington. Because similarities are often apparent be- � -V Fltween growth rates for population and traffic voltmres, the 1986 average `q �V- , y daily traffic on Vt. Route 116 may be underestimated for planning pur- poses. A recent traffic survey, rather than 1978 information, on Vt. Route 116 is essential to account for the increased land development activities in the vicinity of the proposed industrial location. This comment is valid for all roadway sections and intersectional approaches that are j evaluated in the traffic report. The recent increasing rate of land de- velopment may invalidate the simple updating of 1978 volume counts. w ' 6. On page 1, item 4 of the traffic report, both morning and afternoon peak periods should be evaluated for design and capacity purposes. 7. On page 2, item S, design hour volumes (DIIV) for the plant traffic were apparently developed by taking a percentage amount of the estimated two- way average daily traffic. Peak -hour or design -hour trip generation rates should be utilized to determine in a rational manner the conditions of critical traffic loadings as a result of the new industrial facility. In addition, no proper explanation is provided for the 70-percent factor as indicative of the relationship between the peak eight -hour volume and the average daily traffic volume. This factor should be derived from hourly volume counts at a similar manufacturing location and should not be taken from a general survey of urban routes in Cincinnati, Ohio. Many references to 'handbook' values exist in the traffic report without justi- fication of their local applicability. 8. On page 2, item 6, no explanation is provided for the discrepancy in DIIV (1986) of 460 vph for Warrant No. 1 and 390 vph for Warrant No. 2. Also, no safety evaluation has been offered to appraise any accident pattern that may require geometric design and/or traffic control (including Warrant 6) modifications along Vt. Route 116. 9. On page 2B, morning and afternoon peak period trip generation rates could have been developed for this study, because similarities exist between manufacturing activities at the two sites. 10. Although capacity and service volume evaluations for an unsignalized inter- section were performed in accordance with the highway Capacity Manual 196:7, t Mr. David H. Spitz Page 3 April 9, 1981 more appropriate procedures are reported in the current literature:. In addition, an analysis of the availability of acceptable gaps would be beneficial in this traffic impact study at these locations. In the capacity analyses, suitability of design measures should be made at levels of service B and C, respectively, for rural and urban loca- tions. However, some forecasted traffic volumes were compared to capa- city or level of Service E conditions. On page 2A, only a.m. peak -hour volumes are presented. A proper study mandates an evaluation of traffic movements also during the p.m. peak hour. 13. For a design speed of 50 mph, sight distances of 1190 ft. along Vt. Route 116 are required at the plant access road to permit drivers exit- ing from the plant site to have sight distances that are sufficient for not interfering with approaching vehicles on the main road. .14. In regard to the southbound bypass lane, a full -width section should be provided from at least 200 ft in advance of and 50 ft beyond the respec- tive edges of the plant access road. In addition, minimum tapered sec- tions of 275 and 300 ft, respectively, should be constructed on the north and the south ends of the bypass lane. 15. A deceleration lane for the southbound traffic on Vt. Route 116 should have a length of 425 ft with a 230-ft taper. h 16. In the traffic assignment phase of the planning study, Old farm Road c�-7 should be considered as a link in the highway network. With a proper determination of employee origin -and -destination patterns, then work trips would be assigned with regard to link travel. times and to the trip interchanges as enumerated in the trip table. This technique pro- vides a rational procedure for assigning the development traffic to all roadway sections and intersection approaches, as well as Old Farm Road. 17. Peak -hour factors for intersections are based on 15-minute counts rather than on 30-minute volumes as shown on page 11. 18. In all intersection capacity analyses, left -turn checks should be per- formed whether or not left -turn lanes are provided. J�?^c�p 19. On page 13, capacities for the left -turn lanes are improperly calculated. 1" t 20. All necessary geometric design and traffic control improvements at the vsk G'i 4 location of the plant access road on Vt. Route 116 should be the re- sponsibility of the developer. 21. By comparing the normal growth in traffic volumes from 1981 to 1986 with the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development, then the de- veloper's portion of responsibility for any needed improvements that are not located at the plant access could be assessed in an equitable manner. However, great concern exists in regard to the validities of employee origin -and -destination patterns and morning and afternoon assignments of development generated work trips. Mr. David H. Spitz Page 4 April 9, 1981 :',�n summary, this traffic report evidences an elementary approach to transporta- $ tion planning for a proposed industrial development of the magnitude indicated. f"3''� The profession has developed to a state that is higher than evidenced by this traffic planning document. Please advise me of any additional assistance improved traffic impact evaluation should be the community and the developer. Thank you. Very truly yours, /^ Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:rrb that you may desire. A greatly prepared in the interests of both ;r li TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (802) 878-5977 April 9, 1981 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT. 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: In response to your request, a review of the document entitled "Report on Traffic for Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" and prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. has been completed, and the following de- tailed comments are offered for your information. 1. Improper logic is evident in the employee forecasts for 1986. Both 1986 populations and employees by community are predicated on the extrapolation of housing growth during the period of 1970 to 1980 and on an average dwelling unit occupancy for Chittenden County. Although housing is a symptomatic indicator of population trends, population values themselves should have been forecasted by an apportionment pro- cedure for the communities within Chittenden County. In the traffic report, no considerations were given to the reserve capacities of the communities for future housing development and to the trend in dwelling unit occupancy. 2. However, greater discrepancies in the estimation of employee origin - and -destination characteristics result from the omission of spatial separation (some power of distance or travel time) in the allocation of employees to areas of residence. Inclusion of this important param- eter of trip -making for work travel would greatly alter the 'vehicle trips' column in Exhibit 2, and, thus, a more realistic pattern of employee origin -and -destination characteristics would be developed for this traffic impact evaluation. This final column of two-way trips in Exhibit 2 provides the basic information for assigning traffic flows to the areawide roadway sections and intersections. 3. In Exhibits 3 and 4, no logic is provided on the allocation of trips by direction and by time of day. Directional traffic assignments for employee one-way trips should be developed for morning and afternoon peak period conditions. Suitable trip generation rates for design pur- poses can be developed for the land use category of light manufacturing activity. In addition, these employee traffic loadings by hour of day should reflect the shift populations and the directions of movement. The use of a two-way average daily traffic volume does not provide an adequate measure of traffic impact. Proper techniques are available to Mr. David H. Spitz Page 2 April 9, 1981 determine directional traffic loadings on roadway sections and on inter- section approaches during peak periods of roadway traffic and/or generator traffic. Exhibits 3 and 4 lack the details that are normally provided to demonstrate fully the traffic impact of the proposed industrial develop- ment. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate adequately the remaining portions of the traffic report because of the uncertainties in the plan- ning logic and the lack of detail in the generated traffic volumes. How- ever, pertinent comments are offered below in regard to the logic and the methodology of the remainder of the report. 4. Although a traffic growth factor of 2.16 percent compounded annually (2.00 percent in the report) is descriptive of the temporal patterns on I189, a population growth factor of 4.42 compounded annually is evident in Exhibits 1 and 2 for South Burlington. Because similarities are often apparent be- tween growth rates for population and traffic volumes, the 1986 average daily traffic on Vt. Route 116 may be underestimated for planning pur- poses. 5. A recent traffic survey, rather than 1978 information, on Vt. Route 116 is essential to account for the increased land development activities in the vicinity of the proposed industrial location. This comment is valid for all roadway sections and intersectional approaches that are evaluated in the traffic report. The recent increasing rate of land de- velopment may invalidate the simple updating of 1978 volume counts. 6. On page 1, item 4 of the traffic report, both morning and afternoon peak periods should be evaluated for design and capacity purposes. 7. On page 2, item 5, design hour volumes (DHV) for the plant traffic were apparently developed by taking a percentage amount of the estimated two- way average daily traffic. Peak -hour or design -hour trip generation rates should be utilized to determine in a rational manner the conditions of critical traffic loadings as a result of the new industrial facility. In addition, no proper explanation is provided for the 70-percent factor as indicative of the relationship between the peak eight -hour volume and the average daily traffic volume. This factor should be derived from hourly volume counts at a similar manufacturing location and should not be taken from a general survey of urban routes in Cincinnati, Ohio. Many references to 'handbook' values exist in the traffic report without justi- fication of their local applicability. 8. On page 2, item 6, no explanation is provided for the discrepancy in DHV (1986) of 460 vph for Warrant No. 1 and 390 vph for Warrant No. 2. Also, no safety evaluation has been offered to appraise any accident pattern that may require geometric design and/or traffic control (including Warrant 6) modifications along Vt. Route 116. 9. On page 2B, morning and afternoon peak period trip generation rates could have been developed for this study, because similarities exist between manufacturing activities at the two sites. 10. Although capacity and service volume evaluations for an unsignalized inter- section were performed in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual 1965, Mr. David H. Spitz Page 3 April 9, 1981 more appropriate procedures are reported in the current literature. In addition, an analysis of the availability of acceptable gaps would be beneficial in this traffic impact study at these locations. 11. In the capacity analyses, suitability of design measures should be made at levels of service B and C, respectively, for rural and urban loca- tions. However, some forecasted traffic volumes were compared to capa- city or level of Service E conditions. 12. On page 2A, only a.m. peak -hour volumes are presented. A proper study mandates an evaluation of traffic movements also during the p.m. peak hour. 13. For a design speed of 50 mph, sight distances of 1190 ft. along Vt. Route 116 are required at the plant access road to permit drivers exit- ing from the plant site to have sight distances that are sufficient for not interfering with approaching vehicles on the main road. 14. In regard to the southbound bypass lane, a full -width section should be provided from at least 200 ft in advance of and 50 ft beyond the respec- tive edges of the plant access road. In addition, minimum tapered sec- tions of 275 and 300 ft, respectively, should be constructed on the north and the south ends of the bypass lane. 15. A deceleration lane for the sodthborrnd traffic on Vt. Route 116 should have a length of 425 ft with a 230-ft taper. 16. In the traffic assignment phase of the planning study, Old Farm Road should be considered as a link in the highway network. With a proper determination of employee origin -and -destination patterns, then work trips would be assigned with regard to link travel times and to the trip interchanges as enumerated in the trip table. This technique pro- vides a rational procedure for assigning the development traffic to all roadway sections and intersection approaches, as well as Old Farm Road. 17. Peak -hour factors for intersections are based on 15-minute counts rather than on 30-minute volumes as shown on page 11. 18. In all intersection capacity analyses, left -turn checks should be per- formed whether or not left -turn lanes are provided. 19. On page 13, capacities for the left -turn lanes are improperly calculated. 20. All necessary geometric design and traffic control improvements at the location of the plant access road on Vt. Route 116 should be the re- sponsibility of the developer. 21. By comparing the normal growth in traffic volumes from 1981 to 1986 with the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development, then the de- veloper's portion of responsibility for any needed improvements that are not located at the plant access could be assessed in an equitable manner. However, great concern exists in regard to the validities of employee origin -and -destination patterns and morning and afternoon assignments of development generated work trips. Mr. David H. Spitz Page 4 April 9, 1981 In summary, this traffic report evidences an elementary approach to transporta- tion planning for a proposed industrial development of the magnitude indicated. The profession has developed to a state that is higher than evidenced by this traffic planning document. Please advise me of any additional assistance that you may desire. A greatly improved traffic impact evaluation should be prepared in the interests of both the community and the developer. Thank you. Very truly yours, 90-4� c Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:rrb TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. March 24, 1981 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Mitel Dear Dave: ROUTE 2A BOX 308 WILLISTON, VT. 05495 879.6331 Enclosed is some backup data on the lefthand turning lane for the entrance road. There has to be capacity for 2 minutes of traffic in the lane. The AM peak hour left turning traffic will be between 80 and 127 vehicles requiring storage for three or four cars. The turning lane has this capacity. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ichard P�Trudell, P.E. RPT/slp Enclosures 638 Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook Provision for turning movements. Except for provision of turning movements, and sometimes widening through the intersection to accommodate through traffic, the horizontal design of a roadway in the area of an intersection -at -grade is the same as for the approach roadway. The layout to accommodate turning movements and the necessary through lanes determines the design of an intersection. The design of the curb or radius return depends on the turning paths of the vehicles using the intersection. The intersection should be able to accommodate the selected design vehicles without requiring backing -up to complete the maneuver. Table 14.14 gives minimum edge of pavement designs for various design vehicles and angles of turn. Figure 14.13 shows a typical design of a radius return with a three -centered compound curve to handle semitrailer vehicles. Separate parallel turning lanes. Both the safety and capacity of an intersection - at -grade can be improved significantly in many cases by providing added parallel turning or speed -change lanes on either the right or left or both sides. They are par- ticularly advantageous in both rural, and urban areas where through speeds are relatively high and there are appreciable volumes of either right- or left -turning traffic. The primary purpose of these turning lanes is to provide storage for vehicles. A secondary purpose is to provide space for turning vehicles to decelerate in advance of the intersection or to accelerate beyond it. These turning lanes should be at least 10 ft and preferably 12 ft wide. The length of exit turning lanes consists of three components: (1) deceleration length, (2) storage length, and (3) entering taper. Provision for deceleration clear of through traffic lanes is an important element on high-speed arterial streets and should be incorporated into their design whenever feasible. Lengths needed for deceleration (based on average running speeds) are as follows: Average Running Speed Deceleration Length mph kph feet meters 20 35 160 49 30 50 250 76 40 65 370 113 50 80 500 155 On many highways the full length for deceleration plus storage and taper cannot feasibly be provided. Deceleration must then be partially accomplished before entering the turning lane. The length of exit turning lane necessary for storage should be sufficient to accommodate twice the average number of vehicles stored per traffic signal cycle. At intersections without traffic signals, the length may be based on the number of vehicles wishing to turn right or left in 2 min; vehicle length may be assumed to be 25 ft. The entering taper of a parallel turning lane should be at least 40 ft and preferably 100 ft. Separate turning roadways. At intersections where larger semitrailer combina- tions must be accommodated and where passenger cars are to be allowed to turn at speeds of 15 mph or more, separate turning roadways should be provided. They should have the maximum radius possible. At urban intersections minimum type design is usually all that can be provided. The principal controls for minimum designs N CN C c2 a cc 0 I V CL U I I I U c d a o 1 I i t �c'i > c c c1.0 r 3 I I 33a I :IS E t c Co c' i 3 zo O j X l Cr it ; I I 1 j I 1 C I 1 -E OeI d f O I I I `v I C 1 01 v_U C E E n 3 CO U C =I I I I L o I A G I4a a N (y AGENCY OF TRANSPORTAiIJ& OFFICE TO: A. Brookins Delano, Utilities Engineer via A.J. Goss, Chief of Design PIA FROM: J.E.R. Landry, Project Planning Engineer by L.R. Magnant, Transportation Studies Engineer DATE: February 25, 1981 MEMORANDUM Mac h.. 71/. SUBJECT: Mountain View Industrial Park - Route 116 - South Burlington I have rgviewed Trudell Consulting Engineers' Report on Traffic for Mountair�"Thdustrial Park, dated February 15, 1981. Based on the traffic data and projections contained therein, I have made some estimates of AM and PM peak hour volumes and movements at the inter- section of Route 116 and the proposed Park drive. For the AM peak hour, my estimates (for 1986) are 80 vehicles making the left turn from VT 116 into the Park drive, crossing the path of 320 northbound thru vehicles; and 160 southbound thru vehiclesv For the PM peak hour there would be about 22 vehicles turning left from VT 116 into the drive, 180 northbound thru vehicles, 350 southbound thru vehicles, and 80 vehicles turning right from the Park Drive onto VT 116. Turns to and from the south on VT 116 would be very minor. Even though there would be sufficient capacity without such, it is my opinion that a bypass lane should be provided for southbound traffic, from the standpoint of safety. The greatest need for the bypass lane would be for the AM peak period, but it would also be beneficial during the PM peak period and at other times. The Traffic Design Section should be able to provide information for an appropriate design of a bypass lane. There should be no need for right turn deceleration or acceleration lanes. The proposed width and turning radii for the drive appear to be satisfactory. I have no particular comments relative to the intersection of VT 116 and Kennedy Drive; if necessary, the signal timings can be adjusted to reflect changes in demand from opposing approaches. JERL/LRM/gs �A 2%A ZM :0,78 Ir 7.4. / oeir Pivw ya,,e 1tsSu1nPTna-OS c3ACZJ"D o aN provC ed 411fas �e,� lig /27 Na /9 /46 (F-abin f28) 1986 A)orrn4/ -baf%o �prJr4or, ("HW-104) Zoo/ (/ /U� Z87 �frbmr 2 A) Tola � 58 off ` • bd t /2'1 = /13 Tab/ tie Z'so 42'apacify o-f lam' J/6 SoalA6ound Z-z7- 8/ �0 41n PEAK !col if x wlo9i 5f 0'2 473 x Z4 _ Z Zq 54 `Z lviC�h Sf v- � rn� tifwn -bme of Il6 40 :�/c .66 Prk2� !S F716 -L5 Lai Ca ci /7 of el /l6%nli one Truck D. f3 4/C = .66 65 ✓ = 7$D 44 -Am 654 60) Of k, n D (/• z) CqA = 95o (.66 x .15 x x /• Z = S7/ vA4 11010me of Peek Ar- /93 ,/s'7 / 0Q4rci4 o�,ef //6 Nori66auncl ,# &M o (/•3) of it..n 950(• x ,95 x l 3 x 1.06) = BZo ak- !/ulvma a4pa k- hr- zoo < 920 DP., dig 6 7j7N� fiv�t �l //� GSo 9, /66 6011 7s, Ya7 ffs90 Y,a% i .0Irrte,/5eoy�r� of Nelvprk a a�o��hes durq ifc( APpkant hGs qyreeol An provide a � (.�G�•,�'� � � we c') r Tz�� 60 Fa, Qfine� ��i� TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Division of Traffcon Systems, Inc. IS? BANK STREET BURLINGTON. VERMO NT 05401 I F I EPHO NF- 81), 8r,4 ?461 March 17, 1981 Ronald Schmucker 1480 Williston Road So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Schmucker: We have reviewed the report on traffic for Mitel Mountain View Industrial Park for the purpose of insuring that the analysis and information present within the report is an accurate re- presentation of traffic operations with and without the proposed development. Based on this review it is our opinion that the analysis and information presented in the Traffic Report is NOT an accurate_ representation of current traffic operations or future traffic operations with or without the proposed Industrial Park. We offer the following comments to support our conclusion: 1. The intersection capacity analysis presented in the report appears to have left out or assumed wrong values for some adjustment factors that should be included as part of this analysis. The exclusion or wrong computation of the value of these factors could significantly alter the conclusions present within this report. 2. The average daily traffic volumes presented in the report for the year 1986 on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive are less than the 1981 average daily traffic volumes we have computed based on current (1980 and 1981) traffic volume counts on both Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. Traffic volume changes of this magnitude could also significantly alter the results of the analysis and conclusions of this report. 3. The directional distribution of design hour volume traffic, at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburq Road, assume a 50-50 directional split. Peak hour turning movement data that we have at this intersection indicates a 50-50 directional split during the peak hour is not appropriate. Redistribution of the design hour volume traffic, to reflect actual peak hour directional distribut-ion, could also significantly change the intersection capacity results presented in this report. We have already expressed some of these concerns to David Spitz, So. Burlington planner in recent conversations with him. If we can be of further service, please feel free to call upon us. Very truly yours, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Bruce E. Houghton, President BEH/sm fUP4 a� W-,P-wk� utd v �. (�J� � � � � ���2p��y Gip �0`�� .is�uti�'� �►P oL�Y�Gl3rl � .�' B�'"�tP� r (Unchanged from previous Sec. 8.30 except as listed below. There are also several revised section number references). 8.303 (Now 8.403) Subsec (g)(4), change "the frequency with which traffic blocked from..." to "the frequency with which traffic backed -up from..." 8.304 (Delete) 8.50 Increased Traffic Volumes on Non-PCD Lots The Planning Commission may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the standard for a commercial medium traffic generator on a pre-existing lot that is too small or has inadequate frontage to qualify for a PCD if it determines that rather site improvements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. In making its determination the Planning Cammission may consider the following: 8.501 Ability of the lot to combine with others to qualify for a PCD. 8.502 Change or reduction in number and location of curb cuts. 8.503 Traffic volumes and effect on levels of service at nearby intersections. 8.504 Any other criteria contained within PCD review or other factors as the Planning Commission deems relevant. 8.60 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements In the Commercial I District any requirements of Sec. 11.00 governing lot size, frontage, setback, and lot coverage shall apply. 11.00 Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements (Change the minimum lot size for the C-1 district to "80,000 square feet") TABLE III TRAFFIC GENERATION DATA AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES 1. Maximum Size of Use for Low and Medium Traffic Generators All sizes are based on ITE's TRIP GENERATION, Second Edition-1979, Trip Generation Rates for the Peak Hour of Generator Most Si7PS are expressed in terms of gr-ss square footage of floor area (GFA). These rates are subject to change, and any subsequently issued ITE trip generation rates shall be applicable in place of those listed below. Maximum Law Traffic Maximum Medium Traffic Generator Level: Permitted Generator Level: Permitted Size of Use Per Minimum Lot Size of Use Per Minimum Lot Size Size U:;e (40 trips per peak hour) (90 trips per peak hour) 0I f ice, general Office, medical (a) Hardware, paint store 17,200 GFA 3,100 GFA 7,700 GFA -5- 38,000 GFA 7,000 GFA 17,300 GFA r 2�25,�8 AAPT v 'T , X x6370 pp vat, K 7580 3360 4 Q�� s-,,�.�,,P.�,�nl►3s-53 DD MPT 4AA . a lu "-Ppyv/ �� � �✓1 Yew, IO udn-P l^ ,3aA I�dRe;4 M to 017 f� 13 328 Xoz 76) %V/C d� rlo 14 yo-q u / ant 11 7. Transportation. Pedestrian, bicycle, rail, bus, air and highway systems are discussed. Recommendations include establishment of a sidewalk plan, extension of Spear Street and other new bike lanes, provision of a direct bus route between the Williston Road and Shelburne Road sectors of the City, and numerous highway improvements including upgrading of Williston Read and Dorset Street, construction of the South Burlington connector, and creation of new Interstate interchanges. Existing and proposed streets are classified, with standards set accordingly. 8. Economic Development. Goals are assurance of a diversity in the types of economic development, maintenance of municipal fiscal balance, support of agencies and groups that provide new area jobs, and support of the Regional Council particularly for resolution of fiscal issues. A key point is a proper balance between residential and nonresidential development. Other recommendations are to plan for future industrial sites, provide municipal services in a manner consistent with desired growth, and continue inventories of developed and vacant land. 9. Schools. Goals are toimaintain a quality school system, manage the rate of residential development to remain within the system's capacity maintain a safe transportation system, and maximize shared use of facilities. The declining trenc)6f school enrollments is indicated, and projections are that there is no imminent need for additional school sites. 10. Public Utilities and Services. Water, sewage disposal, storm drainage, natural gas, electricity, police, fire, sanitary landfill, and highway services are discussed. Primary goals are to maintain the quality of existing services, coordinate public and private services, and use services to complement and reinforce the development management policy. 11. Southeast Quadrant. This chapter inventories the current natural resources, land use, and services available in the Quadrant and potential impacts on economics and on aesthetics, historical and cultural resources.; i 12. Development Management Policy. Goals are to provide adequate municipal services, to maintain a "quality of life", to establish a stable tax base, to provide adequate employment opportunties, and to respond to the City's geographic location and its interrelationships with the regional community. The policy describes the need to prepare for all types of development and to relate development to the availability of municipal services. Recommendations include 'inf illing, new development contiguous to service areas, environmental protection, Act 250 participation, and use of health regulations, a capital budget, phasing requirements, zoning and subdivision regulations. The Comprehensive Plan also eontainS o maps: existing land use, recreation, streets, bikeways -utility maps, and proposed land use. The existing Comprehensive Plan shall remain in effect until the updated plan ip-adopted. 6-/S (C .r...,. volume to total lot size is less than 20 trips (in and out) per minimum lot size for the Cl district. 7.151 Outdoor recreational facilities 7.152 Taverns, private clubs and amusement arcades 7.153 Public utility substations and transmission lines 7.154 Municipally owned and operated buildings and faciliites w. 7.20 Calculations for Commercial Low Traffic Generators 7.201 Traffic volume estimates shall be based on TRIP GENERATION, SECOND EDITION-1979,Institute of Traffic Engineers, or its equivalent. The Planning Commission may approve estimates from other sources, including local traffic counts, if the above source does not contain data for a specified use or if a use contains unique characteristics that cause it to differ from national traffic estimates. 7.202 Calculation procedures and traffic volume estimates for specific uses are indicated in Table III. 7.30 Pre-existing Conditional Uses Those uses set forth in Sec. 7.15 which are lawfully existing on the effective date of these Zoning Amendments shall require conditional use approval from the Board of Adjustment for any alteration, extension or other change to such use. 7.35 Pre-existing Non -conforming Uses or Structures 7.351 Those uses set forth in Sec. 7.10 and 7.15 which are lawfully existing on the effective date of these Zoning Amendments but which are non -conforming by virtue of lot size, frontage, set- back, or ratio of gross floor area to lot size may be continued or changed to another permitted use as long as estimated peak hour traffic volume is not increased. 7.352 Traffic volumes shall not be calculated on the basis of a partial use of a pre-existing structure; the entire gross floor area must be utilized in calculating traffic volumes for a new use or combination of uses. 7.40 Planned Commercial Developments Planned Commercial Developments (PCD's) are hereby permitted in the C-1 District in accordance with Sec. 8.40 of these regulations 7.50 Increased Traffic Volumes on Non-PCD Lots •'" The Planning Commission may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the standard for a commercial low traffic generator on a lot that is too small to qualify for a PCD if it determines that other site im- provements will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the vicinity. In making its determination the Planning Commission may consider the following: -2- &— ►8� vc c �P � a� 3►�6 ,3 r� MVF 3SC09 .qa Mw p �6' .qa vao��� rat. qlfn cep ��'37`5 DRAFT 12/17/80 ARTICLE VII CCN24ERCIAL I (C-1) 7.00 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the C-1 District. Any are prohibited except those uses which may be allowed as forth hereafter. 7.001 Ccmmmercial Low Traffic Generator 7.002 Planned Commercial Development 7.05 Conditional Uses uses not expressly permitted conditional uses as set The following uses may be permitted in the C-1 District as conditional uses by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 13.10. 7.051 Commercial Low Traffic Generator - Conditional 7.10 Commercial Loa Traffic Generators The following uses are commercial low traffic generators if the ratio of their estimated peak hour traffic volume to total lot size is less than 40 trips (total trips, in and out) per minimum lot size for the C-1 District. 7.101 Business and professional offices such as real estate, insurance, architect, engineer, lawyer, veterinarian, medical offices or clinics; as well as offices of private non-profit institution, travel agency, governmental or loan agency. 7.102 The following retail businesses: barbershop, beauty salon, florist, nursery, garden center, greenhouse, sales and service of electrical facilities and cameras and accessories, tailor, laundromat, drycleaner, laundry, frozen food locker, shoe sales and repair, clothing sales, sales and service of office equifxnent and :supplies, hardware, hou:;ehold furniture, sales of interior decorating supplies, pet shop, undertaker and memorial sales, sales of sports equipment, data processing services, copying, blueprinting, and graphic arts services, artist's or photographic studio, gift shop, bookstore, musical instrument sales and service. 7.103 Printing, bookbinding and publishing; laboratories for research, experiment- ation, or photo processing; design and manufacture of electronic or electro- mechanical apparatus from previously prepared materials and components; vocation and avocational instruction; indoor athletic facilities. 7.15 Commercial Low Traffic Generators - Conditional The following uses may be approved as conditional commercial low traffic generators if the ratio of their estimated peak hour traffic volume to total lot size is less than 40 trips (total trips, in and out) per minimum lot size for the Cl district. -1- �, � l7� y a.�► c."( lel� /� �-? Ra Vo 6' ?417q -'APT No a y 6 E%C C 33 30 9-5 Moe-n�nq �ea� �Uu!` I 65 58 L (_T�) `7a 23 �r - � va, a53 ewVzod owt T S �7 115 7S 35I�3 l9l a� t0,7 t33 17 � �3o(a x '30-4 - 2 LO aR�t i33 y 3l� �Ry as ac8 Tv�w log is 6a 58 18 ,'V Nbij ,q IV --� 5E8 xdx IV No Text I .7`30 i S ay CIA A?145) C ( ) 5 -H j off 30 6y� lMtn n" TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. March 9, 1981 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Mitel Dear Dave: ROUTE 2A BOX 308 WILLISTON, VT. 05495 879.6331 Transmitted herewith is a revised traffic study which, at the request of the Planning Commission, addresses the impacts on Old Farm Road as well as Route 116 and Kennedy Drive. None of the conclusions originally reached in the February 15, 1981 study have changed as a result of this additional analysis. Very truly yours, TR LL CONSUL ENGIN ERS, INC. Richard P. Trudell. P.E. RPT/slp Enclosures e51E7yr "srAAVc&s Dl5THitJC�S /"&,I sc,� &t D W IT 4 "!; !7_ 4AAD 57x", q �oG� ff�eE�ffT of o£Ut--r 14r P,4A?X a,-10 eXx7*AE 4•a L1L'lVt hmlewr co ar 11 b 3 ,JS Fr, 44 N vise gi��rf' �x«�b5 REPORT ON TRAFFIC for MOUNTAIN VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK South Burlington, Vermont Prepared By: Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Williston, Vermont February 15, 1981 t The purpose of this report is to present information to the South Burlington Planning Commission, the Agency of Transportation and the District Environmental Commission relative to traffic impacts from the proposed industrial use of a Ill acre parcel of land located south of Interstate 89 and east of Vermont Route 116 in South Burlington, Vermont. At the time of this report, a request has been made by the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation to rezone the parcel for industrial use. The proposed industrial use is known, but the name of the company has not been officially released. Design considerations and parameters discussed in this report reflect the actual proposed use. The number of vehicles trip ends per day was based on the projected employee .level of 300 people. Using "Trip Generation", the average daily traffic generated by this industrial use would be 900 trips. To determine their directional distribution to and from the project site, an analysis was done of the population and housing figures for Chittenden County. Based on the 1980 Census (preliminary figures), the past growth in Chittenden County communities was projected ahead to 1986. For instance, the population of. South Burlington increased 662 people (6.6%) from 1970 to 1980; the number of housing units increased by 1150 (40%). This reflects the trend to smaller family size. The average people per housing unit in Chittenden County is 2.79 (2.69 in South Burlington). The 1986 populations were determined by projecting the municipalities' 1980 housing figures at their last 10 year growth rate and assigning a value of 2.8 people per unit to the projected housing. South Burlington's 1986 Population is then estimated to be 13863 people. These estimates are probably higher than what will be experienced. Exhibits 1 and 2 depicts these tabulations. Once the populations of the surrounding communities were estimated, directional movement to the project site could be assigned probabilities. By using a County Highway Map, the major routes to the site were assigned values. The assumption was made that each community would have an equal chance of its citizens obtaining{ employment at the site, so no separate probability was assigned to employment by the community. Instead employees were assigned on the basis on 1986 population projections and vehicles trips on the major routes to the project site determined. Exhibit 3 tabulates this data. Due to the inherent inaccuracies of population estimates, and realizing that the major impacts would be to the north of the site, design values of trip generation were rounded off to 1.0% and 90% to the south and north respectively. A similar analysis was done at the Kennedy Drive intersection and design values of 40% east link, 40% north link and 20% west link were assigned. This is also depicted in Exhibit 3. The existing traffic, without the imposition of this project traffic, was projected ahead to 1986, utilizing factors developed by the Agency of Transportation. The project traffice was then added to this 1986 traffic and the capacity of the roadways and intersections analyzed. The conclusions reached as a result of this study are as follows: 1. Route 116 will continue to operate at a Level of Service C with the introlduction of the project traffic generation of 900 vehicles/day.' 2. The intersection of. Route 116 with the proposed park road can be accomplished with a tee intersection and single lane approaches. Signalization is not warranted. 3. The Route 116 - Kennedy Drive intersection presently has reduced levels of service as a result of normal traffic growth. An additional lane is presently needed on the northbound and southbound Route 116 approaches. These improvements are needed as a result of normal traffic increases through 1981 without imposition of project traffic. MUNICIPALITY 1970 (1) POPULATION 1980 (2) POPULATION % INCREASE 1970 - 1980 1970 (2) HOUSING 1980 (2) HOUSING % INCREASE 1970 - 1980 Bolton 427 723 + 69.3% 197 363 84.3 Burlington 38633 37727 - 2.3% 12025 13744 14.3 Charlotte 1802 2565 42.3% 714 1042 45.9 Colchester 8776 12624 43.8% 3088 4567 47.9 Essex 17462 21450 22.8% 4910 7392 50.5 Hinesburg 1775 2681 51.0% 610 1025 68.0 Huntington 748 1168 56.1% 268 451 68.3 Jericho 2343 4892 108.82 635 1469 99.8 Milton 5639 8252 46.3% 1750 2792 59.5 Richmond 3184 4024 26.4% 933 1385 48.4 St. George 477 679 42.3% 167 244 46.1 Shelburne 3728 5009 34.4% 1122 1721 53.4 South Burlington 10032 10694 6.6% 2824 3978 40.8 Underhill 1198 2156 79.9% 418 750 79.4 Westford 991 1419 43.2% 263 471 79.1 Williston 3187 3844 20.6% 908 1286 41.6 Winooski 7309 6319 - 13.5% 2246 2403 7.0 Chittenden Countv 115589 41359 (1) "The People Book" (2) 1980 Census (Preliminary figures) r MUNICIPALITY 1986 (3) HOUSING 1986 (4) POPULATION % 1986 POPULATION EMPLOYEES VEHICLE TRIPS Bolton 546 1529 0.9% 3 9 Burlington 14923 41784 26.6% 80 240 Charlotte 1328 3718 2.4% 7 21 Colchester 5879 16461 10.4% 31 93 Essex 9631 26967 17.2% 52 156 Hinesburg 1443 4040 2.5% 7 21 Huntington 635 1778 1.0% 3 9 Jericho 2348 6574 4.1% 12 36 Milton 3788 10606 6.8% 20 60 Richmond 1787 5004 3.2% 9 27 St. George 311 871 0.5% 1 3 Shelburne 2272 6362 4.1% 12 36 South Burlington 4951 13863 8.9% 28 84 Underhill 1107 3100 2.0% 6 18 Westford 694 1943 2.0% 6 18 Williston 1606 4497 2.9% 9 27 Winooski 2503 7008 4.5% 14 42 Chittenden County 55752 156105 100.0% 300 900 (3) 1980 Housing increased at same historical rate experienced in municipality 1970 - 1980. (4) 1986 Housing x 2.8 people/housing unit. MUNICIPALITY Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne South Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski Route 116 Northbound Southbound Prob. Trips Prob. Trips 0.1 1 0.9 8 0.0 0 1.0 240 0.5 11 0.5 10 0.0 0 1.0 93 0.1 16 0.9 140 1.0 21 0.0 0 0.7 6 0.3 3 0.1 4 0.9 32 0.0 0 1.0 60 0.2 5 0.8 22 1.0 3 0.0 0 0.7 25 0.3 11 0.1 8 0.9 76 0.0 0 1.0 18 0.0 0 1.0 18 0.5 14 0.5 13 0.0 0 1.0 42 114 786 12.7% 87.3% Kennedy Drive Intersection Southbound Westbound Eastbound Prob. Trips Prob. Trips Prob. Trips 1.0 8 0.5 120 0.5 120 1.0 10 0.5 47 0.5 46 1.0 140 1.0 3 1.0 32 1.0 60 1.0 22 1.0 11 0.3 22 0.4 32 0.3 22 1.0 18 1.0 18 1.0 13 1.0 42 291 332 163 37.0% 42.2% 20.8% w .j TA9^1 �D,� G/GNT /NL.�UST,2� /NDUST"�'/AL P/�,e„L..S� /►�iay/l/F,gGTl/,P/i�G, .�ivv wA,e�N,avS�s , FLLY� A��,q C�741P GE 493M47 /GY`/ " /iti/ 5r17-0r s dam" 77W�-�C �niGfiSKEs�S y ZPO Fi cs r 5w/or-T GO 5 Nl crr _ - 0p TM/,2 p S/f / Fr- 30� T�7;V-4 ?D / lel* -r6r194 r7-0olx' 'Iyoww jr?04>0,c : -+- .4 a, X 5743 7—elP$h000 �72 = 3Q9 IJSE ,40V7*,E Ill. 4 r AIM i r So Mpt/ TGv4 w/a V cv AIL -ww-ne Y, /-1o,Z7"r1 A 0 �e) /7D /1B6 34-3o k A = 46 3 Z-OCA-T/DH/ O":r f ArOJ'OS ,r© // ✓ T�'�. 5E'C 7 "Y D/�/ /ti/E`04 0 5 ©v Ti5/ pi �T�/vG E i4 ND To flG/ 6,c./ / 7h' P,-ol'p'a's10;"sC-> 5!liiFT `�T"�F'�'T E,x rEiU SJve�/�5�'� -r-owr/ i'�/5�/�✓ 4► L7I,C'icf/oNAL/ST',ei�vTic�N Gzc 0r-'7t) f3J�a7D o/%/ ��o✓E�TE'J POPUG.gTicv✓5 OFc C9177En i>G7,,/ Co. Os6 /o 00 e_ArXf-r 7-41,e v *"L> 901, —7—,,y-- o4,0,,e ,eca g,p 0IJ To f la EW4N VALOCS AT 7W N! //VO k' 5 7-AA 7 i4 C>T� t7o o vr> d� i5'o p/2�cT"�.�rr3 L D/ 3Tie//3 UTion� 901. 07 D// v/ 3 i c1/, G r- o%/ v / 5;, n GoN5/D om' 7t1,3T -rh'A c `vlLi- ai. /.v S H f f-r -0 / Gv /LL e'`r�R,LO e Zoo /=0 AvT X-00 - vf,► v //0 ,oN v //o .x ,� = 99 use:" vAL vE dF /Vf A-S �, E'EG T ry s,00 er�t 17ow ; 7' ?r, FIIIC IDG- %9 S �� F, T',Cr�FF1 G ENv: //ti/El�,� /N 6 �`//Ir✓D /jtxa/C /!7 7 (, �Gv 9,93) M/NU/�' `S.�T,�'ET G�N� t/OL. jliKFi✓ /!4 �,9� o�AQ� rfit�r��io�l,3p Zoo# Arm 7- 63D >> i996 /9lli Her- . 3q0 DN v //5- D� 3,9p G rvo GvIotAle/gNr-at'Z (1N7-25-4 i%Tio1, O" t'44YT/lvkv^ 7-3r,4p9"/C, P1 36 Aor eZ-Us Pod✓EG T TjC,gFFIL b 900 MTN Vi rwf P/9Ae�� jeD. a4-So 86 = 4-OiS 4013 t /O ya (1cV,) = ¢10 3 /3DT 48Z3 ADD FA /vim S /!-�'AL — /1tiiG' S1Gr��L ?DST R,r9T�J r'�",o.�v�G Tlvti'A� 7v 7"o rZ G/ ®� un, �s,f� ,e o9t� k //t> Ti/S , �,� rF /�'�GN�+•si Y �/ cr,�Jfi�L LPL i T psi Td — > T,/ T'/✓h6yo L ��/ X Gvi l�Til 37' 2 ST -*'Z 7-WYE ✓OL `y?;-y`z �V/�7�i" 5T "/ 6S .77 Aovr,E /A. 77 77 x.9s X, eU x/. / = 345 34� ✓vd 233 v�,1 Lr✓EG o� s�,�'vf<� 6 7"'// 5 /s 771E T2uc �� c T-oe qs G T 7-1)2n) /o/ /, oU 9--7- f1GT' = 4SU /44 57 ✓PN P �p ?xo PO 5- C) �,v rr�'� s�cr-iaN G c�'o 4-fE7;C7 y G,zoM I+T; IVA,1CY off" 7 A4,,vgPoV7 f 7744IJ 5TAiv�AizO Dg7r4u.s c , E, /41-10r>, A:r - ip , PAO*:� ,04v111-) /nI7IF--W`Sj5"C776-/ ^j -Nkt Lam'✓e'[. off' ,fib ur-e //4- Tw o L 11 w,i r-v c4 1 40 /0 7 5U /ril�ti •=P�' t7 h'SSdME '5'' jo �'Co,� � 6 ✓�L cam" 5�'�"!/if �' G C � Tsi-�3cc' ��� 76 T/ E 49,1 0 3.3a ,) 5V = 9b o (,�.©) qs) r = , q r I-A3Lg" 41lz S 4/ ,?ZL ;7ZL VP# ,e0 0 r'oZ I l 6 ✓1 L7 r- .4 o13 ro AK LNtict, V PAM /996 �► & p .L-• i�o� Ec r A DT, 9B *,5z3, pN9B6 = 6 3l G 9LL d � �,c' y� ✓icy c M.9M/7-/> Pam, -r4Arc7C oN7 b Ar' qcrx1 f� 5 .4 ,DES 04 - O,-Z- -7-/',"� /�,eo, � USA v ���✓ Ecr i s ��.w S/p�•� �'L� � �' ss 5 / G.v/ Fic�r� T 7/��/ i ff-�E �M�s�T• 651D 1" 1>C/ !/, - ,' 7 : / / 16 �� l�d•�P'D 5E S OG" TN / 5 sT vO Y� /� /-L T�i'�FF/G' G��Fiv!�".•ylIT.,FiJ N0�'Th�3ovti4> on/To©vr'//:`� /s �955fJ��D -To //�/7-/=OD4)c15"1> 7-t) -7 be I4f`./ ma y'' Z>,'!✓ems - Z7 !l L US/NG i9 �"�i¢�i�/C G'ovn�T�L�I�'iNG 7-fhE L'�iA�C �M. T/f fX /�.T/,NG /.�J�.ECT/per/ �4L �7/ �►i� fc/T/CW ai' h • A7 . -r',C.a r�yc G�As OFTa �ivli�',E'D, EE P6` l TEA FF/C F/ 6 UeES !✓ E,�. =` ct�/►�/�!},�' E!� 7n AGflt�,pG�G l') / 9QL a 77AC s)&CVA;V LWWA,7 4O7- 19� qd v "-=1 T� Ii J� V 700 /9dl i4o r BZZO x/,r. f. 9940 AD7- 1978 �pr P¢ratltr / 'J c9L �'O� aF PRarNcT D/,� ✓ � = %SJ`, iV07-O.' ACr //c: e'Y a= 7;07/�Ppj5Paer791iiu.y ,4ArAS�1 4�,9C7V)2S cez�rHF �5 OF PQOACr _rCAFrOIG AS Y� TES A9,NtD ,,u PRo,WASAirr /W, 4 -54/3 3To 4 ,. 5`73 9 ?d AvT i986 Ap — P,,cN EG rc-7& CA' x,r X j,17) i ZR7 zsoc P�,IEGT ?QifGFIG 19Bb Apr -a 90AAVrD11 ve. N 1981- PMI-Ocrl;�P 7'i-lGre_ -lair,r. PAC M0 AGPOC,-47-5 ® lc�v�vEGY Dom, Bob /rrtfflvr- �i►V^S;/ 7-10.oc/ o c �R ov'O S ED /�iE%�/ c 1•—. L r -rVAAJ 35� , a� .�T, T1/.�n/ �/o <I �1'� T,¢i.�,�✓ Fi9l'Tt� � �1✓r 85l/ s / /AO YPN //00 C ,3/ ?c ,L° X/,O1�r�,9SX,�14� r Z7/ l/O,,) /106 J Z90 Dot Wig` Z90 Lr TU�i.E 6 °a ('%/z) 13v5 �i►rrc�2 .9� // L�fr✓�' �- ✓, FifCrae . CIS" e3� v = 90 D D!� v� ?J"6 360 �.�,� ✓sic.. � gZjg;OC-N T/Nv �S ,wC.�',�ED -TD G r I/i'=L. Off' S�.L'°l/iG�" G G�/� �:�` `✓ G i BUT ,rV 0 oN �4AP.Qo�C.N L3 �"� F� / 9,96 ,�'ouy�//(, NoF'77y L3cavrvl� l Aor - /, D 6 x 34L30 /�tlo T / 9 sI filc7v z Arl- ir9 n 4 / JOOT,9Z C1— A> 1�>?, C-766) VDN c5 12oure AST/fit j - 46 N ."/l - - Z 30 (a Lard- Z. ,bra-vC� vRN /1/ OTC ,' t3�I5,�L7 AN T��"F/G %�',�O ✓Ec_?-7o•/ 5 �`-� /f7�1 UNnE�Z �aau� ►� T,�tFFiG p�, tom. Z49 /So ,cj 70 r h ----.r-- L94f3 4974 1 � 0 r Y. a98C DlsrhiP u7-/Or! t� l: v G� f0 A J 1 Cl -5 4N17 G /gPPeaA� f/ /i L x Y0 ;,t,c"k r 3 (" J`/1 Ka-, V) 14f-� /GNt�.,'�i/ Ci/�• �lA.^/U�L � T..y P1FF i Pvl:'Jl-r171+,.,j /iD�LClL'r�T/atil /I,aJ� �L7' 77/nZN ='/ZOO �, x � O x / o4 x, 3 x , / ,7 x . s"x ,331 = zed ✓via ' 31 /cif � . � � G.>i�.f; �, C✓ / ,or7f /ter � �2.oPoS.�'� A,�P,��Rrf� c�r�F t✓�%�� �- F = • .5 B u5 r= /)ITU,c . � � 7i.= ulK c,.l% rU�' • Fi �; b% �T tiv9-,-.) J, I Z c s v -/Zoo r- 7`v)e, tiv B � �- 0.J0,5- 1",ci-> 5 V'r = %Zco ` /.O ?C O X 85' )C/. /Z x,.-?57 .: ,17 V� 4-7^ 2' 7 4A�r 5 Y, A - 9 v (t• v �` / . o . �c r x /. 3 x , 4 7 ; - ' �:' , �'f C Ar✓ E VP#. VV � APP,� Gf1 0 12, v S q9 f / any /, �y J / 2 r� �/ .(- \ w�� r 7-1 r"' 5 �� ?fj t! j'iJ rl CJ K®a %l /�4ti }� /i J �+ I q pC I,) I x, .4, T.r• ✓ Z 7 h ✓ 7 yy�� /ZOO" " � �t� � � R S x , cl; X . 4 i) GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION PROJECT: DATE: / Z3-8/ TIME: 9. c�v i4NJ er: -T //ARr �IPP,eDA« A- _, 31. KENN ' �tPP,�lcy D /-3d•do /Z,Zo ,Arc � ycLE 6¢ str 35 'PN G = . 47 AP�,ZOA�H C t'NF � .6 6 /Z' DRIVE ZO' G s jn sLm % = ¢ 5zc GyLL£ 6¢ Sew. �q PPecy9cN � y 6 11AF A:-O� 77/iLz-7 j LA✓��to ed VHV V--LV Clip. 'As LIPIq ago 2q I (19p() v E�AOVrF— LWV .3JO 106 4 Xr- .1707 (019 vpd lib C ,9P o 41,pl�v V/ 66--jI4;77'�- of 5groAlkc ,A F16 /J5-/3 1hajyj&1jV CAR _ P. �1 o f-'AP�Y Y, /• /-{l6,N!v, f' ......_ P2�' r r y' 1"AN(14L ) CpUNC/L � /� BS /ti y7"/Tur15' or- T+yf'oltrr9 nuwG•w'S� �.q �` ir,�rlcr'_ �f�3tL l e?73 �-• Z..E NAG.... lt?g5�1 Q. �. TRIP €kA,)Ee,4TIQ&2, /A-)," �Tzw44 ,eE�,er �Y rnE /n/ST'i rvr�' pG �,�s��-�7Tta,l E�JG-•r�� /9 �9 G'19�194 / T j' r`OU T,6" / � � i9.�j-',era�9ct/�s �✓ / TN f7DDi 7-io^)flL. Z--1.911vE'S, /O ' 7WAZ�/ L 77- 7-4/Z- J LT T V,O'sv5 j f 35 d©o VP11 ,77 1,3 x /• L7'Tv7-i" 44AAF /ZOO 30 �, yC •9S x , `� �) _-Z 3�t .^.�- ,9 br„aa 2'707 C -�p-G S4z U Ph' �,�i'1ZorgcN I3 /0' TNev G,,77Ve ) /D ' GT 7v�.�J L,�9rIE TNiz ✓ LASE - r, 7 VA--1S 3�X, 81 3 / LT- 7'v,e;"5 p °, /.3 435v :Roo ,3��� S ZSZ /zoo--346 (' , 3/ X,95x,g7� - Z43 v 31;vo A - ¢ ,?,? SpoKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. O. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL June 22, 1981 Richard A. Lang, Jr., Esq. Hoff, Wilson & Powell, P.C. Box 567 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: So. Burlington - Mitel Dear Dick: (BO2) 862-6451 (S02) 863-2857 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL The documents you delivered to my office on June 18, 1981 are fine with one exception. The Transfer Returns under category "E. Value" have the word "confiscated". This is unacceptable and must be deleted from each Transfer Return before my final blessing. In addition, would you please give me your written assurance that the various easements, etc. being offered to the City are free from, or subordinate to, any existing mortgages of record. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS:mil cc: David Spitz City Planner HOFF, WILSON & POWELL, P.C. - Lawyers 192 College Street Box 567 Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/658-4300 Philip H. Hoff Bret P. Powell Richard A. Lang, Jr. Thomas B. Bailey Michael Schein June 17, 1981 Richard A. Spokes, Esquire Spokes & Obuchowski P.O. Box 986 184 South Winooski Avenue Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Mitel Semiconductor Dear Dick: Enclosed herewith are copies of the following: (1) Offer of Dedication; (2) Four Deeds (Exhibits A through D in the Offer); (3) Four property transfer tax returns. These have been revised in accordance with your letter of May 20, 1981. As you know, we have been waiting for Stipulation with Hogan and company to be in place. If these are agreeable, I will have them signed at the closing on June 19, 1981. I appreciate your cooperation. Very truly you s, Richard A. ang, Jr. RAL/aeh Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles A. Thweatt IMr. David Spitz J. Boone Wilson of. Counsel OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION This Agreement is made as of this day of June, 1981, by and between Mitel, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a place of business in South Burlington, Vermont ("Mitel") and the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City approved, on on May 6, 1981, the construction of a plant by Mitel on the Wright Farm (so-called) in South Burlington as to which Mitel is or will be the assignee of a purchase option; and WHEREAS, Mitel intends to exercise said option to purchase and to proceed with construction, all barring unforeseen events; and WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission requires Mitel to convey now to the City certain easements for water and sewer lines and other conveyances as hereafter described serving the project; and WHEREAS, Mitel has consented to said conveyances to the City and to the provisions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning Commission's final approval and in further consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) in lawful money paid by the City to Mitel, and other good and valuable consideration, it is hereby covenanted and agreed as follows: 1. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying a pedestrian trail easement on the Wright Cz Farm (the said land to be purchased by Mitel under the option is hereafter called "the property.") of fifteen (15) feet in width. Said easement is more particularly described in said Warranty Deed; and said deed is in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying the following: (a) Conveyance in fee simple of a waste water pumping station and the land underneath said station on the property; (b) Surface easement of way and access and underground sewer, water and electrical line easements joining with and under the access easement, all proceeding to and intended to serve the waste water pumping station; (c) Sewer line (force main) easement twenty (20) feet in width from the waste water pumping station easterly to a certain 8 inch, 260 foot cast iron sleeve known as the "I-89 Sleeve." (d) Underground water line easement, ten (10) feet in width, leading from a hydrant on the easterly side of the proposed plant leading northwesterly from the said hydrant to the utility and maintenance easement as set forth in sub -paragraph (b) above and thence in combination with the said utility easement to the waste water pumping station. All of the foregoing easements and the foregoing conveyance - 2 in fee simple are more particularly described in said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "B." 3. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying various future possible sewer line easements, twenty (20) feet in width, running across the property to certain lands owned by others. Said possible easements are more particularly described in the said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C 11 4. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying in fee simple a strip of land for the possible extension of Swift Street (in the City), so-called, along and into the property. The said strip of land is more particularly described in the said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "D.". 5. Mitel hereby agrees that the delivery of said Deeds to the City is a formal offer of dedication by Mitel to the City of the various conveyances described in the said Deeds. 6. Mitel hereby agrees further that said formal offers of dedication are irrevocable and that each Deed constitutes a separate offer by Mitel. The City may hold each of said Deeds after delivery to it and each offer may be accepted by the City under the terms and conditions thereof by recording that particular Deed at any time in the South Burlington - 3 - Land Records. WHEREUPON, the undersigned have executed these presents on the day and date first above written at South Burlington, Vermont. IN THE PRESENCE OF: MITEL, INC. fis Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: Duly Authorized !.gent STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At South Burlington, Vermont, on this day of June, 1981, personally appeared Duly Aughorized Agent of MITEL, INC., and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of MITEL, INC. Before me, Notary Public STATE OF VFRMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At South Burlington, Vermont, on this dayof June, 1981, personally appeared Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, Notary Public 4 fi TUTBLANX REGISTERED U. 5, PAT. OFFICE FORM 901 VER1MONT - WARRANTY DEED REV. 9/80 TUTTLELAWPRINT.PU.LISHERS.FUTL-..VT05701 Blow K IN rtoftfl,5 MITEL, INC. a Delaware corporation, with a place of business in 0 South Burlington in the County of Chi ttenden and State of Vermont Grantor , in the consideration of - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -Ten and More - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars paid to its full satisfaction by City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation located in of the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee by these presents, do freely (6ibP, 6rattt, P��, Cf awaq anb Lfvnfirm unto the said Grantee City of South Burlington conveyances and its. heirs and assigns forever, n certain 1pioaa of land in South Burlington in the County of Chi ttenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: PARCEL NO. 1 A certain waste water pumping station and the land underneath said station is hereby conveyed to Grantee in fee simple, its successors and assigns forever. Said waste water pumping station and the land underneath it are located on and are a part of the lands of Grantor herein, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, which lands of.Grantor are all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor herein by Warranty Deed of , and dated and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume Page(s) Said waste water pumping station and the land thereunder are more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain,drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") and dated March 15, 1981, which are part of Plan of. Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all.as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawing SP3 is recorded in Volume , Page(s) , of the City of South Burlington Land Records and drawing SP19 is recorded in Volume , Page(s) of the City of South Burlington Land Records, all being part of said Plan as recorded in said South Burlington Land Records -as a PARCEL NO. 2 part of said Plan as recorded in said records. A surface easement and right of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity on and along the aforesaid land of Grantor. Said easement commences at a width of twenty (20) feet, and commences at a certain parking lot for the handicapped and thence proceeding northeasterly (coincident with a gravel road fifteen (15) feet in width on said easement) and then becoming twenty (20) and then thirty (30) feet in width and proceeding (coincident with said gravel road) easterly over and along an underground combined utility easement for sewer ("sanitary"), water and electrical lines to the aforesaid waste water pumping station. Said easment of way and access is hereby c,,)nveyed for the purpose of maintaining, repairing andjor restoring the said waste water pumping station and its equipment, as well as the underground sewer, electrical and water lines (in the easement hereafter conveyed) leading to said station. The said easment and right of way is more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981 and SP19 (entitled "S_-wer Profile and Force Main Profile") and dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1,-1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawings are recorded in Volume , Page(s) , of the City of South Burlington Land Records as a part of said Plan as recorded in PARCEL NO. 3 said records. An underground combined utility easement and right of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity for certain sewer, water and electrical lines under and along the aforesaid lands of Grantor herein for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing the said sewer, water and y electrical lines. Said easement is a uniform twenty (20) feet and then thirty (30) feet in width. Said easement commences at a point denoted as "K Section line" and thence proceeds easterly to the said waste water pumping station and is intended to service said station. The said easement is more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981 and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawings are recorded in Volume , Page(s) of the City of South Burlington Land Records.as a part o sai an as reco-r edin said records. PARCEL NO. 4 n easemen and right of way of a uniform twenty (20) feet in width is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity under and along the aforesaid lands of Grantor, for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing an underground force main sewer line, with said easement extending ten (10) feet on either side of said line and sewer. Said easement begins at a certain waste water pumping station, so-called, and thence proceeds easterly to a certain 8 inch, 260 foot iron "sleeve" known as the "I-89 Sleeve." Said underground easement and right of way is more particularly shown, depicted and described on a certain drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Enginee:rs,Inc., which drawing is recorded in Volume , Page(s) of the City of South Burlington Land Records.as a part of said Plan as PARCEL NO. 5 recorded in said records. An easemen and right of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity under and along the said lands of Grantor, for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing a certain underground water line, with said easement being ten (10) feet in uniform width with five (5) feet extending on either side of said sewer main. Said easement begins at a water main by the easterly side of the edge of the Mitel plant building on the aforesaid lands of Grantors and thence proceeds easterly and thence northeasterly becoming coincident with and proceeding under and along the foregoing easement of way and maintenance previously referred to in this deed, and becoming part of the combined electrical, sanitary and water utility easement also as previously referred, to in this deed, all to service the said waste water pumping station. Said easement is more particularly shown, described and depicted on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981, and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawings are recorded in Volume , Page(s) , of the City of South Burlington Land Records as a part of said Plan as recorded in said records. Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned deeds, drawings and documents above referred to all in further aid of this description and to the records, deeds and instruments therein referred to, all in further aid of this description. This deed is executed and delivered pursuant to a certain Offer of Irrevocable Dedication by Grantor herein to Grantee. This conveyance is subject to all rights and restrictions of record. Zo 4Ube ttnb to 401b said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap- purtenaaces thereof, to the said Grantee City of South Burlington and its heirs and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; And the said Grantor Mitel, Inc. for i tsel f and its heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee City of South Burlington heirs and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are rev front vveq encumbrance; except as above -stated. hereby engage to Warrant Etna Befenb the same against all lawful claims whatever, except as above stated. I it Witness PlIereof, this _ . - , 1n Presence of hereunto set hand and seal day of June A. D. 19 81 1 tkate of �iermont, sg� At Chittenden (LountLI MITEL , INC. NINUM ; Duly Authorized Agent ROM c c r. this day of June A. D. 19 81 , Duly Authorized Agent of Mitel, Inc. personally appeared, and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of MITEL , INC. Before me (Title), WARRANTY MITEL, INC. wo CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON June 1981 CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED FOR RECORD A.D., 19 AT O'CLOCK MINUTES M. AND RECORDED IN BOOK -PAGE -OF LAND RECORDS ATTEST CLERK RECORDERS FEE $ t u 570470 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RETURN VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES NO. A 570470 MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR) NAME(S) MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE MITEL. INC. —Building 880 Airguard Road Fed I.D. # South Burl.ington. VT. 05401 -1 55641 PUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAMEISi MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER _City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington.VT 05401 • • LOCATION (Such as "173 Maple Sl Burlington" OR "The Smith Farm, Old Mill Road, Tunbridge''). If property is located in two towns, please list both. Wright Farm, sG-calledl` loca.ted an Hinesburg Road in South Rurlin a; d the buje s ac cared less than the entire interest (Fee Simple) in the property. please state the interest acquired (such as Life Estate. -Perpetual `easement. etc.) conveyance in fee simple f pumping station and for various easements. APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: ACREAGE: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH: Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings. 1 ❑ NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑�(( STORE gy�pp(�] .� 2 ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO. UNITS 10 11 OTRIWWR� 1 Station Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK. 1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION �) 2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ® GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category which best describes the proposed use ofthe property AFTER TRANSFER 1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 El OPERATING FARM 5 [)(COMMERCIAL 7 ❑INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMP OR VACATION 2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) - • THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. It such an exemption is claimed, you need not complete -1 the section titles "TAX." but you MUS COMP TE the se on titled Y grans ers OT property acqui red by the U.S. of A*., the State of Vermont, curE)aRjIO(3fndthejT instrumentalities agencies or subdivisions. REAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value ofanynotes, property, stocks, bonds, etc, given to seller, and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. It the transfer was a gift or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fairmarketvalue of the real property transferred. TOTAL PRICE PAID $ LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $ •: TAX PAY FI TH 0 NE PERCENT((I.005)OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. BUT NOT LESS THAN $1 .00 (FOR EXAMPLE IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000 THE TAX DUE IS $50.00, IF THE VALUE WAS $100., THE TAX DUE IS $1 .00). j AMOUNT DUE: ' none. Make checks payable to: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES. - If there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value, i please explain i • DATE SELLER ACQUIRED. IF BY GIFT, DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED. Not applicable. IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED. CHECK HERE: ❑ �F A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED. INDICATE REASON BELOW: (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.) 32 V.S.A. §9606 (Board of Health Division Regulations) 32 V.S.A. §9608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act) I aThis Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10. the Board Health. Vermont Statutes Annotated. 1-1 It (Vermont Health Regulations, Subchapter 10, as mended) (V a PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER `\ It exempt, state reason (see instructions) It exempt, state reason (see instructions) Not a Subdivision ( Not a Subdivision CERTIFICATION • Flood Hazard Areas • Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 I/we hereby swear and affirm that I/we have investigated and have disclosed to each party Involved In this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS If any which affect the site hereinbefore described. We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE i i By Duly Authorized Agent by Duly Authorized Agent i i C PREPARER'S SIGNATURE )s PREPARED BY Richard A. Lang, J r . ' PREPARER'S ADDRESS ► HC)ffP T TYP ) St-, Mirlington., VT 05401 TO BE COMPLETED BY TOWWOR CITY CLERK ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TOWN NUMBER TOWN/CITY RETURN RECEIVED TAX PAID, BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT DATE OF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. 0 4 7 BOOK NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO ­ LISTED VALUE $ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED _ CLERK LISTED FORM 901 VERMONT - WARRANTY DEED REV.9/80 TUTBLANX REGISTERED U. S. PAT, OFFICE TUTTLE LAW PRINT. PUBLISHERS. RUTLAND. VT O5701 MITEL, INC,. a Delaware corporation with a place of business in sOs South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantor , in the consideration of -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Ten and More - - - - - - - - - - - - -- DolIars paid to its full satisfaction by City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation located in W the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee , by these presents, do freely (6iViel (6rant, pj�� (naniiq anb Lonfirm unto the said Grantee City of South Burlington and its heirs and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: A certain easement and right of way fifteen (15) feet in width is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity for the purpose of a surface pedestrian trail and ground level right of way for the purpose of passing and repairing by the general public along the Grantor's land in the City of Souty Burlington, Vermont. The easement conveyed herein is a part of the land and preiilises conveyed to Grantor herein by Warranty Deed of , dated , and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume Page(s) Said pedestrian trail adjoins and extends along the entire southerly boundary of the Grantor and is more particularly described, depicted and set forth on a certain drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which drawing is part of Plan of Lands entilted "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Construction Engineers, Inc., and are recorded in Volume , Page(s) , of the South Burlington Land Records, as part of the said Plan of Lands,as a part of said Plan as recorded in said records. Included herewith is the right of entry to Grantee herein to and along said 15-foot strip for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining or replacing the said pedestrian pathway or walkway, or other similar improvement on said property of Grantor. The City of South Burlington agrees that it shall strive to construct and maintain any said walkway in as natural a state as possible to blend with the surrounding conservation area, and shall make all reasonable attempts to prevent trespass by the general public on the remaining lands of the within Grantor. Said City of South Burlington shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, replacement, upkeep and repair of 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 such improvements shall be returned to the same condition as they were prior to any change by the City within a reasonable time after said installation of said improvements. The use of said easement shall be in common with Grantor; and the agents and employ- ees of Grantor shall also have the right to use said easement for said purposes. The City agrees to hold the Grantor harmless from any and all liability arising out of the City's installation, maintenance and/or use of said 15-foot pedestrian easement and right of -.qay or from the conveyance by Grantor of this easement. I Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned deeds,plans, drawing and documents above referred to all in further aid of this description and to the records, deeds and instruments therein referred to, all in further aid of this description. This deed is executed and delivered pursuant to a certain Offer of Irrevocable Dedication by Grantor herein to Grantee. This conveyance is subject to all rights and restrictions of record. TO 4alle Drib to 1101b said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap- purtencWus thereof, to the said Grantee City of South Burlington and its heirs and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; And the said Grantor Mitel, Inc. executors and administrators, do City of South Burlington for i tsel f and its heirs, covenant with the said Grantee heirs and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are ree from eUeq curnmbrunre; except as above stated. hereby engage to 3Pttrranf ttnb Pefettlb the same against all lawful claims whatever, except as above stated. call ifltCBe, PlIvreof, hereunto set this day of June A. D. 19 81. Nn PreBenry of MITEL , INC. Duly Authorized Agent Mate of Prrmont, SS_ At CHITTENDEN C�VUHtV day of June , Duly Authorized Agent of MITEL , INC. hand and seal A. D. 19 81 personally appeared, and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of Mitel, Inc. Before r,te (Title) WARRANTY MITEL II4C. rr® CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON pateb, June 1981 AT CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED FOR RECORD A.D., 19 O'CLOCK MINUTES M. AND RECORDED IN BOOK -PAGE -OF LAND RECORDS ATTEST CLERK RECORDERS FEE $ i 570469 V -- - PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RETURN VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES NO. e ^ 570469 MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 €.. A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR) NAME(S) [- MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE 9R9t*A4G)QX"X%EXR MITEL INC. _ 41 -_ BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAME(S) e MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CITYOF SOUTH BURLINGTON 575 Dorset Street South Riji-lington, Vermont 05401 • ' • ' LOCATION (Such as "173 Maple St.. Burlin ton" OR "The Smith Farm. Old Mill Road, Tunbridge") If property is located in two towns, please list both. Wright Farm, located Road so-called, on Hinesburg in South ur ington, Vermont it the buyers acqured less Iran the entire nieres; (Fee Simple) in the properly, please state the interest acquired (such as --Life Estate, 'Perpetual Easement. etc.) D. I� +. — IS foot, n ent APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: ACREA E: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH: Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings. 1 Ej NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 1-1 STORE 2 ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO. UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO. UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK t ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMPORVACATION �� ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 jP OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category which best describes the proposed use of the property AFTER TRANSFER >, 1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 Q COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL g ❑ CAMPORVACATION 2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) a - • • THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. If such an exemption Is claimedyou need not complete a the section titled "TAX," but you MUST COMPLETE the section titled "VALUE.' 2. Tran fer of property acqui ed by,the U.S. of A., the State of Vermont or :' CI kor�+l�nstrum nagencies or su divisions - REAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notes, property, stocks, bonds, etc, given to seller, and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. It the transfer was ' a gitt or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property transferred. OTAI PRICE PAID $ LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $ • 1AX PAY : F U CENT (0.005)OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. BUT NOT LESS THAN $1.00 (FOR EXAMPLE IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000 -. THE TAX DUE IS $50.00. IF THE VALUE WAS $100., THE TAX DUE IS $1.00). .AMOUNT DUE: ' Make checks payable to: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES. If there were circumstances In the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value, please explain i DATE SELLER ACQUIRED. IF BY GIFT, DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED. Not applicable. IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED, CHECK HERE: ❑ IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED. INDICATE REASON BELOW-. (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.) _ 32 V.S.A. §9606 (Board of Health Division Regulations) 32 V.S.A. §9608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act) w } This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10. 4 of the Board of Health. Vermont Statutes Annotated. (Vermont Health Regulations. Subchapter 10. as amended) t . PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER 1 If exempt, state reason (see instructions) If exempt, stale reason (see instructions) Not A Subdivision. i-----N-ot A Subdivision. i i CERTIFICATION - Flood Hazard Areas - Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 I/we hereby swear and affirm that Uwe have investigated and have disclosed to each party Involved in this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS if any which affect the site hereinbefore described. We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.Q. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. 1 SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE City of South Burlington By Duly Authorized Agent by Duly Authorized Agent PREPARERS SIGNATURE )• PREPARED BY R i r IPREPARER'S ADDRESS ► NT (P TYPE) TO BE COMPLETED BY TOWNOR CITY CLERK V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TOWN NUMBER TOWN/CITY RETURN RECEIVED TAX PAID, BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT DATE OF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. 570469 BOOK NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO. LISTED VALUE $ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED CLERK .... -- o.oro uric FiATF FORM 901 VERMONT - WARRANTY DEED REV.9/80 _ ya TUTBLANX REGISTERED U. S. PAT. OFFICE �Y TUUTTLE LAW PRINT. PUBLISHERS. RUTLAND. VT 05701 Z4ttt MI'EL, INC., a Delaware Corporation with a place of business in * the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantor , in the consideration of -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Ten and More - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Dollars paid to its full satisfaction by City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation located in cqt the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee by these presents, do freely _ (ff ibP, Oraut, PI1, Clowaq drib Croitfirm unto the said Grantee City of South Burlington and its heirs and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: Certain easements and rights of way are hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity, all being a uniform twenty (20) feet in width, on the land of Grantor herein in the City of South Burlington, Vermont; with said lands being all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor by Warranty Deed of , dated , and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume Page(s) Said easements shall be for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing an underground sewer line or lines, with said easements further described as extending ten (10) feet on either side of said sewer main or mains. The easements and rights of way conveyed hereby proceed to and serve property other than the subject lands of Grantor herein and proceed along the most eastern segment of the northern border and variously in the interior of the subject land of Grantor. Said easements are as more particularly shown, depicted, described and denoted as "Possible Sewer Eastments" on a drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel- Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawing is recorded in Volume , Page(s) of the City of South Burlington Land Records -as part of said Plan as recorded in said records. This deed is executed and delivered pursuant to a certain Offer of Irrecovable Dedication by Grantor herein to Grantee. Reference is hereby made to the above mentioned deeds, plans, drawings and documents above referred to all in further aid of this description and to the records, deeds and instruments therein referred to, all in further aid of this description. This conveyance is subject to all rights and restrictions of record. '07II 4U11L> ttnb to 401b said granted premises, with all the privileges and purtenances thereof, to the said Grantee CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON And Mitel, Inc - and its heirs and assigns, to their own use and behoof forev the said Grantor executors and administrators, do City of South Burlington for itself and its heirs, covenant with the said Grantee heirs and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are 17�'ree from ellerV enrttnthrunre; except as above -stated hereby engage to Warrant all ' efertb whatever, except as above stated. r3tt A1ititess Whereof, this day of June Ott Presence of NZ the same against all lawful claims hereunto set A. D. 1981. MITEL, IN'C. Duly Authorized Agent Mate of Perniont, ss_ At CHITTENDEN (yDtittt? day of June hand and seal this A. D. 19 81 , Duly Authorized Agent of Mitel, Inc. person'allny appeared, and he acknowledged this instrument, by sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of MITEL INC. 1�efore me (Title) MITEL, INC. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON pat,Cbr, June 81 CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED FOR RECORD A.D., 19 AT O'CLOCK MINUTES _ M. AND RECORDED IN BOOK —PAGE —OF LAND RECORDS ATTEST CLERK RECORDERS FEE $ t i ® ® • i 0 • � �a 570468 t PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RETURN A VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES NO. A 570468 _0468 r, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR) NAME(S) MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE X li'*XXtA*)0 r. - BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAMES) i MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER - �t uth 575 Dorset Street South ur ing oVermont 0b401 j -..: - • LOCATION (Such as "173 Maple St., Burlington'' OR "The Smith Farm. Old Mill Road, Tunbridge")- If property is located in two towns, please list both. E _Wriqht Farin, so—callpd,! 2q the buyers a quced less than the interest (Fee Simple) in the property, please stale the interest acquired (such as Life Estate," "Perpetual Easement etc.) 20-foot easement E- APPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: I ACREAGE: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH: Please check the applicable box(es) describing existing buildings. - 1 ® NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑ STORE f ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT, NO UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO. UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category wtuch best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK. .. ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑CAMP OR VACATION 2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 Q OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category which best describes the proposed use of the property AFTER TRANSFER. ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑OPERATING FARM 5 L'J COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL 9 ❑ CAMPOR VACATION ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 Q OTHER (EXPLAIN) d. a :ti • THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX. If such �n exemption is claimetl. you need not complete �?nesection titleb "TAX." but You MUST COMPLETE the section titled "VALUE." hh ilistrume�italr1 iesropaeen�iesgorrsdubVvisionsS. of A., the State of Vermont, or E 1 Ianfn�eiler ' REAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notesproperty, stock. : I -;,.en to seller, and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. If the transfer was k c gift or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property translef red 'UTAL PRICE PAID $ non confiscated. LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $ TAX PAYMENT DUE: FIVE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT(0.005)OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. BUT NOT LESS THAN $1.00 (FOR EXAMPLE IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000 THE TAX DUE IS $50.00: IF THE VALUE WAS $100., THE TAX DUE IS $1 00) [. ;MOUNT DUE. ' one Make checks payable to( VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES. (-,:. If there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value, please explain: DATE SELLER ACQUIRED. IF BY GIFT, DATE DONORORIGINALLY ACQUIRED. IF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED. CHECK HERE: ❑ Not appl i ca b1 e . . lF A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED. INDICATE REASON BELOW. (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.) f 32 V.S.A. §9606 (Board of Health Division Regulations) 32 V.S.A. §9608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act) .` This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chap ter 151 of Title 10. �t of the Board of Health. Vermont Statutes Annotated. a S (Vermont Health Regulations. Subchapter 10, as amended) PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER It exempt, state reason (see instructions) If exempt, state reason (see instructions) e I f Not Subdivision Not Subd a a ivision w; 1: i' CERTIFICATION • Flood Hazard Areas • Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 Ilwe hereby swear and affirm that Ilwe have investigated and have disclosed to each party involved in this transfer, all of my/our knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS If any which affect the site hereinbefore described. We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9606 are true, correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE i i rs E f r mitel, Inc. City ot Southur ing on #.)y Duly Authorized Agent y Duly Authorized Agent i PREPARER'S SIGNATURE ► PREPAREDBYRichard A Jr. IPREPARER'SADDRESS .Hoff, Wilson & Powell P.C. 192TI61TT� 6E)St. Burlin ton VT 05401 ppls • BiCOIMPLETIED BY TOWNOR ti 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT t TOWN NUMBER E TOWWCITY RETURN RECEIVED TAX PAID, BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT DATE OF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. 570468 BOOK NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO. _ G {�I�q 1�it n t�[� ATV DEED r` TUTBLANX REGISTERED U. 5. PAT. OFFICE FORM 901 VRRMON7 — WARRANTY LGLL REV. 9/80 TUTTLELAV PRINT.PUBLISHER S. RUTLAND. VT05701 aim MI_TEL, INC., a Delaware corporation, with a place of business in of the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantor , in the consideration of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ten and More - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars paid to its full satisfaction by City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation located in 9f the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee , by these presents, do freely 015iliP, 03ra t, P11, (i!onbq anb (Eonfirm unto the said Grantee City of South Burlington and its heirs and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in the City of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: There is hereby conveyed in fee simple to Grantee, and its successors and assigns forever, a certain strip of land on the lands of Grantor herein in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. Said lands of Grantor herein referred to are all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor by Warranty Deed of dated , and of record at Volume Page s) of the South Burlington Land Records. Said strip of land hereby conveyed is for the purpose and use of a City of South Burlington street, being an extension of Swift Street, so-called, in the City of South Burlington. Said strip of land commences at the easterly side of Hines- burg Road and the southern corner of the western boundary of the Grantor's said lands. The said strip is a uniform width of sixty (60) feet and the said point of commencement is also co -terminus and coincident with the point of commencement of an access road thirty (30) feet in width to the said lands of Grantor. Said strip of land hereby conveyed further then proceeds easterly and thence south- easterly from the said point of beginning and thence to the lands now or formerly owned by the Green Acres Corporation. Said strip of land hereby conveyed is further more particularly depicted, denoted and described as "Possible Location Swift Street Extension" as shown on a certain drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., which drawing is recorded in Volume , Page(s) , of the City of South Burlington Land Records,as a part of said Plan as recorded in said records. This deed is executed and delivered pursuant to a certain Offer of Irrevocable Dedication by Grantor herein to Grantee. Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned deeds, plans, drawings and documents above referred to all in further aid of this descriptionand to the records, deeds and instruments therein referred to all in further aid of this description. This conveyance is subject to all rights and restrictions of record. TO 4UVX1 Unb to 1101b said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap- purtenawces thereof, to the said Grantee City of South Burlington and i tsheirs and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; And the said Grantor Mitel, Inc. for itself and its heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee City of South Burlington heirs and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are �Ilree front OjerU enrnmbranre; except as above stated. hereby engage to Warrant anb PPfeub the same against all lawful claims whatever, except as above stated. ,:412tWitness ljerCII, hereunto set hand and seal this day of June A. D. 19 81 ;41n JJusenrio of MITEL, INC. NZ Duly Authorized Agent 1�itatP of �Jern ont, SS_ At CHITTENDEN ClDunt� day of June this A. D. 19 81 , Duly Authorized Agent of MITEL, INC. personally appeared, and he him sealed and subscribed, to be free act and deed of (MITEL, INC. Before me acknowledged this instrument, by his free act and deed; and the (Title) WARRANTY MITEL, INC. Ir® CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON June 81 CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED FOR RECORD A.D., 19 AT O'CLOCK MINUTES M. AND RECORDED IN BOOK PAGE ATTEST RECORDERS FEE $ 1 OF LAND RECORDS CLERK II 5"4 6. ~" PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RETURN VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES NO.A 570467 MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 A. SELLER (TRANSFEROR) NAME(S) ..� MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE ffft Ik RJC JCk"it IIRJC JChLRiI a Fed I.D. # 9-1855641 BUYER (TRANSFEREE) NAME(S) MAILING ADDRESS IN FULL - INCLUDING ZIP CODE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER Burlington, VT 0540-1 -South • • Lo� A�TION ( uch a "173 Maple St., Burl' on" OR "The Itjt Farm Old Mill ad. T nbrid e" If r cry hoc ed in t o towns, ease Gst b h f �i `oaf' �D�l t Puri ng on, sermon Wrl g�it arm, so-caTled, on nesburg 1►i i r r the buyers acquired less than the entire Interest (Fee Simple) in the property, please state the interest acquired (such as Life Estate. Perpetual Easement. etc.) conveyance in fee simple of Strip Qf land ..PPROXIMATE LAND SIZE: I ACREAGE: AND LOT SIZE: FRONTAGE: DEPTH: Y, Please check the applicable boxes) describing existing buildings. E r Ej T NONE 3 ❑ HOUSE 5 ❑ BARN 7 ❑ MOBILE HOME 9 ❑ STORE ❑ FACTORY 4 ❑ CAMP or VACATION HOME 6 ❑ APARTMENT. NO. UNITS 8 ❑ CONDOMINIUM, NO. UNITS 10 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN). Please check the category which best describes the use of the property BEFORE TRANSFER as shown in the GRAND LIST BOOK 1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 ❑ COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL g ❑ CAMPORVACATION a 2. ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑GOVERNMENT USE 6 n OPEN LAND 8 ❑OTHER (EXPLAIN) Please check the category which best describes the proposed useofthe property AFTER TRANSFER 1 ❑ PRIMARY RESIDENCE 3 ❑ OPERATING FARM 5 J COMMERCIAL 7 ❑ INDUSTRIAL g ❑CAMP OR VACATION 2 ❑ TIMBERLAND 4 ❑ GOVERNMENT USE 6 ❑ OPEN LAND 8 ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) �: • THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX If such an exemption is claimed, you need not complete the section titled "TAX," but you MUST COMPLETTTE the section titled .ti � Ti&r� ggg8�rgdbihii`AqoHsS- , State of Vermont or any C;ITE F 1 ap EXfj[�OQ.jr n$tf Cfl dl L egrog a REAL PROPERTY VALUE INCLUDES the value of any notes, property., stocks, bonds. etc, given to seller. and the value of any mortgages or liens assumed by the buyer. If the transfer was ':. gift or was for nominal consideration, give the estimated fair market value of the real property transferred. ' TOTAL PRICE PAID $ none • confiscated. LESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $ REAL PROPERTY VALUE $ TAX PAYMENT DUE: FIVE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT(0 005)OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. BUT NOT LESS THAN $1 00 (FOR EXAMPLE IF THE VALUE WAS $10,000 THE TAX DUE IS $50.00: IF THE VALUE WAS $100.. THE TAX DUE IS $1.00). AMOUNT DUE. ' none Make checks payable to' VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES. If there were circumstances in the Transfer which suggest that the price paid for the property was either more or less than its fair market value, ' please explain: k • DATE SELLER ACQUIRED IF BY GIFT, DATE DONOR ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED. � not applicable. F A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS BEING FILED, CHECK HERE: ❑ A VERMONT LAND GAINS TAX RETURN IS NOT BEING FILED. INDICATE REASON BELOW (MUST BE ONE OF REASONS GIVEN IN INSTRUCTIONS.) ( 32 V.S.A. §9606 (Board of Health Division Regulations) 32 V.S.A. §9608 (Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Act) This Transfer is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations This Transfer is in compliance with Chapter 151 of Title 10. 1 of the Board of Health. Lj Vermont Statutes Annotated. (Vermont Health Regulations, Subchapter 10, as amended) PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER ` If exempt, state reason (see Instructions) l If exempt, state reason (see instructions) i S r Not a subdivision Not a Subdivision. y t i CERTIFICATION - Flood Hazard Areas - Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. §9606 Ilwe hereby swear and affirm that Ilwe have investigated and have disclosed to each party involved in this transfer, all of mylour knowledge regarding FLOOD REGULATIONS If any which affect the site hereinbefore described. We hereby certify this return and certificates required by 32 V.S.A. Sections 9606 and 9608 are true, correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. SELLER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE BUYER(S) SIGNATURE(S) DATE I 4 i I Ciby ty o ou ur ing on by DulyAuthorized Agent PREPARER'S SIGNATURE ► PREPARED BY 1► Richard Lang, Jr. ` PREPARER'SADDRESS ► . P Wll P.C. 192(PQb1 6) St. Burlington, T 0540 i TO BE COMPLETED• OR i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TOWN NUMBER TOWWCITY RETURN RECEIVED TAX PAID, BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. VERMONT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACT i DATE OF RECORD CERTIFICATE RECEIVED. 7 (� 0 6 BOOK NUMBER PAGE NO. RETURN NO. r LISTED VALUE $ GRAND LIST OF 19 SIGNED CLERK MAP AND PARCEL NOS. DATE RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL SPOKES, FOLEY & 01BUCH®WSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. 0. BOX 986 BURLINGTON. VERMONT OS402 June 16, 1981 David Spitz, City Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Proposed Digital Easement Dear David: (SO2) 862-6451 (802) 863-2BS7 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Digital easement. The conditions are somewhat harsh, and I would ask that you and Bill review them carefully. Please note that we need to obtain permission from Green Mountain Power Corporation. I also would like to be assured that there is a plat on record which depicts this easement, and that the description in the deed conforms to the easement shown on the recorded plan. I would also recommend that a paragraph along the following lines be inserted before the "witness whereof" clause: "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the City of South Burlington, its successors and assigns, forever, and the within Grantor does covenant that it is the sole owner of the premises, excepting the Green Mountain Power Corporation easement hereinabove referred to, and it has good right and title to convey the same in the manner aforesaid, free and clear of every encumbrance, and the within Grantor engages to warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims whatsoever." Please let me know your joint thoughts and I will communicate with Mr. Lisman. Very trul n , Richard A. Spokes RAS:mil Enclosure TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Inc. June 9, 1981 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05,1401 RE: Sewer Easement - Digital Dear Dave: ROUTE 2A BOX 308 WILLISTON, VT. 05495 879.6331 Enclosed is a proposed easement from Digital to South Burlington for the sewer easement across their property. Please have Mr. Spokes review this document to determine its suitability. Very truly yours, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. A" Richard P. Trudell, P.E. RPT/lad Enclosure t RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Digital Equipment Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation having a place of business in South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont (the "Grantor"), for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby give, grant and convey unto the City of South Burlington, a Vermont municipal corporation (the "Grantee") and its successors and assigns, an easement, 20 feet in width, for the installation, construction, operation, repair, maintenance and replacement of a sewer line, said easement commencing at the northerly terminus of an easement granted to the Grantee pursuant to a deed, dated January 27, 1977, recorded in Volume 131, Page 134 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, and proceeding therefrom as an extension thereof in a line in two segments ,to a point in the southerly sideline of Kimball Avenue, which point is approx- imately 10 feet southeasterly of sewer manhole No. The precise location of said easement is depicted as "20" Sewer Easement to be deeded to the City of South Burlington, from Kimball Drive to existing Sewer Easement" on a survey of land entitled Plat of Land of the Digital Equipment Corporation South Burlington, Vermont dated August 4, 1977, and revised September 29, 1977 and May 22, 1981, recorded in Volume , Page of the Land Records Of the City of South Burlington. This grant is subject to all covenants, rights of ways, restrictions and other interests in land of record. Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to Digital Equipment Corporation pursuant to a warranty deed, dated January 27, 1977, recorded in Volume , Page of the Land Records of the Town of South Burlington. This conveyance is subject to the following reservations, conditions, covenants and agreements: 1. Prior to commencement of construction or installation of a sewer line, the Grantee shall obtain and deliver to the Grantor, in form suitable for recording in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, an instrument, duly executed by Green Mountain Power Corporation, (a) consenting to the install- ation, construction, operation, repair, maintenance and replace- ment of said line through, over, under or in lands which are subject to an easement to Green Mountain Power Corporation as evidenced by an instrument recorded in Volume 131, Page 444 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington; and (b) SMAN & LISMAN T70RNEYS AT LAW I COLLEGE STREET !LiNGTON, VT. OE+OI waiving forever any claim Green Mountain Power Corporation, or its successors, may have against the Grantor, or its successors, on account of the grant of this easement or on account of any installation, construction, operation, repair, maintenance and replacement of said sewer line or on account thereof, or on account of connection to the sewer line previously granted by an easement deed recorded in Volume 131, Page 134 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. 2. Any initial installation and construction of said sewer line or appurtenances thereto shall be undertaken in strict conformance to the plans and specifications therefor, dated March 15, 1981, prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., bearing project number 80129. Following completion of said initial installation and construction, the Grantee shall certify to the Grantor that such installation and con- struction was undertaken and finished in accordance with such plans and specifications and shall deliver to the Grantor "as built" plans certified by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3. Any installation construction, operation, repair, maintenance and replacement of said sewer line shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, and Grantee, or its successors, shall obtain and maintain all permits, licenses and authorizations required for such con- struction, installation, operation, repair, maintenance or replacement, all at the sole expense of the Grantee or its successor. The Grantee, or its successor, shall notify the Grantor, or its successor, if any application or request for a permit, license or authorization must be made by providing to the Grantor, or its successors, a copy of such application, request or demand at such address as may be provided by the Grantor, or its successor, from time to time; the Grantor, or its successor, reserves the right to prohibit the making of, any such application or request, but may not unreasonably withhold its approval. 4. Included together with such easement is the right to enter on the lands of the Grantor, its successor for such purposes, provided that such entry shall be reasonably necessary to the purposes hereof and that any such premises will be restored by the Grantee, its successors to its condition prior to entry, all at no cost to the Grantor or its successors. Any such restora- tion shall be deemed satisfactory upon approval, in writing, by the Grantor or its successors. Failure of the Grantee, or its successors, to provide prior notice of plans and specifications for such restoration will result in rejection of the restoration. 5. The Grantee, and its successors, shall protect, indem- nify and hold the Grantor, and its successors, harmless from and MAN & LISMAN against any and all claims, liabilities and expenses (including TTORNEtYS AT LAW I COLLEGE STREET ,LINOTON, VT. 09401 without limitation, attorneys' fees and expenses) for per- sonal injury or property damage (to the Grantor or its successors or to any other person) arising from any acts or occurrences on or in the right of way including from any act or omission in relation to installation, construction, operation, repair, maintenance or replacement or from escape of sewage or contamination therefrom in land or in water or air. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Digital Equipment Corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent this day of , 1981. IN PRESENCE OF: DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION BY Duly Authorized Agent COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF , SS. At this day of , 1981, personally appeared duly authorized agent of Digital Equipment Corporation and he acknowledged this instrument by him signed and sealed to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of Digital Equipment Corporation. Before me SMAN & LISMAN TTORNEYS AT LAW I COLLEGE STREET ILINGTON. VT. 05401 Notary Public SPOKES, FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 184 SOUTH WINOOSKI AVENUE P. 0. BOX 986 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES D. FOLEY JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI STEVEN F. STITZEL Richard Lang, Esq. Hoff, Wilson & Powell, Inc. Box 567 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: Mitel - South Burlington Dear Dick: May 20, 1981 (802) 882-84S1 (802) 883-28S7 ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL I have reviewed the various documents you delivered to my office on May 9, 1981, and have the following comments: 1. Offer of Dedication - Paragraph 4. In the first sentence you refer to a right-of-way being conveyed in fee simple. I believe the fee is actually being conveyed and not just a right-of-way. Perhaps you can substitute, "a strip of land" for "a right-of-way" in line 2. 2. Exhibit A - Pedestrian Easement. The terminology, "all and the same land and premises..." in lines 6 and 7 is a bit confusing. Could we substitute for that language the following: "which it acquired by warranty deed of..." The sentence which begins in line 10 is also confusing and perhaps that could be changed to read as follows: "Said pedestrian trial adjoins and extends along the entire southerly boundary of the Grantor." I also think we should refer to a specific volume and page number for SP3. This way the clerk can simply insert the recording information when the documents are received for recording. The Pedestrian Easement must contain the standard para- graphs I gave you previously. Richard Lang, Esq. May 20, 1981 Page 2 3. Exhibit B - 1. Again, is it possible to refer to a volume and page number for SP3 and SP19. 4. Exhibit B - 2. Again, could we specifically refer to the recorded plans. 5. Exhibit B - 3. Again, could we specifically refer to the recorded plans. 6. Exhibit B - 4. I would suggest deleting the word "underground" in the first line. Further on it indicates that the easement is for an underground force main, but the easement itself I don't believe should be referred to as underground. Again, I would like to see a specific reference to a volume and page number for SP3. 7. Exhibit B - 5. Same comments as B-4 concerning the use of the word "underground" and reference to recorded plans. 8. Exhibit C. Again, I would be more comfortable if we could delete the word "underground" from the first line and add reference to the recording data for SP3. 9. Exhibit D. This also should contain reference to a volume and page number for SP3. If you have no objections to the above, perhaps you could prepare the final documents, sending copies to David Spitz and me for review. When the Offer of Dedication and Deeds are tendered to the City, the appropriate transfer returns should also be included. I did not have copies of SP3 and SP19 when I reviewed your drafts. Is it possible for your client to send me copies of these two plans? Thank you. Very truly yours, Richard A. RAS:mi1 cc: David Spitz City Planner r HOF'F, WILSON & POWELL, P.C. Lawyers 192 College Street Box 567 Burlington, Vermont 05402 802i658-4300 Philip 14. Hoff J. Boone Wilson Bret P. Powell of Counsel Richard A. Lang, Jr. Thomas B. Bailey Michael Schein May 8, 1981 Richard A. Spokes, Esquire Spokes & Obuchowski P.O. Box 2325 1775 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Mitel Easements Dear Dick: As per our discussion of May 5, 1981, I enclose an Offer of Dedication and three proposed easements. I have only given you the easement descriptions since I do not wish to draw the deeds themselves until the descriptions are approved. The deeds should be easy and I think we could save a lot of time and paperwork by not retyping the deeds to insert any changes in the descriptions. Exhibit "B," as we discussed, is the "omnibus" conveyance in fee plus the easements. The water easement to be conveyed to the City is shown on Exhibit "B" which really must be seen on Drawing SP19. This easement joins with the electrical and sewer easement which ends up being a 30-foot easement after it proceeds from and ,joins with the access easement. We are agreeable to your requirement with respect to fixing the exact location of the Swift Street possible extension. Dick Trudell will give me the numbers and the like with respect to the extension either today or tomorrow. I will then draw the description for Exhibit "C" and send it to you immediately. Richard A. Spokes, Esquire - 2 - May 8, 1981 I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to receiving your comments, if any, with respect to the enclosed. Once you approve the descriptions, I will immediately have the deeds typed up and we can finish this matter. Yours very truly, Richard A. Lang, Jr. RAL/aeh Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles A. Thweatt Mr. Richard Trudell ✓1I1r. David Spitz P.S. I have just received the exact description of the possible Swift Street extension from Dick Trudell and thus also enclosed is Exhibit "D" herewith so that all the exhibits are now complete. RAL OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION This Agreement is made as of this day of May, 1981, by and between Mitel of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a place of business in South Burlington, Vermont ("Mitel") and the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City approved, on May 6, 1981, the construction of a plant by Mitel on the Wright Farm (so-called) in South Burlington as to which Mitel is or will be the assignee of a purchase option; and WHEREAS, Mitel intends to exercise said option to purchase and to proceed with construction, all barring unforeseen events; and WHEREAS, the final approval of the Planning Commission requires Mitel to convey now to the City certain easements for water and sewer lines and other conveyances as hereafter described serving the project; and WHEREAS, Mitel has consented to said conveyances to the City and to the provisions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning Commission's final approval and in further consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) in lawful money paid by the City to Mitel, and other good and valuable consideration, it is hereby covenanted and agreed as follows: 1. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying a pedestrian trail easement on the Wright Farm (the said land to be purchased by Mitel under the option is hereafter called "the property.") of fifteen (15) feet in width. Said easement is more particularly described in said Warranty Deed; and said deed is in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" 2. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying the following: (a) Conveyance in fee simple of a waste water pumping station and the land underneath said station on the property; (b) Surface easement of way and access and underground sewer, water and electrical line easements joining with and under the access easement, all proceeding to and intended to serve the waste water pumping station; (c) Sewer line (force main) easement twenty (20) feet in width from the waste water pumping station easterly to a certain 8 inch, 260 foot cast iron sleeve known as the "I-89 Sleeve." (d) Underground water line easement, ten (10) feet in width, leading from a water main on the easterly side of the proposed plant leadinq northwesterly from the said water main to the utility and maintenance easement as set forth in sub -paragraph (b) above and thence in combina- - 2 - tion with the said utility easement to the waste water pumping station. All of the foregoing easements and the foregoing conveyance in fee simple are more particularly described in said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "B " 3. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying various future possible sewer line easements, twenty (20) feet in width, running across the property to certain lands owned by others. Said possible easements are more particularly described in the said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C11 4. Mitel herewith delivers to the City its Warranty Deed conveying in fee simple a right of way for the possible extension of Swift Street (in the City), so-called, along and into the property. The said right of way is more particularly described in the said Warranty Deed; and said Deed shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "D.". 5. Mitel hereby agrees that the delivery of said Deeds to the City is a formal offer of dedication by Mitel to the City of the various conveyances described in the said Deeds. 6. Mitel hereby agrees further that said formal offers of dedication are irrovocable and that each Deed constitutes a separate offer by Mitel. The City may hold each of said - 3 - Deeds after delivery to it and each offer may be accepted by the City under the terms and conditions thereof by recording that particular Deed at any time in the South Burlington Land Records. WHEREUPON, the undersigned have executed these presents on the day and date first above written at South Burlington, Vermont. IN THE PRESENCE OF MITEL OF DELAWARE, INC. By: _ Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: Duly Authorized Agent STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At South Burlington, Vermont, this _ day of _ _ , 1981, personally appeared , Duly Authorized Agent of MITEL OF DELAWARE, INC., and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of MITEL OF DELAWARE, INC. Before me, Notary Public STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At South Burlington, Vermont, this _ day of 1981, personally appeared , Duly Authorized Agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and he acknowleedged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, Notary Public - 4 - EXHIBIT "A" (Description of Pedestrian Easement) A certain easement and right of way 15 (fifteen) feet in width is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity for the purpose of a surface pedestrian trail and right of way for the purpose of passing and repassing by the general public along the Grantor's land in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, which is all and the same land and premises as conveyed to the Grantor herein by Warranty Deed of , dated , and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume , Page(s) Said pedestrian trail proceeds along on the said land of Grantor the southern border of said land. The pedestrian trail easement hereby conveyed is more particularly described, depicted and set forth on a certain drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. - 5 - EXHIBIT "B" (Description of Pumping Station Conveyance and Various Easements) 1. A certain waste water pumping station and the land underneath said station is hereby conveyed to Grantee in fee simple, its successors and assigns forever. Said waste water pumping station and the land underneath it are located on the lands of Grantor herein, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, which lands of Grantor are all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor herein by Warranty Deed of , and dated , and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume , Page(s) . Said waste water pumping station and the land thereunder are more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, '1981, and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") and dated March 15, 1981, which are part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. - 6 - 2. A surface easement and right of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity on and along the aforesaid land of Grantor. Said easement commences at a width of twenty (20) feet, and commences at a certain parking lot for the handicapped and thence proceeding northeasterly (coincident with a gravel road fifteen (15) feet in width on said easement) and then becoming twenty (20) and then thirty (30) feet in width and proceeding (coincident with said gravel road) easterly over and along an underground combined utility easement for sewer ("sanitary"), water and electrical lines to the aforesaid waste water pumping station. Said easement of way and access is hereby conveyed for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and/or restoring the said waste water pumping station and its equipment, as well as the underground sewer, electrical and water lines (in the easement hereafter conveyed) leading to said station. The said easement and right of way is more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981 and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 3. An underground combined utility easement and right - 7 - of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity for certain sewer, water and electrical lines under and along the aforesaid lands of Grantor herein for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing the said sewer, water and electrical lines. Said easement is a uniform twenty (20) feet and then thirty (30) feet in width. Said easement commences at a point denoted as "K Section Line" and thence proceeds easterly to the said waste water pumping station and is intended to service said station. The said easement is more particularly shown, depicted and described on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981 and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981 all as perpared by Trudel1 Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 4. An underground easement and right of way of a uniform twenty (20) feet in width is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity under and alonq the aforesaid lands of Grantor. Said easement is for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing an underground force main sewer line, with said easement extending ten (10) feet on either side of said line and sewer. Said easement - 8 - begins at a certain waste water pumping station, so-called, and thence proceeds easterly to a certain 8 inch, 260 foot iron "sleeve" known as the "I-89 Sleeve." Said underground easement and right of way is more particularly shown, depicted and described on a certain drawinq numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by TrudelI Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 5. An underground easement and right of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity under and along the said lands of Grantor. Said easement is for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing a certain water line, with said easement being ten (10) feet in uniform width with five (5) feet extending on either side of said sewer main. Said easement begins at a water main by the easterly side of the edge of the Mitel plant building on the aforesaid lands of Grantors and thence proceeds easterly and thence northeasterly becoming coincident with and proceeding under and along the foregoing easement of way and maintenance previously referred to in this deed, and becoming part of the combined electrical, sanitary and water utility easement also as previously referred to in this deed, all to service - 9 - the said waste water pumpinq station. Said easement is more particularly shown, described and depicted on certain drawings numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") dated April 1, 1981, and SP19 (entitled "Sewer Profile and Force Main Profile") dated March 15, 1981, which are part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudel1 Consulting Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. - 10 - EXHIBIT "C" (Description of Possible Sewer Easements) Certain underground easements and rights of way is hereby conveyed to Grantee in perpetuity, all being a uniform twenty (20) feet in width, on the land of Grantor herein in the City of South Burlington, Vermont; with said lands being all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor by Warranty Deed of , dated , and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records at Volume , Page(s) . Said easements shall be for the purpose of installing, repairing, maintaining, restoring and/or replacing an underground sewer line or lines, with said easements further described as extending ten (10) feet on either side of said sewer main or mains. The easements and rights of way conveyed hereby proceed to and serve property other than the subject lands of Grantor herein and proceed alonq the most eastern segment of the northern border and variously in the interior of the subject land of Grantor. Said easements are as more particularly shown, depicted, described and denoted as "Possible Sewer Easements" on a drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981, all as prepared by Trudell Consulting Enqineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. - 12 - EXHIBIT "D" (Description of Possible Swift Street Extension) There is hereby conveyed in fee simple to Grantee, and its successors and assigns forever, a certain strip of land on the lands of Grantor herein in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. Said lands of Grantor herein referred to are all and the same land and premises as were conveyed to Grantor by Warranty Deed of , dated and of record at Volume , Page(s) , of the South Burlington Land Records. Said strip of land hereby conveyed is for the purpose and use of a City of South Burlington street, being an extension of Swift Street, so-called, in the City of South Burlington. Said strip of land commences at the easterly side of Hinesburq Road and the southern corner of the western boundary of the Grantor's said lands. The said strip is a uniform width of sixty (60) feet and the said point of commencement is also co -terminus and coincident with the point of commencement of an access road thirty (30) feet in width to the said lands of Grantor. Said strip of land hereby conveyed further then proceeds easterly and thence southeasterly from the said point of beginning and thence to the lands now or formerly owned by the Green Acres Corporation. Said strip of land hereby - 13 - conveyed is further more particularly depicted, denoted and described as "Possible Location Swift Street Extension" as shown on a certain drawing numbered SP3 (entitled "Master Site Plan") and dated April 1, 1981, which is part of the Plan of Lands entitled "Mitel-Mountain View Industrial Park, South Burlington, Vermont" dated April 1, 1981,all as prepared by Trudell Consul tinq Engineers, Inc., with said drawing or drawings recorded or to be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. - 14 - April 16, 1981 Walt Bruska GBIC 135 Church Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear. Walt, In response to your telephone call, we will need the following legal documents for the MITEL application: 1) An easement deed and offer of dedication for a 15 foot wide ped- estrain trail running along the southern boundary of the property. The proposed trail should also be located on the final plat. D 2) Sewer easement deeds, bills of sale, and offers of dedication for the following: a) 20 foot wide easement for the proposed and future sewer main extending from the interstatessleeve to the Green Acres property. b) An easement for sewer lines extending to the northwest corner of the Wiles property and the southeast corner of the Wright property. This should also be located on the final plat. c) The sewage pumping station, a service road and a turn -around area. 3) An easement deed and offer of dedication for the proposed Swift Street extension. We have sample forms available for all of the above types of easements. If you have any questions �t specific procedures you can contact City Attorney Richard spokes. Any other questions about our requirements can be directed to me. Thank you, Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DS/mcg