HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0062 East Terrace1)EFa1�6- F F�z j
Tt�AF�1L /
FLOw TRA FRC- '
2)1t Qkc).h
Aft9w)(
N��TN
RECLA
SEP 1 1 tS92
City of So. Burlington
?0�SCcE�
Se�> ; tvvi3t4Z I T2-
PASCOE, Jeffrey & Nancy
62 East Terrace
Area in question zoned R-4 District.
Section 9.20 conditional uses, sub -section 9.202 day care
centers, Section 19.05 Conditional use applies.
Existing structure, three residential units.
Lot size 230'x200' = 46,000 square feet.
Proposed use, occupy one unit as a day care center for a maximum
of 12 children. Two residential units will remain.
CASE NO.
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
State of Vermont
WATER SUPPLY
AND
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT
LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED
WW-4-0535 Environmental Protection Rules
Nancy Tovey Pascoe Chapter 4, Public Buildings
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, VT 05403
This project, consisting of change of use of portion of existing
apartment house into a day care facility (dba Hilltop Daycare)
(for a maximum of 12 children, 2 staff, and meal preparation),
served by municipal water and sewer services located off 62 East
Terrace in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby
approved under the requirements of the regulations named above,
subject to the following conditions.
GENERAL
(1) This permit does not relieve the permittee from
obtaining all other approvals and permits as may be required
from the Act 250 District Environmental Commission, the
Department of Labor and Industry (phone 828-2106), the
Vermont Department of Health (phone 863-7220), and local
officials PRIOR to proceeding with this project.
(2) The project shall be completed as shown on the plans "Site
Plan" dated 8/4/92 prepared by Jeffrey Pascoe and which have
been stamped "approved" by the Division of Protection. The
project shall not deviate from the approved plans without
prior written approval from the Division of Protection.
(3) No alterations to the existing building other than those
indicated on the approved plan or Water Supply and
Wastewater Disposal Permit, which would change or affect the
exterior water supply or wastewater disposal or the approved
use of the building shall be allowed without prior review
and approval from the Agency of Natural Resources.
(4) In the event of a transfer of ownership (partial or whole)
of this project, the transferee shall become permittee and
be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of
this permit.
(5) The Protection Division now reviews the sewage and
water systems for public buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter
61 - Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit.
Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit
WW-4-0535, Pascoe
Page '2
(6) This permit specifically approves the two existing
apartments (one 2 bedroom and one 3 bedroom) and change of
use of the middle portion of the building into a daycare
facility for a maximum of 12 children, 2 staff, with food
preparation.
WATER SUPPLY
(7) The project is approved for water supply by connection to
the municipal water system. No other means of obtaining
potable water shall be allowed without prior review and
approval by the Division of Protection.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
(8) The project is approved for connection to the South
Burlington Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility for
a maximum of 1030 gallons of sewage per day.
Dated at Essex Jet., Vermont this 31st day of August, 1992.
Elizabeth A. McLain, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
By? Assanne Wyma
Assistant Regional Engineer
cc: Donald Robisky
City of South Burlington
Water Supply Division
Department of Labor and Industry
Dept. of SRS/Childrens Day Care Licensing
i O 0/L
04'e�
G�rrxe�
/z.�u-eJ p�e�J a. c�incl�u eoi�
A
61 East Terrace
So. Burlington, VT 05403
September 14, 1992
Zoning Board of South Burlington:
I'm writing to express my concern about a matter coming before
your board tonight The property owners at 62 East Terrace have
applied for a variance to have a daycare center in their home
My concerns are: l) That the conditional use variance will
follow the property when it is sold.
2) That in the future another variance will
be given so the center can accept more children
3) The impact of increased traffic on the
street
4) The possibility that a sign will be put
in front of the property and will impact the value of my property
which is directly across from the proposed daycare
Sincerely'
f -
Karen A Mills
61 East Terrace
city of South Burlington
Application to Board of Adjustment
Datetj
Applicant
Owner, 3easee, igent
Address �c'2, fcfi�C� q,,4 iL Telephone #
r�
Landowner
�;: /�[C� v Je. e et 5C Ad d r e s s E'2cS "T�,''F3
APPLICATION #
HEARING DATE
FILING DATE
FEE
D
AMOUNT -go ►
Location and description of property
Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative
Officer.( \J )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance.
I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section
4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a
month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal
a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a
hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing.
Provisions of zoning ordinance in question
Reason for appeal
The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies)
plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and
any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the
Board.
Hearing Date Si ature f Appellant
__60!____Do not write below this line
---------------------------------------------
SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE
In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117,
Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold
a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on
Day of Week
Month and Date
at Time to consider the following:
Appeal of
seeking �-' from Section
of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to
tee, ."
/Zo e / e-� &Vex
dz
G
--
�' �� ,.•��:�fi' I Lill � i�l-�'�Q.�.,...�� ...�-
x
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403
FAX 658-4748
PLANNER
658-7955
August 27, 1992
Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Pascoe
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Zoning appeal
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pascoe:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment
will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street on Monday, September 14, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. to
consider your zoning application.
Please plan to attend this hearing.
Very truly,
Richard Ward,
Zoning Administrative Officer
1 Encl
RW/mcp
CHILDREN'S DAY CARE UNIT LICENSING FIELD FORM
1.03 Sough Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676 TELEPHONE 241-2158
Name of Facility/Licensee /Van cq Poac.c"e TowK".Ar.',A 0s..,j.
Date -J7- _Licensing Specialist_ :.,y4c,
Items checked must be completed for licensure
SECTION R - HEALTH
1. Sturdy diaper changing structure
I
infant/toddler area
_2. Sink, other than that used for
food prep, located close to diaper
changing area. Hot & cold water
available
_3. Animals not present where food or
drink is prepared
_4. Hot/cold water available where
food/drink is prepared or where
utensils are washed
_5. Surfaces easily cleanable, in
good repair, & not toxic material
_6. Wastewater pipes located over food
prep, storage, or serving areas
7. Perishable food/drink refrigerated
at or below 45 degrees
8. Utensils, equip., food, & single
service items stored appropriately
Center 12 or fewer:
_1. Dishwasher available or two
compartment sink w/ drainboards
Center over 13:
_1. Dishwasher w/ rinse cycle installed
or
_2. Three compartment sink w/ adequate
drainboard space avail. for washing,
rinsing, sanitizipq dishes &
utensils
9. Artificial !ight11%g provides 50 ft.
candles, 24" above floor
10. Stairways lighted w/ handrails
11. Outdoor areas well drained & free
from depressions
_12. L&I approval for new plumbing. Copy
of worksheets sent to L&I
_13. wastewater pipes connected to sewer
14. Poisonous substances inaccessible to
children
_15. Roofs, walls, skylights, & windows
weather -tight & in good repair
_16. Floors, walls, ceilings,
windows maintained
_17. Surfaces smooth & easily
cleanable
_18. Porches, lofts,
platforms have handrails
_19. Lavatories have step
stools
20. 68 deg. temp. maintained
21. Toilet/sink avail. Used
by chil., staff, parents
& volunteers
_22. Bathrooms clean, w/light
& ventilation
_23. Bathroom ventilated to
outside
_24. T.paper available at
toilet & dispenser
_25. Hot/cold water in
lavatories from single
spigot
_26. Soap/Paper towels in
lavatories for children
_27. One openable window in
each room
Licensing Plan t1,1kZA QW
0
V WES. . �.1 MM
,
i� ep- //e ,A a Z.
CJ //UA jif
----- ---------
I certify that the foregoing has been discussed with me and a copy has been
left with me.
Signed Date
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #) ;,'fir Jt ,, 1<C-oe-
2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #) S�tyu�Q
3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)_ SC�r„hf�
L
4) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: roz L orSA —1C-_'U111WCV
5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable)
6) PROPOSED USE(S)
C°eyo-,r -- i2. CV�,
Ik Aum
7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units,
maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor)
8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 2-
9) LOT COVERAGE: building %; landscaped areas %
building, parking, outside storage %
10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ Landscaping $
Other Site Improvements (please list withcost)$
11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:
12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out)
Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours:
Monday through Friday
11-12 noon 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. 2-3 p.m.
3-4 p.m. _ _ 4-5 p.m._4�—; 5-6 p.m. _; 6-7 p.m.
13 ) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: TO )o - 9 ;. o A, '312 PyV)
14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION:
q 1 r ` ,-,
DATE OF SUBMISSION
DATE OF HEARING
urt Tk�- -F
SI
URE OF APPLICANT
PLEASE SUBMIT FIVE COPIES AND ONE REDUCED COPY (11 X 17) OF THE
SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
t/ Lot drawn to scale (20 foot scale if possible.)
Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing
buildings, existing landscaping.
C/ Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways.
Proposed landscaping plan (number, variety and size) equal to of
greater than the required amount in the Zoning Regulations.
Number and location of Parking Spaces: (9' x 18') with 22 or 24
foot aisles as required.
Number and location of compact car spaces. (This requires sepa-
rate Planning Commission approval).
Number and location of handicapped spaces as required.
by 20 feet in size, one per every fifty spaces).
Location of septic tanks (if applicable).
~ Location of any easements.
Lot coverage information: Building footprint, building,
and outside storage, and landscaped areas.
Location of site (Street # and lot U .
North arrow
Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date.
N
(13 feet
parking
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403
FAX 658-4748
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
a
October 26, 1992
Nancy Pascoe
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Day Care Center, 62 East Terrace
Dear Ms. Pascoe:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact & Decision on
the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please
give me a call.
S n erely,
J e Weith,
City Planner
1 Encl
JW/mcp
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
FAX 658-4748
October 26, 1992
Nancy Pascoe
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Day Care Center, 62 East Terrace
Dear Ms. Pascoe:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed please find a copy of the September 29, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting minutes. Please note the conditions of
approval.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
S' cerel ,
C'
J e Weith,
C ty Planner
1 Encl
JW/mcp
PLANNING COMMISSION
29 September 1992
page 4
4. The plan shall be revised prior to issuance of a
zoning/building permit to show a maximum total lot coverage of
70%. The revised plan shall be approved by the City Planner.
S A zoning/building permit shall be obtained_ within 6 months or
this approval is null and void.
Mrs Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Site plan application of Nancy Pascoe for use of one unit
within a three (3) unit residential building for a 12 child day
care, 62 East Terrace.
Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Werth if all of the immediate neighbors were
informed. Mr. Weith stated yes. The applicant was required to
go to the Zoning Board for a conditional use and the neighbors
were notified and they were sent notices of this meeting.
Nancy Pascoe reviewed the site plan. The proposed day care is
going to be located in the middle two -bedroom apartment. The
play yard will be in a fenced -in area in the back of the
property. The traffic will flow around the rear of the building.
There are 5 designated parking spaces for the day care and 3
staff parking spaces on the opposite side of the building.
There will be two staff and a maximum of 12 children.
Ms._ Peacock moved the South Burlington Planning Commission
approve the Site plan application of Nancy Pascoe for use of one
unit within _a three (3) unit residential bu_i_ldinq_ for a 12 child
day care as depi_cted__on a plan prepared by Jeffrey Pascoe, dated
September, 1992, with the followint stipulations:
1. This approval is for a maximum of 12 children. Any increase
in children above the 12 child maximum shall require Planning
Commission approval.
2. The applicant shall erect small enter and exit signs to
pronerly__direct traffic access. to the _p.ro�erty_
William Craig seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Revised final plat application of Gerald Milot and John
Larkin to amend the layout of the residential portion of a
planned commercial development consisting of 150 residential
units, a 61 room hotel, 20,000 square foot movie theater (1,000
seats), 22,000 square feet of retail use, and a 3,100 square foot
fast-food restaurant with drive -through, 1175 Shelburne Toad.
D
9/29/92
JW
MOTION OF APPROVAL
PASCOE DAY CARE
I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Site
plan application of Nancy Pascoe for use of one unit within a three
(3) unit residential building for a 12 child day care as depicted
on a plan prepared by Jeffrey Pascoe, dated September, 1992, with
the following stipulations:
1. This approval is for a maximum of 12 children. Any increase in
children above the 12 child maximum shall require Planning
Commission approval.
2. The applicant shall erect small enter and exit signs to
properly direct traffic access to the property.
r
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
FAX 658-4748
September 25, 1992
Nancy Pascoe
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Day Care Center, 62 East Terrace
Dear Ms. Pascoe:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission
meeting and comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself.
Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, September 29, 1992 at
7:30 P.M. to represent your request.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
jJLcerely
e Weith,
ity Planner
Encls
JW/mcp
Memorandum - Planning
September 29, 1992 agenda items
September 25, 1992
Page 2
a
Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which allows
this property to generate a maximum of 194.5 vehicle trip ends
(vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. There is no I.T.E. code that
fits the proposed use. The applicant has provided traffic counts
for two (2) stores in the Burlington area. These counts indicate
that during the P.M. peak hour there would be approximately 35
vte's. I.T.E. estimates the office use to generate 7 vte's for a
total of 42 vte's for the project.
Lighting: All exterior lighting is existing and consists of one
(1) light on a 20 foot pole, one (1) light on a 14 foot pole (both
of unknown wattage) and six (6) 250 watt building lights.
Dumpster: One (1) screened dumpster will be provided.
Sewer: No additional allocation necessary.
Other:
--- the Fire Chief has approved the location of the new fire
hydrant.
--- the plan should be revised to show the correct amount of
office space to be rented.
3) NANCY PASCOE - DAY CARE CENTER - 62 EAST TERRACE
This project consists of converting one (1) unit of a three (3)
unit multi -family dwelling to a day care center serving no more
than 12 children. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a
conditional use permit for this conversion on 9/14/92.
This property at 62 East Terrace is located within the R4 District.
It is bounded on the north by a soon to be developed single family
lot, on the east by undeveloped land, on the south by a single
family residence and on the west by East Terrace.
Access/circulation: This lot is served by a circular driveway with
two (2) 15 foot curb cuts on East Terrace. No changes will be made
to the access.
2
Memorandum -
September 29,
September 25,
Page 3
Planning
1992 agenda items
1992
Circulation is adequate. Applicant proposes that traffic enter the
property at the southerly curb cut and exit at the northerly curb
cut thereby creating a one-way traffic flow around the property.
There are two (2) gates on the property which will be closed
between 10-11 A.M. and 3-4 P.M. during outside play which will
interrupt traffic circulation. Applicant notes that the gates will
not be closed during drop-off and pick -up times. To assure that
the proper traffic flow is maintained, it is recommended that small
and unobtrusive enter and exit signs be posted.
Coverage/setbacks: Building coverage is 6.4% (maximum allowed is
20%). Overall coverage is 28.2% (maximum allowed is 40%).
Parking: This site requires a total of seven (7) parking spaces
and the plan shows nine (9) spaces.
Landscaping: There is no minimum landscaping requirement for this
project.
Sewer: There is no sewer allocation necessary since the unit being
converted had two (2) bedrooms which required more sewer allocation
than the proposed day care center.
4)
L&M PARK- MULTI -FAMILY REVISIONS - REVISED FINAL PLAT
This project consist of the reduction in the number of multi -family
buildings from seven (7) to five (5). The number of dwelling units
will remain at 150. The applicant received a conditional use
permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment on 9/14/92. The
Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan on 8/25/92 (minutes
enclosed).
This property located in the rear of the L&M Park site is within
the Cl zone. It is bounded on the north by undeveloped lands owned
by Pomerleau, on the east by an auto dealership and the commercial
portion of L&M Park, on the south by undeveloped land owned by
Farrell and on the west by railroad tracks owned by Vermont
Railway.
3
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer
Re: September 29, 1992 Preliminary Comments
Date: September 8, 1992
SOUTHLAND (POMERLEAU DEVELOPMENT), SHELBURNE ROAD
This development should take into account the street planned in the
Fayette development also the extension of Laurel Hill Drive and the
tie in to Queen City Park Road. This network is also shown on the
official map.
GABLE AUTO SUPPLY (WICKS LUMBER) SHELBURNE ROAD
Plan date August 1992 prepared by Civil Engineering Associates is
acceptable.
L&M PARK, SHELBURNE ROAD
1. The rotary should -include concrete curbs on both sides.
2. The proposed sewage pumping station and force main shall remain
private.
JEFFREY PASCOE, EAST TERRACE
1. Drives should include entrance and exit signs.
2. Plan dated September 1992 is acceptable.
4. NANCY PASCOE 62 EAST TERRACE
DAY CARE CENTER DATED SEPTEMBER, 1992
PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME
I SEE NO PROBLEM IN PROVIDING EMERGENCY PROTECTION. THIS
PROPERTY WAS INSPECTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
INDUSTRY ON 9/3/92.
f�S��� Il�y CFF�
�2d� = 99Y`f'���Swv�. yl I'
Vz = A) oo
ggqqqqnn{V*d
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
FAX 658-4748
September 14, 1992
Nancy Pascoe
62 East Terrace
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: Day Care Center, 62 East Terrace
Dear Ms. Pascoe:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above
referenced project from Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please
respond to these and submit revised plans, if appropriate, no later
than Monday, September 21, 1992.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincex ly,
r�xr'Y ✓'�
RayiI►i og J. Belair,
Zoning and Planning Assistant
RJB/mcp
Encls
Memorandum - Preliminary Comments
for 9/29/ agenda items
September 2, 1992
Page 3
--- the Zoning Board of Adjustment on 10/20/86 in granting an
approval for the expansion of Wickes required that the
Planning Commission approve a landscaping plan. On 11/11/86
the Planning Commission approved a landscaping plan with a
condition that the applicant either donate $7500 for the
acquisition of open space land or install $9,000 in
landscaping. It does not appear that this condition was met,
there is no record of a $7500 donation and the plantings have
not been installed. This condition must therefore be met
prior to the issuance of a zoning/building permit for this
change in use.
NANCY PASCOE - DAY CARE CENTER - 62 EAST TERRACE
--- applicant should show where parents will drop-off children.
--- explain under what circumstances and during what times will
the gates be closed.
--- indicate parking to be used by employees.
--- indicate number of bedrooms in apartment to be used for the
day care center. This information is needed to determine if
additional sewer allocation will be necessary.
3
4. NANCY PASCOE
DAY CARE CENTER
62 EAST TERRACE
DATED SEPTEMBER, 1992
PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME
I SEE NO PROBLEM IN PROVIDING EMERGENCY PROTECTION. THIS
PROPERTY WAS INSPECTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
INDUSTRY ON 9/3/92.
No Text
No Text
i �
��
4-
�,�
�
�..
,,
PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington
on Tuesday, 6 August
City Hall, 575 Dorset
Members Present
6 AUGUST 1985
Planning Commission held a Regular Meeting
1985, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room,
Street.
Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman; James McClary, William Burgess,
John Belter, Judith Hurd, John Dooley, Peter Jacob
Others Present:
James Lamphere, Randy Echo, B. Vincent, Lowell Krassner, Rocky
Claybourne, David DeSarno; Jane Bechtel, City Planner
Since Mr. Szymanski notified the Commission that he could not
attend this meeting, the first item on the agenda, a discussion
with Wagner, Heindel and Noyes about erosion in Bartlett Bay
was postponed.
Minutes of 23 July 1985
Mr. Jacob moved that the Minutes of 23 July be approved as printed.
Mrs. Hurd seconded, and the motion passed 3-0 with 2 abstentions.
Continue Discussion of Sketch Plan for conversion of a 2-family
dwelling to a4-unit multi -family dwelling at 67 EastTerrace
Ms. Bechtel noted that the City Attorney has verified that the
project qualifies as a subdivision. He has further agreed that
the Commission could rule it a minor Subdivision as it a) is a
conversion of an existing structure; b) requires no new streets
or public facilities; and c) will have no increase in building
footprint. This will allow the Planning Commission to have only
1 public hearing.
Mr. Jacob remembered that 4 or 5 years ago a subdivision into
2 lots was denied, and Ms. Bechtel noted that a subdivision
across the street was also denied because it was zoned commercial
and the request was for residential use.
Randy Echo, agent for the building, outlined the proposed units
on the plan. He was unsure exactly where the 4th unit will be
located. There will be 7 parking spaces divided into a 3-space
and a 4-space area. There is plenty of turn -around space. All
units will be rentals and there are no plans for condos. Mr.
Burgess stressed that the building footprint cannot change with
the location of the 4th unit. Mr. Echo said he understood that
each unit must be at least 850 sq. ft. There is already plenty
of landscaping which will be shown on the final plan.
Public hearing on the project will be at the 17 September meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION 17 SEPTEMBER 1985
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular
meeting on Tuesday, 17 September 1985, at 7:30 pm, in the
Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
Members Present
Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman; James McClary, Peter Jacob,
Judith Hurd, William Burgess, John Belter, John Dooley
Others Present
Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Sidney Poger, The Other Paper;
Janice Hills, Byron Hills, Dick Thompson, Gregory Premo, Alan
Sousie, Royce Chambers, Gloria Chambers, Barbara Hamel, M.
Hamel, Mary DeFarge, George DeFarge, Scott Tower, William
Robenstein, Michael Kuhn, Ernest Ross, David Spitz, Webster
Thompson, Michael Simoneau, Donald Ready, Michael Dugan,
Ellen Walton, Wilbur Bull, James Sector, J. Chudwell, George
Drabble, Reba Drabble, Charles Cannata
Minutes of 10 September 1985
Mr. McClary moved that the Minutes of 10 September 1985 be
approved as printed. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion
passed 3-0 with Messrs. Jacob and Dooley abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARING on request to change zoning of properties
located at 3065 and 3069 Williston Rd. from R-4 to Ind-Com
Mrs. Lafleur advised that the properties are at the corner of
Williston Rd. & Shunpike Rd., extending 225 ft. into Shunpike
Rd. The adjacent Ind-Com property is 145 ft. deep. Mr.
Thompson noted that these 2 properties are the only ones on
that side that are zoned residential. Mrs. Lafleur said
there must be a 65 foot buffer between these properties and
the residential property on Shunpike Rd. If the existing
building were maintained, that would be grandfathered in.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning
Commission recommend the rezoning of the property located at
3065 and 3069 Williston Road from R-4 to Industrial -
Commercial. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Final Plat application of R. Echo, argent, for
conversion of a 2-family dwelling into a-4=family dwelling at
62 East Terrace
Mrs. Lafleur noted there are at least 3 residences directly
across from this property. Mr. Echo advised they have
complied with the Fire Chief's request and widened the drive
PLANNING COMMISSION
17 SEPTEMBER 1985
PAGE 2
from 10 ft. to 18 ft. and widened it in front to 24 feet in
order to accommodate fire vehicles. Mr. Echo added that
present landscaping seems more than adequate. Mr. McClary
presented photos of this property and property across the
street and said it looks like this landscaping has never been
maintained. Mr. Echo said the hedges are high because the
previous resident wanted privacy.
Mrs. Lafleur confirmed that each of the 4 proposed apartments
meets the square footage requirement.
Members then discussed the proposed drive in front of the
house and felt that area would look better with more green
than paving or gravel. Mr. Hamel, a neighbor across the
street agreed that a 24 foot drive would be too visible. He
noted that several weeks ago there were several hundred cars
on the street for a party in this house. He said he didn't
feel it was right to take a piece of land in a residential
neighborhood and make it into apartments. Mr. Souci added
that people live on East Terrace because it's a quiet,
peaceful place and he didn't want to see it become an ex-
tension of the University campus. He was particularly con-
cerned about parking, children's safety and the noise level
and with the possibility that the cul-de-sac would be opened
and the street would become a through street. Mr. Ewing
said safety is a prime factor for his concern. He noted that
50 units on a dead end street was the maximum, and there are
more than that on East Terrace now. He added that the
building has 2 curb cuts, one of which is unsafe because of
the grade. Mrs. Maher said she didn't see how the Commission
could reject the plan, but they would try to make it as safe
as possible.
Mr. DeFarge asked if there are restrictions as to the number
of people who can live in a house. Mr. McClary said that 5
unrelated adults can occupy a house provided they are not
paying rent; if they are, it then becomes a boarding house.
Mr. DeForge noted there are now 6 living in one of the apart-
ments. Mr. Cannata, owner of the property, said he had just
learned about the goings on at the building and this is a
violation of the lease. He said he has no intention of
building a university campus on East Terrace and will screen
all applicants for the units. He apologized for what has
been occurring and promised to visit the premisis immed-
iately. He said he would like to rent to professional people
and provide quality housing in a nice neighborhood.
Mr. Sector questioned the gravel road at the left of the
house and said it is not accessible in winter and the drive-
way is very dangerous. Mr. Bull said the street has gone
PLANNING COMMISSION
17 SEPTEMBER 1985
PAGE 3
downhill. Mrs. Stickney noted that lights from cars coming
down the driveway shine into her second floor and this is
very distracting. She felt the building has had a very
negative impact of the neighborhood.
Chief Goddette spoke regarding the drive and fire Icim'. He
said the state requires 18 foot fire lanes and also a 30
foot area in which to place equipment. Mr. McClary asked if
the 30-foot area could be in the back which would improve the
look of the front. Mr. Echo said he thought safety should
come before appearance.
Mrs. Maher said there was obviously not a meeting of minds
yet and directed the Planner and Fire Chief to work out a
proposal with the owner and agent and return with that plan.
Mr. Burgess moved that the public hearing be continued until
the first meeting in October. Mrs. Hurd seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously.
Consider site plan application of G.S. Blodgett for
conversion of building to a warehouse/wholesale operation
located at 75 Farrell Street
Mr. Spitz advised there will be very few changes to the
property, only interior renovations. The driveway will be
expanded from 30 feet to 36 feet. A handicapped parking
space will be added. They are adding a little parking in
front. The truck loading area will be in back, and there
will be a paved storage area surrounded by a 6 foot cyclone
fence. They have revised landscaping to relocate two willows
and, and a cedar screen, 6-8 feet high will completely screen
the storage area. The Fire Chief is satisfied with accesses.
Scott Tower, landscaper, advised there will be white ash
along the street, about 40 feet apart. The 3 white pines by
Cady's will remain. A low planting will be added by the
retail entrance and sign. White pine will screen the loading
area and back side.
Mr. Dooley moved that the South Burlington Planning
Commission approve the site plan application of Blodgett
Supply Company, David Spitz, agent, for the conversion of the
existing building at 75 Farrell St. to a wholesale/warehouse
operation as depicted on the plan entitled "Blodgett Supply
Company, Farrell Street, South Burlington, Vermont" as
prepared j?y North Country Planning and 4-Seasons dated 9/85
with the following stipulations:
1. A_ $6,000 landscaping plan is required. A $3,000
landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit and $3,000
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT
1) Name of Applicant
2) Name of Subdivision
3) IrAcicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,
4)
S)
applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, attorney or plat designer g
since preliminary plat application:
7 -3.5 (� L , ln� 3" if0F6 v
Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units,
property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property,
,�orrdevelopmental
timetable, since preliminary plat application: Gil---!T T,09"4M
Z' p-� &'
t four copies
a final se of plans consisting of a final plat plus
engineering drawings and containing all information required under section
202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section
204.1(a) for a major subdivision.
6) Submit two draft copies of all legal documents required under section 202.1
(11) and (12) of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and
under section 204.1(b) for a major subdivision.
az=
(Signature applicant or contact person
Date
October 17, 1985
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Prime Properties, 62 East Terrace
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the minutes of your final plat approval. Please be
sure to meet the stipulations contained in the approval motion.
Sincerely,
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
1 Encl
cc: Charles Cannata
)7/85
Jt3L
MOTION OF APPROVAL
That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Final
Plat of Randy Echo, agent for the conversion of the existing
two-family dwelling to a 4-family dwelling at 62 East Terrace
as depicted on a plan entitled Site Plan, Prime Properties,
62 East Terrace, South Burlington, Vermont" as prepared by
.
Krebs and Lansing and dated September, 1985 and revised 10/3/85
with the following stipulations:
1) Credit is granted for existing landscaping valued at over
the $150 required by the ordinance.
2) A 900 gpd sewer allocation is granted in accordance with the
sewer policy.
3) The Final Plat shall be recorded with the City Clerk within
90 days.
4) This approval expires in 3 years.
1V
b
PLANNING COMMISSION
8 OCTOBER 1985
PAGE 2
disappointment that there was no screening. Mrs. Lafleur
said that if parking is not in the rear, there is no dramatic
Mrs Hurd asked that if in
change from what is thw ere no .
the future more
to the Planning
recommending to
Brookwood along
noted there were
have no problem
parking is needed that the applicant
Commission. Mr. McClary suggested
return
the City Council that there be no parking on
this property to Dorset Street. Mrs. Lafleur
letters from both adjoining neighbors who
with this plan.
Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the
site plan application of Ernest E. Ross for the conversion of
the existing single-family dwelling to an insurance office at
329 Dorset Street as depicted on a plan entitled "Bessette
and Ross, 329 Dorset Street, South Burlington" prepared
J.H. Stuart with the following stipulations:
1. Credit is Granted for existing landscaping valued at over
the required $300.
2. The Barking area shall be gravelled and drain towards
Brookwood Drive.
3. If the gALaqe is removed, the applicant shall return to
the Commission for site plan approval of an use of the area
covered �2y the garage.
4. The Commission reserves the right to amend this site plan
approval after 6 months from the date of approval based on a
review �?y the City Planner of the use of the lot.
5. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months.
Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
3, Continue Public Hearing for Final Plat of Prime Properties
for the conversion of a 2-family dwelling to a 4-family
structure at 62 East Terrace
Mr. Echo indicated that the plan has been revised to
eliminate the circular drive in front and to widen the
existing drive to 18.feet expanding to 24 feet in the rear.
There will be a total of 9 parking spaces. Curbs will be
replaced per the City Manager's specifications, and the drive
will be upgraded to a quality gravel road. Mrs. Holland of
55 East Terrace asked if there was consideration given to
having one side of the street parking. Mr. Dooley said he
didn't think that was the answer to the problems on that
street but they could ask the Council to study the problem.
Mr. Sector said he was concerned about the steep gravel slope
PLANNING COMMISSION
8 OCTOBER
PAGE 3
since his children play on the street. Mr. Echo said that
when the property is upgraded, it will be a much safer road.
He said they Lo-vi (J petition for signs saying there are
children playing. Commission members suggested marking one
side of the drive as an entrance and one as an exit. Mr.
Chambers of 69 East Terrace said that it had been mentioned
that there could be as many as 20 people in the building but
there were only 9 parking spaces. Mrs. Maher asked that if
it appears that 9 parking spaces aren't enough, can the
developer just create more spaces. Mr. Cannata said he might
designate only 2 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Sector asked
if there was any way to provide landscaping that will be
aesthetically pleasing as their house faces this property and
they will be looking at 2 driveways. Mr. Cannata said he
will look into the possibility of planting trees.
Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the
Final Plat of Randy Echo, agent, for the conversion of the
existing two-family dwelling to a 4-family dwelling at 62
East Terrace as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan, Prime
Properties, 62 East Terrace, South Burlington, Vermont," as
prepared by Krebs and Lansing and dated September, 1985 and
revised 10/3/85 with the following stipulations:
1. Credit is granted for existing landscaping valued at over
the $150 required 12y the ordinance.
2. A 900 gad sewer allocation is granted in accordance with
the sewer policy.
3. The Final Plat shall be recorded with the City Clerk
within 90 days.
4. The curb openings shall flair out for turning movements.
The widened openings shall include new depressed concrete
curb.
5. The drive at the right shall be marked as an "entrance"
and the drive at the left shall be marked as an "exit."
6. The applicant shall place signs on each drive showing that
Eh -ere is no parking on either drive to the west of the
building.
7. This approval expires in 3 years.
Mr. Belter seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dooley then moved that the South Burlington Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council that they establish
PLANNING COMMISSION
8 OCTOBER 1985
PAGE 4
No Parking zones on either side of Brookwood Drive along the
property at 329 Dorset Street. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the
motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Jacob abstaining.
Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council that they study parking problems on East
Terrace in light of its present width. Mr. Belter seconded,
and the motion passed unanimously.
L1, Continue Public Hearing for Revised Final Plat of LTH, Inc.,
for revision of Cluster C & D of Harbor Heights to single
family lots, Harbor View Rd.
Mr. Krebs asked that only Cluster D be considered as
revisions are being made to Cluster C. The water study
indicates that this plan is an improvement over the previous +
condo plan and will result in .8 cu. ft. per sec. of runoff
over the undeveloped state. Wagner, Heindel & Noyes
recommends a 7-10,000 holding basin; however, Mr. Krebs said
there is no good place to put such a basin. He said they
felt they were being punished for making things better.
The Chairman polled the members, and a majority felt they
wanted to continue the hearing to further consider this
issue.
Mrs. Hurd moved that the hearing be continued. Mr. Jacob
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
5, Consider revised Site Plan application of Tony Perry for
Perry's Fish House (formerly Pappas' Restaurant) at 1080
Shelburne Road.
Mr. Perry said he has negotiated previously for a foot print
and parking plan but as they began to develop the property
they wanted to make changes for aesthetic reasons. They have
now taken out one curb cut so that they will have only one Shelburne (A
curb cut which will be wider. Parking will be sufficient to
accommodate the additions being made. They have moved the
curb cut to line up with the one across the street. They
propose to have plantings on berms in front and also an
aesthetic pond. The Zoning Board has granted a variance for
a deck. Total seating will be 265. Mrs. Lafleur noted that
this plan considers Clausons as part of the whole lot. Mrs.
Hurd noted that the Fire Chief wants the parking lot extended
to get fire vehicles in. Mr. Perry said he would be willing
to keep an access plowed in the rear of the buildings. He
has a sprinkler system and the building is masonry with a
steel roof.
Mr' Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the
CITY OF SOUTH BURLIN ION
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1) Name, address, and phone number of:
P o a 3
b. Applicant A5 A`aDJ r 0 !L iFcan M
1 t A - e rD
T,0. 0 3 1013
C. Contact .- • .
■ n i
2) Pur.pppe, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including
number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s).
. I _ _r Cv , e"i":.., / l,'i +7N 'a/, / r, kAi'\A /I "if IM )I- ( i
� _ IV I L ��rG • � 1
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc)
Q\AeA ;±
ACEA
4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties
('-ktA?.+-e-S P C A ly/` ETA AND h2e�aJ C CH 4CE
5)
Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements,
covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.
6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.
7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or
by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub-
division, and include the dates of such actions:
�- 1(') j 1( I<yVb'_O �'_J
8) Submit..four copies of a sketch"plan showing the following information:
1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties.
'2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all. contiguous land belonging to owner of
record and (b) proposed subdivision.
3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of
existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove-
nants.
4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets,
utilities, and open space.
5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic).
6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property
and surrounding area.
°h � 1 C �-
�ignature) applicant or contact person ate
PLANNING COMMISSION
23 July 1985
page 3
The applicant shall install a retentn•xnecnd er saeCerxed vel ,
xer He n e & • es an e
er •rm sucheras •x control as onnprior o Augus s,
as s approve v e
8. A snow fence shall be installed along the
® e s ream anur nA cons ruc ox.
9. TNe road through to Harbor View Road shall
•ccu ancy
top of entire length
be completed prior
_• p .
10. The Final Plat for the hotel pro ect and for the extension of
e roa rou o ar or View Read s a be recorded with e
�Iftv Clerkwi in _ ays•
Mr. Jacob seconded t
voting against.
Consider
at 62 as
tch Plan of R
rrace
+inn which massed 4-1 with Mrs. Maher
I--
Echo (agent) for 2-lot subdivision
Mr. Echo indicated this was the old Deslauriers house. It is
on a 46,000 sq. ft. lot and now has one apartment in the house.
The building is 3,000 sq. ft. The request is for a 3-unit building,
the new units to include a 2-bedreom apartment and a 3-bedroom
apartment. It is an R-4 zone, and this is a permitted use which
involves no structural changes. All work will be internal division.
Mr. Jacob noted that a similar request was turned down a few years
age and asked that the City Planner review the previous action.
Ms Bechtel will also research whether Commission approval is
required.
Mr. Jacob moved that the re uest be continued until the next
meeting. Mr. D®o ey seconde and the mo ion passe unanimously.
Consider sketch lan application of Bob & L nn Charlier for Park
& F y usiness on lot& 3, Gregory Industrial Par
Mr. Duncan explained that the project is part of the 6-lot sub-
division on Gregory Drive. A reprographics business is going on
lot #1. The proposed use would involve people parking their
cars and being shuttled to and from the airport. The building
would also house a minor service facility so parked cars could
receive some routine service (oil change, washing, filter changes,
etc.) while the owners were away. A $7,600 landscaping bone will
be required. The applicant will provide lindens, crabapples,
euonamus and also a cedar and lilac hedge. Mr. Gregory is re-
sponsible for 6 Norway maples to be planted on Gregory Drive.
Lighting will include lower lighting at the entrance and hither
lighting over the parking area. The applicant questioned the
City Engineer's request for concrete bumpers and felt there Were
other ways to delineate parking spaces. Ms. Bechtel said she
thought this was negotiable as Mr. Szymanski did not know the
other lot would be unpaved and used mostly for employee cars.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: October 8, 1985 agenda items
Date: 10/4/85
2) BESSETTE & ROSS, 329 DORSET STREET
1. Not good but better than first plan.
3) PRIME PROPERTIES, 62 EAST TERRACE
1. The steepest road grade is 16.6% or 16.6' in 100' for a
distance of about 50 feet. This grade will not be a problem.
2. The curb openings shall flair out for turning movements. The
widened openings shall include new depressed concrete curb. No
simply breaking out the existing barrier curb.
5) PERRY'S FISH HOUSE, 1080 SHELBURNE ROAD
No comments.
6) VALLEY AIR SERVICE, AIRPORT
1. It is my understanding based on my conversation with Walter
Houghton, that planning is underway for an access road to the
area from the Williston Road, National Guard Road which is
expected to be constructed next year.
7) ROBERT SHAND, VERMONT CUSTOM SHEET METAL, LOT #1 BELTER
INDUSTRIAL PARK
1. Driveway should be at least 20' in width with 10' return
radii to accommodate commercial vehicles.
2. Driveway will require a culvert.
3. I would recommend entire lot especially the intersection
corner be mowed at least once a year to prevent growth of brush.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner \
Re: October 8, 1985 agenda items
Date: October 4, 1985
2) E. ROSS, 329 DORSET STREET
PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE IN DAYLIGHT HOURS, PRIOR TO MEETING.
The applicant has prepared a revised plan showing the parking
at the rear of the building rather than the front yard as
originally proposed. The back yard is very small and has two
very large trees that should not be removed for parking. The
only alternative seems to be to park on the northerly side of
the building, perpendicular to the street. The owner's car
should either be parked in the garage or.if the garage is re-
moved.4the garage area should be gravelled for his car. There
will be a greater impact on the adjacent neighborhood if the
modest back yard becomes a parking lot. Furthermore, the
front yard can remain as it is to further lessen the impact
of this use change.
3) PRIME PROPERTIES, EAST TERRACE'
The applicant has removed the proposed front yard driveway and
shows an expanded 24 foot circular driveway around the rear
to meet Chief GoddettS°concerns. See Bill Szymanski's comments
regarding the slope of the driveway. This is an improvement
from the "parking lot" in the front.
4) LTH, HARBOR HEIGHTS, HARBOR VIEW ROAD
I expect to receive an analysis from Wagner, Heindel and Noyse
on erosion impact of this change from 30 multi -family units to
12 single-family lots. If it is not available, this item should
be postponed until October 22, 1985.
According to our regulations, (section 19.20) you may approve
a lot with no road frontage if it meets the 20 foot minimum
width, if there are no more than 3 lots served and if it is
served by permanent legal arrangements.
This revision is an improvement to the multi -family layout and
provides a better transition between the single and multi -family
units since the multi -family in Cluster A are separated by the
conservation zone and cluster B is separated by the street.
October 4, 1985
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: 4-family Conversion, East Terrace
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Planning
Commission. Please be sure someone is present to represent
your application.
Sincerely,
Jane Bechtel Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
Encls
cc: Charles Cannata
September 25, 1985
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: 4-family conversion, East Terrace
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the minutes of the September 17, 1985 Planning
Commission meeting. Your application will be continued on
October 8. Be sure to have revised plans to me by September
30.
Sincerely,
Jane Bechtel Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
1 Encl
cc: Charles Canata
Kno
9/16/85
JBL
MOTION OF APPROVAL
That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Final Plat
of Randy Echo, agent for the conversion of the existing two-family
dwelling to a 4-family dwelling at 62 East Terrace as depicted
on a plan entitled "Site Plan, Prime Properties, 62 East Terrace,
South Burlington, Vermont" as prepared by Krebs and Lansing and dated
September, 1985 with the following stipulations:
1) Credit is granted for existing landscaping.
2) A 900 gpd sewer allocation is granted.
3) The driveway a shall be enlarged to
meet the approval of the Fire Chief,.
4) The Final Plat shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90
days.
5) This approval expires in 3 years.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner
Re: September 17, 1985 agenda item
Date; September 13, 1985
2) WILLISTON ROAD ZONE CHANGE
This public hearing is to discuss the zone change of 3065 and
3069 Williston Road. The properties are owned by the Hills
and the Thompson's and are zoned R4. The proposed change is
for Industrial -Commercial.
Both properties have 150 feet of frontage on Williston Road.
They will be-grand-faf-herecl in for non -conforming frontages
and in one case, less than the minimum lot size.
The properties to the east (Roberts and Szymanski) are zoned
I-C. The land across Williston Road and across Shunpike
(Dr. Brown) is also zoned I-C. While the properties under
consideration abut I-C and are across the road from I-C
type uses, the area is still residential in nature. These
two properties are the beginning of the R-4 Shunpike Road
neighborhood.
3) 4-FAMILY CONVERSION, 62 EAST TERRACE
The applicant proposes to convert the existing two-family
structure to a 4-family building.
Parking is adequate with 9 spaces (2 in the garage area
under the house). A circular paved driveway surrounds the
house.
The property is served by City water and sewer. A 900 gpd
sewer allocation will be needed and there is sufficient
capacity to handle this. Existing landscaping is adequate
and somewhat dense at the front of the property. Credit
for existing landscaping should be granted.
4) BLODGETT SUPPLY COMPANY, FARRELL STREET
The applicant proposes to convert the former Lakeside Tennis
building to Blodgett Supply Company for warehousing/whole-
saling. The area is now zoned C-2 and this is a conditional
use.
Access and Circulation: Access is through the existing drive-
way that will be expanded to 36 feet in width. Circulation
is adequate through the parkinq lot and into the loading area
at the rear of the property.
MEMORANDUM
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From; James W. Goddette Sr., Fire Chief
Re; September 17,198S Agenda Items
Date; September 12,198S
1) Redwood Best Western
--------------------
Plans were reviewed on the remolding of the
restaurant area and at this time the department
does not see a problem with this project.
2) Ross Insurance Office;
----------------------
At this time I do n-t see a problem with giving
proper fire protection.
3) Vermont Structural SteelPropertyHinesburg -Road
- - ;
Plans reviewed and the following must be insta-led,
A. Water line installed per water dept. standards.
B. 1S Fire hydrants installed as marked on plan.
4) Cooley Office Center; Lot #6 Ethan Allen Drive
-------------------- ---------------
Plans reviewed and at this time I do not see a
problem with giving fire protection.
S) Blodgett Supply Co. Farrell Street;
----------------------------------
More information needed. A meeting is set up
for Friday September 13,198S With Mr. Spitz and
the Blodgett C.
6) �st Terr Apt. Complex;
Plans reviewed and the only correction needed is
the 10' Road must be inlarged to at least 18'
for fire lane and no less the 24' near complex
for fire equipment.
7) Creative Design Williston Road;
-------------------------------
Plans reviewed and only problem found is the
road behind the building must be no less then
18'
M E M O R
A N D U M
To:
South Burlington Planning
Commission
From:
William J.
Szymanski, City
Manager
Re:
September
17, 1985 agenda
items
Date:
September
13, 1985
ECHO, 62 EAST
0
TERRACE
No Comments
4) BLODGETT SUPPLY COMPANY, FARRELL STREET
No Comments
5) ROSS INSURANCE OFFICE, 329 DORSET STREET
1. Parking area shall drain toward Dorset Street and Brookwood
Drive.
6) COOLEY OFFICE BUILDING, BELTER DEVELOPMENT
No Comments
7) CREATIVE DESIGN CABINET SHOP, WILLISTON ROAD
1. There should be a wider landscaped buffer zone between the
residential property to the east.
2. There is a wider strip between the edge of the traveled way
Of Williston Road and the rights -of -way thgn shown on site plan.
Williston Road r.o.w. is 4 rods (66').
3. It appears that part of the site will drain toward the property,
to the east. Site shall be graded so that this does not happen.
4. It will be very difficult for delivery trucks to m1ineuv0r 110u11d
the south east corner of this building.
8) PREMO, BEST WESTERN, SHELBURNE ROAD
No Comments
0' t
soo
r�3Af' r.tr-
O�a4 ;
o• 4 , � 7.c � wioo�
J
_
L o7 4 � � 3
ly $ „,
13
59
/op' a 100' n i007" iou oa "e
s3
O /OD
0'd /00
19
6 a
U.
iVe o 92 U
e
14
N.
September 13, 1985
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: East Terrace 4 plex final plat
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Commission.
Please be sure someone is present to represent your request.
Sincerely,
Jane Bechtel Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
Encls
CC: Charles Cannata
PUBLIC HE/UU NG
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the
South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington,
Vermont on Tuesday, Septpmhpr 17 1985, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the
following:
11 Rezoning of two properties at 3065 and 3069 Williston Road
fLom R-4 to Industrial -Commercial -Properties are owned by Byron and
Jan Hills and Richard and Barb Thompson and are bounded on the
north by Williston Road, on the east by properties owned by Lawrence
and Shirley Roberts and William J. Szymanski, on the south by Paul
nd Nancv Godard and on the west by Shunpike Road.
'2) IFinal Plat application of R. Echo, agent for conversion of
eAisting 2-family home to a 4 unit multi -family dwelling located at
62 East Terrace. Property is owned by C. Cannata and D. Chace and
is bounded by properties of DeForge , D. George,the City of South
Burlington and East Terrace.
Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the
South Burlington City Hall.
Mary-Barhar.a' Maher
Chairman,
South Burlington
Planning Commission
4
r (06CEr"
...............
-- ------ -- --- ---- ---
- --- - -----
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner
RE: August 6th Agenda Items
DATE: August 2, 1935
2) EAST TERRACE, MULTI -FAMILY CONVERSION
The City Attorney has verified that this project qualifies as a subdivision. According
to our regulations multi -family projects qualify as major subdivisions. Multi -family
is defined as three or more families (units).
Although the ordinance calls for this to be treated as a major subdivision, (2 Public
Hearings), the City Attorney has agreed that the Commission could rule it a minor
subdivision since it is a conversion of an existing structure, it requires no new
streets or public facilities, and it will have no increase in the building foot print.
This qualification will allowthe application to proceed with only one public hearing.
The Commission should clearly state the reasons that this will be considered a minor
subdivision in order to distinguish it from future multi -family developments that
truly should be considered major subdivisions.
There is no prior application for this lot in either the files or individual recollections.
There was a proposed 4-unit DesLaurier Subdivision across the street that was denied
by the Zoning Board in 1980. It was zoned C-1 at the time and a variance was needed
for residential use.
A sewer allocation will be needed for this 4-unit dwelling and will be charged the
sewer fee. Nine parking spaces are required. Lanscaping should be shown for Final Plat.
3) PARK AND FLY
The City has a $30,000 letter of credit from Mr. Gregory for the completion of the
street and utlities. To date, the base is down. The letter of credit stated the
street is to be completed by August 5, 1985. If it is not, we will act on the letter
of credit. The stipulation of the Reprographics building on lot#1 required the
street to be completed prior to occupancy. There is no reason not to act upon this
site plan application as well in a similar fashion.
4) ROCKY'S CAR WASH
Mr. Clayborne will be providing -traffic information prepared by Roger Dickinson of
Fitzpartick-Llewellyn. (Enclosed) It was taken at the Essex Car Wash this past week.
Erosion Control information is also expected.
5) NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, 344 DORSET STREET
The applicant proposes to change the use of an existing building (formerly Climate
Control) to a printing business and the National Car Rental business. The property
is zoned C-2. The Zoning Board approved this for multiple uses.
VI-6- c&
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
August 2, 1985
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
RE: East Terrace Multi -Family Unit
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the agenda and memo to the Commission. As my memo explains,
this project is a subdivision, but the Planning Commission may choose to classify
it as a minor subdivision. This would require only one Public Hearing for your
Final Plat.
Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, August 6th.
Sincerely,
Jv�-&t�vuj
Jane S. Bechtel
City Planner
cc: Charles Cannata
July 29, 1985
Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Randy:
Enclosed are the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting.
The Commission will continue discussion of your request on
Tuesday, August 6. I will send you an agenda prior to that
meeting.
Sincerely,
Jane S. Bechtel,
City Planner
JSB/mcg
cc: Charles Cannata
1 Encl
C-0 rr\
i
b
vy-tcl t,,-
V-Y\(, `J�) u,&
�e C �. ) ct;,nv^e ► ur-� n,o,a
l-a'��o'S' . = �nr ck� -- �1I� tea► -coo , U��,,b . �' nip �'' , .
OA-
visten
`f.
rxu =_c
44
.A tee►,-ah. � . �-•.r..,, S�� .
9
NI rim
. a W, now
Of
'R34/
FAST TERRACE
SOT = Joao
Z36'
zt
l000 o+ /Sao i i'7oa 4 z a
1 VI
w oaf
i� NT- TS
Go�vs R u c i N A5,
Sd.�tRJr� �d/J 'ZdNiritsq
r'
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner
�
Re: July 23, 1985 Agenda items
Date: 7/19/85
2) HARBOR INN, SHELBURNE ROAD
Bill Szymanski has reviewed the alternatives of requiring Mr. Larkin
to install a 44,000 retention pond on site, or charging a fee for
riprapping the banks of the "north brook". He strongly feels this
developer should handle any run-off from his site and should be
required to build the tank, despite any conflicting recommendations.
Since there is no direct relationship between this development and
the major problem area in the North Brook, he does not want Mr.
Larkin to contribute to any off -site improvement.
All other issues have now been discussed and a motion should be
entertained.
3) ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, 3065 AND 3069 WILLISTON ROAD
The owners of 3065 and 3069 are requesting a zone change from R4
to Industrial Commercial. (see letter) The properties have frontage
on Williston Road. All other properties on Williston Road in this
area are zoned I-C. At the same time these properties are the
beginning of the Shunpike Road residential neighborhood. While a
zone change will produce a uniform Industrial Commercial District
along Williston Road, it also brings Industrial -Commercial into the
Shunpike Road residential neighborhood.
4) ECHO, 'EAST TERRACE ' �1 `t0'C,l,',3�ct`'• `''K1,�tal.'aq-..•'ti"'
v
The applicant proposes to subdivide, a 46,000 square foot lot into
two lots of 20,000 square feet and 26,000 square feet. There is
an existing two-family dwelling that is on the larger portion of
the proposed subdivision.
The frontage and lot sizes would permit 2 units, the smaller lot
and a maximum of 4 units on the larger lot.
5) PARK & FLY, GREGORY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT #2 AND 3
The applicant proposes to use lots #2 and #3 for office use, minor
auto service and short and long term parking for airport patrons.
Mini -vans will transport customers to and from the Airport. The
Zoning Board granted a conditional use permit for this use. The
property is zoned Industrial -Commercial and abuts Reprographics,
the Szymanski farm, and Gregory Drive.
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
ZONING ADM►NISTRATOR
658-7958
July 19, 1985
Mr. Randy Echo
P.O. Box 3100
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: Echo, 2 lot Subdivision, 65 East Terrace
Dear Mr. Echo:
Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Planning
Commission. Please be sure someone is present to represent
your request.
JSB/mcg
Enc is
cc: Charles Cannata
Sincerely,
Jane S. Bechtel,
City Planner
N
o
aor
Exsrs7-TivC
pszvE w�--
J
�
�
o
b�
V
5•
PLANNING COMMISSION
Sketch elan review
1 lot subdivision 4t 62 r
Terra
OCTOBER 9, 19r7
Kr. Ray Ploof said the proposal was to construct a house with two apartments
in it on a lot with 18,000 sq. ft. and 130' of frontage. The lot to be divided
into two pieces has an existing house on the south side. Mr. Ploof said there
was an apartment complex to the rear of this lot and that no covenants prohibited
the use. Mr. Jacob added that this lot was away from others on that street. Yr.
Ploof said the house would look like a single family dwelling and that it et
all setback requirements. It will fit in with the neighborhood. That street is
very long and it was suggested that a lot of traffic on that end of the road would
not be a good idea unless the cul-de-sac were o.:er.ed. It was determined that
the existing house on the lot could be made a duplex and that there were two ct-.er
lots on the street which could contain duplexes, for a total of 4 on the enti.-e
street. hr. Jacob did not think that many would be built, because of the v_l-le
of the land in that area. Mr. -roger did not want to see 4 duplexes at that end of
the street.
Site plan review, revised access, parking- and circulation for the former La-:e
Champlain Motors buildinz, at the corner of Allen and Shelburne Roads
Mr. Yichael Dugan said that the property had two existing curb cuts and that
they would like to close both and put in a new 40' wide cut. They would also
like to add 11 new parking spaces on the front of the property where the cars used
to be displayed. Trey would also like a new rear access road on the north side
next to the Bartlett property. This drive will be a dead-end and will be for
access to the rear of the building. Yr. Dugan said they needed the extra spaces
to market the building but it was pointed out that the site might have to have
some revisions once a tenant went into the building.
Mr. Mona said that building used to be a source of controversy in the area
because the Commission limited the number of cars which could be displayed and
that number was exceeded. It was suggested that the .minutes of the last hearings
on the building be researched.
Mr. Ewing did not think the Commission could approve the site plan until it
knew what business was going into the building.
The Commissionhad no problem with the access around the building or the
revised curb cut. Kr. Page wanted to look at the grading for the access to the
rear of the building, noting that some fill would be necessary and that there was
not a lot of room between the edge of the pavement and the l.,ro;erty lire.
Mr. Ewing moved to continue the hearing until 2 weeks from toniart,_ on
October 23, 1979 at 7:30 Dm at City Hall. Xr. bona seconded the motion. It was
suggested that the Fire Chief look at the plan. The motion carried unanimously.
:ublic hearing on final plat are-lication of Daniel and Leo O'Brien for resubaivi': r
of lots s, _
4 and 5 or ^u,. ..ess :ark North into 3 lots
Mr. rase said he was unable to locate either of the O'Briens.
Mr.Woolery moved to continue the public hearir., of Daniel and Leo O'Brien
for resubdivision of lots 4 and-5 of Business -ark North into 3 lots until two
weeks from tonight, October 23, 1979 at 7:30T_m_ at City =:s11. Yr. Jacob s(-ccr.ied
the motion and all voted aye.
The :meeting was ad,jourred at 9:15 pm.
Clerk
let z q
2.
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 13, 1979
He replied that it could handle part of the Quadrant south of the Interstate to
perhaps half way between the Interstate and the City line or a population of
19,000. Mr. Farrar suggested setting up sewer districts in the Quadrant and
showing which districts would be sewered in which ways. The Commission felt that
both bodies were working toward the same end, but using different words for it.
Mr. Farrar felt there was enough land in the City for 5-15 years of growth
without using much of the Quadrant. He asked if the Commission had discussed
the concept of transfer of development rights. Mr. Poger felt that if that were
done, the City should have some involvement in the action, so it could later
have some control.
The idea of having some commercial uses in residential complexes was
discussed. Ifr. Farrar felt that the only people who would like that idea were
the ones who did not live next to the use. Xr. Woolery said the use could be
planned as part of the residential development and buffers could be used. Mr.
Farrar felt that if the Commission really w anted commercial uses, it should show 2-3
specific areas for it in the Plan.
Mr. Po er brought up the question of designation of a large parcel of land
(100+ acres in the -quadrant for a park site.
Mr. Woolery noted that the City had a list of proposed roads and said he would
like to take more formal action to show proposed roads that are agreed upon.
Some are on the Urban Systems map, some on a City map and some not on any map.
Pfr. Farrar commented that no more roads could be added to Urban Systems without
removing some. He felt roads should be added to a City map.
Sidewalks were discussed, with Mr. Woolery commenting that Ms. Levesque, alas,
not present to speak for himself, wanted to see a City sidewalk plan showing
existing and proposed sidewalk links in the City. Children on Barrett Street,
who can see the school, do not walk to school because of an area without sidewalks.
It was felt that the School Board should be involved in working up or approving
any such plan and that the Planner and City Manager should discuss such a plan.
It can later become part of the Transportation Chapter of the Plan.
Mr. Jacob asked if the City could hire an additional person to give the
Planner and City Manager the help they need. The Commission feels strongly that
additional help is needed in City Hall.
Mr. Farrar noted that population figures calculated from people per unit
and school population figures did not match. Mr. Woolery said the schools did
not use 3.2 people per unit any longer.
The Southern Connector was discussed next. Kr. Farrar showed the Commission
the plan the Citizen's Committee approved for submission to the Council. A few
questions have been sent to the highway Department(see Council 11/5 minutes).
Re,-ular meeting - Minutes of November 6. 1979
Mr. Mona arrived at this point.
i"r. Jacob moved to approve the November 6. 1979 minutes and Mr. aoolery
seconded. All voted aye.
Public hearin on final plat a-% lication of Wallace and Margaret Blanchard for a
1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace k
Attorney Dave Nicholson represented the Blanchards. He said the lot would
be served by City water and sewer. The water line has been installed and a manhole
can be put in and the sewer run to the lot. The proposed home is somewhat lower
in elevation than the one existing on the lot but will have the sa=e setback as
others on the street. The duplex is intended to house one of the Blanchard's
parents on one side and a young couple on the other side. In order to obtain the
3.
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1979
proper dimensions and square f ootage, the lot lines are irregular. There will be
no garage.
Idr. Ewing noted that on July 25, 1974 the Planning Commission gave Mr.
Deslauriers approval for 17 lots on East Terrace and one condition of that
approval was that construction of any duplexes be approved by the Zoning Board.
Mr. Nicholson added that because the lot is in two different zones (R4 and R7),
they would need conditional use approval from the 'Zoning Board also.
Mr. Mona did not feel inclined to approve a lot with such an irregular line.
Mr. Ewing also brought up the question of traffic, noting that the street
was narrow at the north.end and that it would be hard for emergency vehicles, such
as fire trucks, to get in during an emergency. He did not think Creating more
living units on such a long dead-en'd street was a good idea. He also noted that
the street contained more than the number of units the Subdivision Regulations
say should be on a cul-de-sac. The Regulations call for no more than 50 and he
felt the figure was about 64. Mr. Ewing also felt that the intersection of the
north end of the street and the jughandle was not safe either and no more units
should be added.
There was some confusion over setbacks from the irregular lot line and whether
the minimum distances were met or, not.
I.r. Nicholson felt that two 'additional units on the street would not make
the difference between this area being safe or not and Mr. Jacob added that he
felt that the situation on East Terrace was created by its residents, who do not
want the street opened up so it is no longer a dead-end, and he felt that using
the situation to the detriment of someone who warted to move in was not fair.
Mr. Ron Schmucker represented owners of 14 of the homes on the street who
opposed the plan. He presented the Commission with a petition (see attached copy)
signed by more than 58 people. Yr. Poger read the petition.
I.r. Schmucker felt the area was developed as single family residences. He also
felt the two homes on the lot would be too close together and that the proposal
was not good planning. He felt the lot would become undesirable if the proposal
were approved.
Mr. Gary Mertens felt that if the Commission approved this duplex, there
were other lots on the street which could contain duplexes. Presently there are
no duplexes on the street, but if the precedent were set, more might be built.
Mr. Richard Bingham noted that the City documents supported the concept of
protecting the integrity of neighborhoods existing now and he felt that duplexes
would change the character of the neighborhood. He said people bought on the
street partly because they had covenants which stated that it would be a single
family neighborhood.
IY;r. Poger asked how the residents would feel if the proposal were for another
single family home and Vir. Schmucker felt many of the same problems would exist.
The residents did not like that idea either.
Messrs. Nicholson and Mona disagreed with the feelings expressed that duplexes
are undesirable and tend to drive property values down. ":s. Lillian Charrlin noted,
however, that this street was very close to the University and might house several
students, all with cars.
Pair. t:oolery moved to close the public hearing on the final alat ap,lication of
'aallace and Margaret Blanchard for a 1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace. A's.
:•ona seconded the motion and none voted no.
"Ir. Draper moved that the final plat ap-)lication of Wallace and "argaret
Blanchard for a 1 lot subdivision at 62 mast Terrace be denied. ',:r. Ewing seconded
the motion.
Yr. Mona felt the s:ape of the lot was unnatural and he did not feel the
frontage requirements were met. '•.r. Jaccb felt the arguments regarding the cul-
de-sac were weak and should nct be used. Yr. Ewing felt the proposal would change
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
tiOVEiBER 13, 1979
the character of the neighborhood, did not like the irregular shape of the lot,
felt there were safety problems and traffic problems and noted that this would
create more than the 50 units called for in the Regulations. Mr. Woolery did
not like the=crooked lot lines or the change in the character. Mr. Draper agreed
with the above arguments. He agreed with Mr. Jacob that using the cul-de-sac as
a defense was not fair, since it was desired by the residents. Xr. Poger did
not want to set a precedent for other duplexes on the street and did not want to
create another lot on a street which is as long and narrow as this.
The motion to deny carried unanimously.
blic hearin, on final lat a lication of L.T.H. Associates for a 1 unit
,artment project Windrid e A artments at 200 Kennedy Drive
Mr. Poger noted the return of the prodigal son, Steve Page, who tonight
wore a "black hat" and represented LTH.
;fir. Page said a landscaping plan had been shown. As many mature hardwoods
as possible will be saved. There will be one light in the parking area and some
entryway lighting. The City Engineer has asked for more information on storm
drainage. I
The issue of the sidewalk was discussed and it was noted that the topography
of the area was hard to deal with, since the land sloped down from the curb of
the road rapidly. The applicant has shown the sidewalk running across about 112
the frontage of the property, but on the west, where there are two large ravines,
the walk diverts off the right of way onto private property and contains two
wooden footbridges over the ravines and some steps. Kr. Ewing noted that such a
sidewalk could not be maintained in the winter. 'r. -Iona was aware that the
Natural Resources Committee did not want any filling done, but he wanted to keep
the option open anyway. N.r. Page said the amount of fill necessary would depend
on how far from the road the sidewalk were constructed. The farther away, the
more fill needed. For the fill alone, with 10' between curb and sidewalk, the
cost would be almost S10,000. At 5', it would be about m5-7,000. The cost of
the sidewalk is about $3,000. The Commission did not like the sidewalk as
proposed, and Mr. Mona suggested that a sidewalk 4-5' from the curb over the
ravines be considered. It could be the full 10' where fill was not needed.
Mr. Page then noted that this sidewalk would not connect to anything on either
side and proposed that money be earmarked for sidewalk construction when property
to the east or west is developed. If the fill were put in now, it could settle
for a while before the City took the money from the escrow account and built the
sidewalk. Mr. Poger raised the issues of inflation devaluing the money left for
the sidewalk and the issue of a developer selling the property as'condominiums,
for example and then disclaiming responsibility to live up to conditions of approval.
In the meantime the condominium owners also disclaim responsibility. He asked the
Planner to look into stipulations which bar a developer from selling before
stipulations are met. Also on that subject, he asked the Commission to consider
not approving any development proposed by a developer who has done what is described
above, such as ICV, until all stipulations have been met, to the satisfaction of
the Commission.
A light at the curb cut to the property was suggested, for safety reasons.
The emergency access to the adjoining property was shown. It is in the form
of an easement. This developer does not want this to be a major access when the
rroperty on that side is developed. They show a 30' easement for emergency access
with a gate provision to be maintained by others. The access is then available to
the next developer. Mr. 'roger said the easement could be there without paving or
a gate until the next developer went in, but he felt there should be some cost to
this developer. :r. rage felt this site did not need the access and said the next
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1) Name, address, and phone number of:
a. Owner of record 6y 4e j. t' f=Ar Y- 1!14P�613P
L4a02
b. Applicant 1!! 1p
c. Contact person
.41
2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development,
including number of lots, units, or parcels involved as well
as proposed use(s).
,��% :�'z�% //r1 �.t'_.� � �yt�� � f L 1'�,r�C� tJ ,.r/y�/9•�T �L'�/��P l�t�'
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple,
option, etc) /'r 5/•M i'LP
T
4) Namesof owners of record of all contiguous properties
5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as
easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.
-2-
6) Proposed extension* relocation, or modification of
municipal facilities such as sewerage, water supply,
streets, storm drainage, etc.
�7 To L
fs-7i
7) Describe any actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
or previous actions by the South Burlington Planning Co;n-nission,
which affect the proposed subdivision anpinclude dates:
8) Attach a sketch plan showing all information required under
items 2 through 7 on P. 5 of the Subdivision Regulations.
(signature) applican
1
contact person
FOR OFFICE USE
da
- submission of application and sketch plan to administrativdate
officer
- this proposal is classified as a major or minor subdivision
- application deemed complete
- proposal tentatively scheduled for -first Planning COZ-nission meeting on
Confirmed For
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Stephen Page, former Planner
Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items
Date: 10/5/79
#2 Business Park North Resubdivision
There are no substantive issues to be resolved, and no changes to the plan
since you last saw it.
#:5 Spafford Subdivision (now called "Brookwood")
The plan has been revised to satisfy the conditions of preliminary plat
approval, a draft of the convenants has been approved by Dick Spokes which
will preserve the important concept of building envelopes. I have a list of
minor modifications which pertain to the legal do currents and can be in-
corporated into a motion of approval.
#4 Vermont Broadcasting Subdivision
All is O.K.
#5 Nowland Subdivision
I suggest the final plat carry the notation, "Reserved for Future City Street",
immediately south of lot #2, to make it perfectly clear to the lot buyer where
access to the balance of the land should be located, and where the potential east -west
street may go.
#6 1 lot subdivision at 162 East Terrace
The division of a 1 + acre lot, is proposed to create a.6 acre lot with an existing
dwelling on it, and a.4 acre lot (large enough for a duplex). All City services
are at the site. The existing dwelling should be plotted on the plan to insure that
the new dividing line does not create any non -conforming situations.
#7 Site Plan Review, Plywood Ranch
The applicant has agreed to improve screening and revise landscaping. The re-
visions to the plan will be presented at the meeting.
#8 Site Plan Review for former Lake Champlain Motors buildi
The building's owners wish to obtain site plan approval for revisions to existing
access, parking, and circulation, to serve a future tenant who is as yet un-
determined. I assume this is'being done to improve the marketability' of the proposal.
Access is substantially improved, through the closing of two old curb cuts on Allen
Road, and the installation of a new one farther away from Shelburne Road. Parking is
being increased to a total of 42 spaces; circulation is sufficient, although I
question the :advisability of the dead end service road to the north of the building.
Also, the grading plan doesn't make it clear whether or not fill or surface water
will be divertedfi�, the adjoining property to the north. In any event, there should
be a site plan review of this property when a particular client has been found.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David Spitz, City Planner
Re: Agenda Items for 11/13/79
Date: 11/9/79
# Blanchard Subdivisiont 162 East Terrace
Proposed lot meets zoning requirements for the R4 zone - sufficient lot
size for a single family house or duplex, sufficient setbacks from the existing
house, and sufficient frontage for both lots. In order to meet these requirements
irregular lot lines have been created. The Zoning Board will consider the re-
quest for a duplex at their November 26 meeting.
#3 WindridQe Apartments at 200 Kennedv Drive
The easement to the adjacent property for secondary or emergency access -has
been shown on the plat. Legal aspects of the easement should be reviewed.
Sidewalks: The Natural Resources Committee has recommended that no filling
into the C-0 district take place for purposes of building a sidewalk. Applicant
has proposed a peastone footpath with 2 footbridges across the streams to be
located outside of the street right-of-way. Because of the footbridges and the
steepness of the path at points the City will not be able to maintain the footpath.
However, the possibility of an easement for public access with no maintenance
reasponsibilities should be reviewed.
Watermain layout has been approved.
#4 Stonehedge, Phase II
Engineering data on individual clusters is incomplete. Certain cluster re-
locations may take place if a planned land swap occurs in connection with a
recreational grant that the City is seeking. Details on finished building grades,
drainage, sewer elevations, walkways and other items will be presented prior
to construction of each individual cluster.
Roadway status remains to be determined. Applicant requests private,
City Manager wants public. Proposed streets are 20' paved width with swails
for drainage. Details for the road base are equivalent to public streets. If
public streets are required, building setbacks should be addressed.
Walkways should be provided throughout the development to the public street
in addition to the proposed linkage between buildings and parking lots.
Cluster "M" has been relocated to maintain existing trees.
Easements for public sewer and water mains should be provided.
Review by fire chief is incomplete.
#5 McDonalds at 1225 Williston Road
City attorney's opinion is that McDonalds' proposed lease of land from the
Citgo station will increase the degree of nonconformity of the Citgo lot in
violation of the City's zoning regulation. Therefore the City Attorney re-
commends denial of the application.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Blanchard Subdivision, East Terrace
Date: 11/9/79
I. In order to provide sewer service to this lot, a cut would have to be made
in the new street plus ledge removal. It would be my recommendation to install a
manhole in the service line serving the existing house and connecting this house
to this manhole. An easement will have to be provided to the new lot.
2. I am not in favor of creating such an irregular shaped lot just to get the
required square footage.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: David Spitz, Planner
Re: Stipulations and/or fact finding - Blanchard Subdivision
Date: 11/9/79
For the final plat application of Wallace and Margaret Blanchard for
a 1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace,, as depicted on a plan entitled "Proposed
Lot Subdivision for Wallace Blanchard11 dated 10/1/79 and prepared by Palmer
Company Ltd.
Stipulations:
1. The "remaining lot" of 27,955 square feet shall be numbered as lot 41, and
the "proposed lot" of 18,045 square feet shall be numbered as lot #2.
2. The sewer line serving lot #2 shall be connected via a manhole to the
existing sewer line serving the Blanchard house rather than directly to the
street.
3. Lot #1 shall be burdened with easements in favor of lot #2 for the sewer
line.
4. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days.
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175
Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, November 13 ,
1979. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following:
#1. Final application of Wallace & Margaret Blanchard to subdivide a one (1)
acre lot into two lots (.6 acre and .4 acre) located at 62 East Terrace. The
proposed subdivision is bounded by properties -of Daniel George, George Deforge
and the Quarry Hill Tennis Club.
#2. Final plat application of L.T.H. Associates to construct a 17 unit apartment
complex on a 2.5 acre parcel directly southeast of 200 Kennedy Drive. The proposed
subdivision is bounded by Kennedy Drive on the northwest, and on the east and south
by lands of Forest Park Realty Corporation.
#3. Final plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for subdivision approval of
Phase II of the Stonehedge development; Phase II consists of 109 condominium units,
and is bounded on the west by lands of the City of South Burlington, on the north
by Phase 1, on the east by lands of Campbell,Blanchard, Mellish, Lawlor an
Koplewitz and on the south by lands of Nowland.
Copies of the applications are available
for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall.
Sidney B. Poger
Chairman
South Burlington
Planning Commission
October 27, 1979
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175
Williston Road, South .Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, November 13 ,
1972_. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following:
Subdivision of a one (1) acre lot into two lots (.6 acre and .4 acre) located
at 62 East Terrace bounded by properties of Daniel George, George Deforge,
and Quarry Hill Tennis Club. Parcel of land in question is owned by Wallace _
& Margaret Blanchard, 289 College Street, Burlington, Vermont.
Copies of the subdivision plan are available
for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall.
Sidney B. Poger
Chairman
South Burlington
Planning Commission
October 27, 1979
E
it
LAW OFFICES OF
E_WING & SPOKES
86 ST. PAUL STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401
,P-_in1, 7,
'-illiam J. Szymanski
City '''anager
1175 V ill.iston *goad
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
PZ: opinion No. 60
subdivision zpplication of Deslauriers
Dear bJ.11:
The P_arning Co:-i7dssy on hG s asked a couple of Guest~ions con-
cr=ning the subdivision proposal recently submitted k,y fir. Deslauriers.
It is ray understanding that some of the proposed lots are divided by a
boundary line between two zoning districts. it is my recollection that
4z..ie lots have a depth of 140 feet from the proposed street in the R-4
dIA-strict, and an additional 40 feet, which would be in the rear portion
of t:ie lots, is in the R-7 district. Single and tiro-faidly dNvellings
are pc:ri:?itted in the R-4 district, but only multi -family dwellings in
I.T. " -7. If a developer wishes to utilize the lots for two-family
dwellings, he would be unable to do so unless the R-7 land were classi-
fied as R-4.
It appears that Section 13.70 (8) of cur zoning regulations is
de•Agned to take care of this type of problen. 17nd,r this Section, the
ZoDing Board of Adjust. -lent ray in effect extend the district boundary
1)_nes a maxinum of 50 feet beyond the district line, which in this case
would permit the developer to utilize all of the subject property for
R--4 purposes. If the developer wishes to construct two-family dwellings
can these lots, he should submit an application for a conditional use
under Section 13.70 (6) .
The only other way the situation can be handled is by amendment
to the zoning map, which is a fairly lengthy Process.
The Planning CG::z.«ission would also 1:F "Ke further interpretation
of 24 'VISA S4415 (5) . The language in gvestion reads:
"That w'nc-re indicated her the plan, the plot shall show
a park or parks suitably located for playground or other
recreation purposes, if the areas so do not
c,,cecd 1'!'.-jre than 1 5'. Cow the area :'1 the
rlize language "v he re indicated by the plan" seer.:s to require
tnrlt the parks be depicted on the land use rap incorporated in the
J
;I
William J. Szymanski
LAW OFFICES OF
EWING & SPOKES
86 ST. PAUL STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401
_2_
Jane 7, 1974
Comprehensive Plan. This interpretation, however, may lead to a
planning impossibility, and I would prefer to construe the phrase as
requiring language in the master plan which in a general sense promotes
the esit.ablisiurnent of ne iohLorhood parks. I, therefore, would conclude
that the Planning Corrnn ission, in its judg7ent could insist that the
subdivision plat dE:pict a pa?- suitably located for recreational
purposes, if the Qi'S ignated area does not: exco d TRore than 15% of the
entire area of 1--he Plat.
In connection with t:he park issue, I uo not feel that the zoning
daistrict in which the proposed part, is situated is of any relevance.
Section 13.70 of our zoning regulations indicates that all territory
anne,-.ed to Che City for park and recreation, use shall he considered
within the park and recreation district.
r;'he other concerns of the Planning CCTfan?ission in construing the
language of 24 VSn §4415 (5) are sufficiently covered in opinion No.
35, which is dated October 9, 1973.
PAS: nm
cc: Richard - . !lard
zoning Mministrator
Very truly yours,
Richard A�- pokes
�.
,.
�� _ 1P1 � m
;�..
5
}
-
S
y
� 1
I
t
fi
r
y
w
r 1it
Y�
lY
rr
1
�
f
i
: �
f
J3
t r
I
1
I
Y
NOTES FROM THE DESK
OF DICK WARD.
- 7-- r v ,�, G' A Ale
/0 /"-"14 A1,U
5e.:3 .O eJr S, o .cl
e
2.
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 13, 1979
He replied that it could handle part of the Quadrant south of the Interstate to
perhaps half way between the Interstate and the City line or a population of
19,000. Mr. Farrar suggested setting up sewer districts in the Quadrant and
showing which districts would be sewered in which ways. The Commission felt that
both bodies were working toward the same end, but using different words for it.
Mir. Farrar felt there was enough land in the City for 5-15 years of growth
without using much of the Quadrant. He asked if the Commission had discussed
the concept of transfer of development rights. Mr. Poger felt that if that were
done, the City should have some involvement in the action, so it could later
have some control.
The idea of having some commercial uses in residential complexes was
discussed. 11r. Farrar felt that the only people who would like that idea were
the ones who did not live next to the use. 'Xr. Woolery said the use could be
planned as part of the residential development and buffers could be used. Mr.
Farrar felt that if the Commission really wanted commercial uses, it should show 2-3
specific areas for it in the Plan.
iIr. Po er brought up the question of designation of a large parcel of land
(100+ acres in the Quadrant for a park site.
Mr. Foolery noted that the City had a list of proposed roads and said he would
like to take more formal action to show proposed roads that are agreed upon.
Some are on the Urban Systems map, some on a City map and some not on any map.
Pax. Farrar commented that no more roads could be added to Urban Systems without
removing some. He felt roads should be added to a City map.
Sidewalks were discussed, with Mr. Woolery commenting that Mr. Levesque, alas,
not present to speak for himself, wanted to see a City sidewalk plan showing
existing and proposed sidewalk links in the City. Children on Barrett :street,
who can see the school, do not walk to school because of an area without sidewalks.
It was felt that the School Board should be involved in working up or approving
any such plan and that the Planner and City Manager should discuss such a plan.
It can later become part of the Transportation Chapter of the Plan.
Mr. Jacob asked if the City could hire an additional person to give the
Planner and City Manager the help they need. The Commission feels strongly that
additional help is needed in City Hall.
Mr. Farrar noted that population figures calculated from people per unit
and school population figures did not match. Mr. Woolery said the schools did
not use 3.2 people per unit any longer.
The Southern Connector was discussed next. Kr. Farrar showed the Commission
the plan the Citizen's Committee approved for submission to the Council. A few
questions have been sent to the Highway Department(see Council 11/5 minutes).
Rerular meeting - Minutes of November 6, 1979
:fir. Mona arrived at this point.
Mr. Jacob moved to approve the November 6, 1979 minutes and Xr. oolery
seconded. All voted aye.
Public hearing:, on final plat a plication of 'r allace and :argaret Blanchard for a
1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace
Attorney Dave Nicholson represented the Blanchards. He said the lot would
be served by City water and sewer. The water line has been installed and a Manhole
can be put in and the sewer run to the lot. The proposed home is somewhat lower
in elevation than the one existing on the lot but will have the same setback as
others on the street. The duplex is intended to house one of the Blanchard's
parents on one side and a young couple on the other side. In order to obtain the
3.
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 13, 1979
proper dimensions and square footage, the lot lines are irregular. There will be
no garage.
AIr. Ewing noted that on July 25, 1974 the Planning Commission gave Mr.
Deslauriers approval for 17 lots on East Terrace and one condition of that
approval was that construction of any duplexes be approved by the Zoning Board.
Hr. Nicholson added that because the lot is in two different zones (R4 and R7),
they would need conditional use approval from the Zoning Board also.
Ex. Mona did not feel inclined to approve a lot with such an irregular line.
i;r. Ewing also brought up the question of traffic, noting that the street
was narrow at the north end and that it would be hard for emergency vehicles, such
as fire trucks, to get in during an emergency. He did not think creating more
living units on such a long dead-end street was a good idea. He also noted that
the street contained more than the number of units the Subdivision Regulations
say should be on a cul-de-sac. The Regulations call for no more than 50 and he
felt the figure was about 64. Mr. Ewing also felt that the intersection of the
north end of the street and the jughandle was not safe either and no more units
should be added.
There was some confusion over setbacks from the irregular lot line and whether
the minimum distances were met or not.
Xr. Nicholson felt that two additional units on the street would not make
the difference between this area being safe or not and Mr. Jacob added that he
felt that the situation on East Terrace was created by its residents, who do not
want the street opened up so it is no longer a dead-end, and he felt that using
the situation to the detriment of someone who warted to move in was not fair.
Kr. Ron Schmucker represented owners of 14 of the homes on the street who
opposed the plan. He presented the Commission with a petition (see attached copy)
signed by more than 58 people. Mr. Foger read the petition.
Xr. Schmucker felt the area was developed as single family residences. He also
felt the two homes on the lot would be too close together and that the proposal
was not good planning. He felt the lot would become undesirable if the proposal
were approved.
Air. Gary Aertens felt that if the Commission approved this duplex, there
were other lots on the street which could contain duplexes. Presently there are
no duplexes on the street, but if the precedent were set, more might be built.
Kr. Richard Bingham noted that the City documents supported the concept of
protecting the integrity of neighborhoods existing now and he felt that duplexes
would change the character of the neighborhood. He said people bought on the
street partly because they had covenants which stated that it would be a single
family neighborhood.
h:r. Poger asked how the residents would feel if the proposal were for another
single family home and :sir. Schmucker felt many of the same problems would exist.
The residents did not like that idea either.
=:essrs. Nicholson and Mona disagreed with the feelings expressed that duplexes
are undesirable and tend to drive property values down. Ms. Lillian Charrlin noted,
however, that this street was very close to the University and might house several
students, all with cars.
I,ir. 'doolery moved to close the public hearing on the final plat ao,;lication of
'Aallace and Xariraret Blanchard for a 1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace. ,:r.
Iona seconded the motion and none voted no.
;•:r. Draper moved that the final olat ar-)lication of Wallace and ':arparet
Blanchard for a 1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace be denied. Mr. Ewing; seconded
the motion.
Xr. Mona felt the shape of the lot was unnatural and he did not feel the
frontage requirements were met. Yr. Jacob felt the arguments regarding the cul-
de-sac were weak and should r.3t be used. Xr. Ewing felt the proposal would change
4.
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEKBER 13, 1979
the character of the neighborhood, did not like the irregular shape of the lot,
felt there were safety problems and traffic problems and noted that this would
create more than the 50 units called for in the Regulations. Mr. Woolery did
not likethe-crooked lot lines or the change in the character. Mr. Draper agreed
with the above arguments. He agreed with Mr. Jacob that using the cul-de-sac as
a defense was not fair, since it was desired by the residents. ?:r. roger did
not want to set a precedent for other duplexes on the street and did not want to
create another lot on a street which is as long and narrow as this.
The motion to deny carried unanimously.
Public hearing on final plat application of L.T.H. Associates for a 17 unit
apartment project Windridge Apartments at 200 Kennedy Drive
Mr. Poger noted the return of the prodigal son, Steve Page, who tonight
wore a "black hat" and represented LTH.
Mr. Page said a landscaping plan had been shown. As many mature h ardwoods
as possible will be saved. There will be one light in the parking area and some
entryway lighting. The City Engineer has asked for more information on storm
drainage.
The issue of the sidewalk was discussed and it was noted that the topography
of the area was hard to deal with, since the land sloped down from the curb of
the road rapidly. The applicant has shown the sidewalk running across about 112
the frontage of the property, but on the west, where there are two large ravines,
the walk diverts off the right of way onto private property and contains two
wooden footbridges over the ravines and some steps. Kr. Ewing noted that such a
sidewalk could not be maintained in the winter. ;:r. Iona was aware that the
Natural Resources Committee did not want any filling done, but he wanted to keep
the option open anyway. Mr. Page said the amount of fill necessary would depend
on how far from the road the sidewalk were constructed. The farther away, the
more fill needed. For the fill alone, with 10' between curb and sidewalk, the
cost would be almost 810,000. At 5', it would be about �5-7,000. The cost of
the sidewalk is about $3,000. The Commission did not like the sidewalk as
proposed, and Mr. Mona suggested that a sidewalk 4-5' from the curb over the
ravines be considered. It could be the full 10' where fill was not needed.
Mr. Page then noted that this sidewalk would not connect to anything on either
side and proposed that money be earmarked for sidewalk construction when property
to the east or west is developed. If the fill were put in now, it could settle
for a while before the City took the money from the escrow account and built the
sidewalk. Mr. Poger raised the issues of inflation devaluing the money left for
the sidewalk and the issue of a developer selling the property as condominiums,
for example and then disclaiming responsibility to live up to conditions of approval.
In the meantime the condominium owners also disclaim responsibility. He asked the
Planner to look into stipulations which bar a developer from selling before
stipulations are met. Also on that subject, he asked the Commission to consider
not approving any development proposed by a developer who has done what is described
above, such as ICV, until all stipulations have been met, to the satisfaction of
the Commission.
A light at the curb cut to the property was suggested, for safety reasons.
The emergency access to the adjoining property was shown. It is in the form
of an easement. This developer does not want this to be a major access when the
iroperty on that side is developed. They show a 30' easement for emergency access
with a gate provision to be maintained by others. The access is then available to
the next developer. Mr. Poger said the easement could be there without paving or
a gate until the next developer went in, but he felt there should be some cost to
this developer. :-ir. rage felt this site did not need the access and said the next .
t LAW OFFICES OF
EWING & SPOKES
86 ST. PAUL STREET
BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
inne 7, 1974
;.illiam J. Szamanski
City '_anager
1175 S.illiston Rload '
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
opinion _-,o . 60
Subdivision pplication of Desl`uriers
' z rx D111:
Tile Planning CC:-r; ssi on has asked a couple of questions con-
c_::ning the subdivision proposal recently subini.tted by fir. 7eslauriers.
It is my understanding that sore of the proposed lots are divided by a
ho andary line between two zoning districts. it is my recollection that
tie lots have a depth of 140 feet from the proposed street in the R-4
aj'•,.tr_ict, and an additional 40 feet, which �^ould be in the rear portion
of tao lots, is in the -7 district. Single and two-faru.ly dwellings
are narmitted in the R-4 district, but only multi-faidly e1 ellings in
t;lo -7. If a developer %fishes to utilize the lots for two-family
6i7ellings, he would be unable to do so unless the 1:-7 land were classi-
fied. as R-4.
It appears that Section 13.70 (8) of cur zoning regulations is
designed to take care of this type of problem. Under this Section, the
coning board of Adjustment may in effect extend the district boundary
lines a naximu^I of 50 feet beyond the district line, which in this case
Mould permit the developer to utilize all of the subject property for
R•4 purposes. If the developer wishes to construct two-family dwellings
on these lots, he should submit an application for a conditional use
under Section 13.70 (8) .
only other vay the situation can be handled is by a:iendhnent
-o the zoning nap, N.hich is a fairly lengthy process.
The Planning Cc,=ission would also like further interpretation
0.`24 ` SA ;4415 (5) . The language in question reads:
`That where indicated by the pia_n, the plot shall choir
a park or parks suitably located for playground or other
ccrcatf_on _3urrof ':s f if the arc -as so recj r:'d G'o not
c.-:ce:: d I ._rre than 1 3' o.J!' the area
T"ne lar.gacc: ": iz=re indicated by pizn" sec::s to require
t the parrs bedepicted on the land us-e rap i= cor: eratcd in the
Nrl
williaz J. Szyr;:anski
LAW OFFICES OF
EWING & SPOKES
B6 ST. PAUL STREET
BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401
_2_
June 7, 1974
Comprehensive plan. This interpretation, however, may lead to a
planning impossibility, and I would prefer to construe the phrase as
requiring language in the master plan which in a general sense promotes
the establishl-,ent of nci,7hrorhood parks. I, therefore, would conclude
that .the Pl_nning Cora:'ssion, in its judcpent could insist that the
subdivision plat depict a park- suitably located for recreational
purposes, if the de.si.gnated area does not exceed more+ than 15% of the
entire area of the plat.
In connection with the park issue, I i-o not feel that the zoning
-Astrict in ,.hick the proposed park is situated is of any relevance.
Section 13.70 of our zoning regulations indicates that all territory
anne::ed to the City for park and recreation use shall be considered
within the perk and recreation district.
:he other concerns of the Planning Ce:raa scion in cor_stru n.g the
language of 24 VSn §4415 (5) are sufficiently ccverad in Opinion No.
35, which is dated October 9, 1973.
Very truly yours,
r��-� -
ri chard A-4--pokes
-pokes
P, S:nm
cc: Richard a . Ward
Zoning Mministrator
SOUTH BURLINGr..
In accordance with NOTICE
the South
lington Zoning Rep lotions
Bur-
and
Chooter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South
Burlington Zoning Board of Adlust-
ment will hold a public hearing at
the South Burlington City ringIces,
Conference Room, 1175 Williston
Road, South Burtinp}P1 Vermont on
Monday, November on I er q} ton
P.M. to consider the following;
1 APDe01 of Wallace and Margaret
Blanchard seeking o variance from
Seaton tI.
he , Dimensional require-
ments of the South Burlington Zoning
fission to ' Request Is for Per-
mission }o construct a Two family
dwelling on a parcel Of land located
within two districts, 00proximotely
iris}ware feet in Residential 7 Dis-
trict approximately 14,2oo
SO re feet In Residential 4 District,
at 62 East Terrace.
2. Appeal of James H. S Mary M.
Nuovo seeking a Variance from Sec-
tion ll.Op, p(menslonal requirements
lO the South Burlington Zoning Repu.
Iarve .Request is for permiss!on to
convert a one family dwelling into
two family dwelling, on a pOrcei of
land containing approximately 12,
135 square feet with eighty two
e(B2)
foot frontage at 177 L
Drive. aurel HlII
3. Aoaea! of Burlington Covniry Club
Corporation seeking 0 Variance from
Section 6.00 PermiNed Uses and Sec-
tion 11.00 Dimensional requirements
(sub -section,,, Opt) of the South Bur-
linpton Zoning Regulations. Request
is for oer. si on to construct
60'x120' maintenance building withinO
0 residential district and to within
fifty (50) feet Of the required front
Yard, On 0 Parcel of land located
southerly of 495 S-or Street.
Robert M. Martineau
South Burlington Chairman,
g on Zoning Board
November 10, 1979 of Adiustment
r
r�
r
I hereby appeal
conditional use,
Property Owner
location & description 6 1-
Property
51
NOTICE OF APPEAL
SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
to .the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the following:
variance, decision of administrative officer..
Variance of
Section
(number)
Basis of appeal
j ryA'� )yIqtz---p,
title of section)
I understand the regular meetings are held twice a month on Monday
at 5:00 p_m_ at the City Sall, Conference Room. The legal advertise-
ment must appear in the Burlington Free Press a minimum of fifteen
(15) days before the hearing, I agree to pay a fee of $30.00 which
fee is to off -set the costs of advertising and the hearing.
z 6�
Bearing Date Signature of Appellant
SOUTH BURLINGTON - ZONING NOTICE
In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter
117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment
will hold apublic Room, 1175arng at the willist n.Road,itBurlington Offices,
Conference South Burlington, Vermont on
) at •0c)�s�r to consider the
w
s
(day of eek (r�ionth and date(time)
following:
-t-1 1� - -r 11 -11, -
i Appeal of -
seeking from Section ��oc7 •
' - of the South Burlington
Zoning Regulations. Rea_uest is for permission to .�+.,.• j ,(/`
,f a scw-D^ •fw m
•%
��Ak-
ii/ Lw � i�k+R..uM ✓4,at1 �"'6+�"�✓+a•wJ
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: Blanchard Subdivision, East Terrace
Date: 11/9/79
1. In order to provide sewer service to this lot, a cut would have to be made
in the new street plus ledge removal. It would be my recommendation to install a
manhole in the service line serving the existing house and connecting this house
to this manhole. An easement will have to be provided to the new lot.
2. I am not in favor of creating such an irregular shaped lot just to get the
required square footage.