The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0120 Ethan Allen DriveWARRANTY DEED ca[pv WARR KELLEY & BABB ATRORNEYS-AT-LAW 3069 WILLISTON ROAD SO BURLINGTON. VT 05403-6030 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WHITE ROCKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Vermont limited liability company with its principal offices in Williston, in the County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, Grantor, in the consideration of --- TEN AND MORE-- Dollars paid to its full satisfaction by the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont with its principal place of business in the City of South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, Grantee, by these presents, does freely GIVE, GRANT, SELL, CONVEY AND CONFIRM unto the said Grantee, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in the City of South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: Being an irregularly shaped parcel of land containing .05 acres, more or less, as depicted on a plan of lands entitled "Property Plat North Section (Plat l of2), White Rock Country Club Estates, South Burlington, VT" by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, PLC dated February 21, 2001 of record in Map Volume 495 at Page 35 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to White Rocks Development, LLC by Quitclaim Deed of Thomas A. Sheppard and Paul B. Carrier dated .Ianuary 23, 2001 and of record in Volume 492 at Pages 450-452, and by the Quitclaim Deed of the City of South Burlington of approximate or even date herewith and to be recorded in said Land Records. Reserved is an easement only depicted as "20' Storm Water Easement from the City of South Burlington to White Rock Homeowners Association" on a Plan of Land entitled "Property Plat North Section (Plat 1 of 2), White Rock Country Club Estates, South Burlington, VT" by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, PLC dated February 21, 2001 of record in Map Volume 495 at Page 35 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned instruments, the records thereof, the references therein made, and their respective records and references, in further aid of this description. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all said granted premises, with all the privileges and appurtenants thereof, to the said Grantee, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; And the said Grantor, WHITE ROCKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant with the said Grantee, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, and its successors and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents it is the sole owner of the premises, and has good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that it is FREE FROM EVERY ENCUMBRANCE; except as aforesaid. It does hereby engage to WARRANT AND DEFEND the same against all lawful claim whatever, except as aforesaid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized member of WHITE ROCKS JH DEVELOPMENT, LLC hereunto sets his hand and seal this /• day of December, 2001. IN PRE$ENCE OF WHITE ROCKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ' Witness Its Member and Duly Authorized Agent L.S. STATE OF VERMONT, COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. At I�1%L( f3✓�� l/v�� , in said County, this day of December, 2001, Member and Duly Authorized Agent of WHITE ROCKS DEVELOPMEN , LLC, personally appeared and he acknowledged this instrument, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act/and deed of WHITE ROCKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC. ;J Before me, 'Notary Public My Commission Expires: 2/10/03 H:ASta 8\SU13DIVIS\White Rocks\WhiteRocks-wd WAR01 KELLEY & BABB ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW 3069 WILUSTON ROAD SO BURLINGTON, VT 05403-6030 7 City of Soit.h Burlington Parcel (340/303-304) as shown an th property plat recorded in map v 286, page 61 of the City of Sat Burlington Land Records. This 0.05 acre parcel has be relocated as shown hereon to n the intent of the original convet The revised position of this part centered over the existing strut which were intended to exist wit boundary of the 0.05 Acre paro 122.35' A/. v - -, d J QYi�i Li K(YT I Y •- BUFMINGT0 a ltitli ATIZM, AIR r= K. %.. oil ll �. L L Y er OY a/azp. � )�/7 /� fin/ l� !� /� /� (� s4>�/de S, � R=105.00 At (D(`7 f 9#09D 9)9& U fla, aO 0. ,Q S e°yto� / L=38.1z D=19.0 21 Ch B27 �7pt�ep to Khthe C fig,. /te ty 8 / On6'15' Ch=3737.91' S.F. O ' /�� ?0fil �0 Ac. 0 � f The subdl eel portion of this property has been 4. Iron pin boundary markers shown hereon as iled field surveys and record evidence "set" Or 'to be set" are one and one -quarter Inch including the following recorded plats: outside diameter steel pipe, 36-Inch long, crowned a. "White Rock Point, Plat of Subdivision of Lands with an oronge plastic cap. of Joyce N. & John H. Baiter. South Burlington, 5. Concrete monument boundary markers shown Vermont', prepared by Fitzpatrick-LLewellyn. Inc., hereon as "CMS' ar "to be set" are 4"x 4' and 36" dated Oct. 1988, last revised 9-21-92, two sheets, long with VT LS /695 stamped Into metal disk an 7451 ,, and recorded in Map Volume 286. pages 60 do 61 top of the monument. 7 / /^,m / of the City of South Burlington Land Records. 6. The diameters of existing monumentation shown 38• / / � O /b. 'White Rode Point, Property of John Bolter, on this plan reflect outside diameter dimensions. South Burlington, Vermont Site and Utilities Plan", 7. Survey methods employed and the resulting errs prepared b prepared b Fit atrlck-LLewell Inc., P eP Y P eP Y )^, of closure/precision ratio, meet or exceed minimum N V1 dated Feb. 1988, oriel recorded in Map Volume 286, R. precision requirements for suburban surveys as L �'•'r page 59 of the City of South Burlington Land outlined in standards for the practice of land % _r•r G`o /_b/� / O D] ' ,w,,,w` w Records. ? ` e5 �Bti c� �rad3^0. T'1 . C. 'White Rock Point, Plat of Subdivision of Lands ou^'eyors adopted 10 the Vermont Board of Land /10,703 S.F. Ct •''j''� of Joyce N. de John H. Bolter, South Burlington, �� effective 10/it/99. / N2 �.S Verm-t-, prepared b Fitzpatrick-LLewell Inc., B. Interior partit;—inq of thi- parcet has been 0.25 Ac. a e yt�' computed, platted, and laid out to the specifications dated Oct. 1988, two sheets, and recorded in Map Volume 252. pages 96 h 97 of the City of South of the owner and/or their agents. uringtan Land Records. 9. O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates. PLC verified the p, • V Bd 'Country Club Estates, So. Burlington, VT, Rev. previously recorded plat referred to in note 1.a. by N3sq'+r• T• ^i /4A, Section 2", prepared b C.H. Willis, dated April completing a ground survey an 2-13-01 and record yew "+ CFI 1971, and recorded In Volume 80, page 173 of the research in the City of South Burlington Land Ir Records. Cr City of South Burlington Land Records. �9 9" e. *Country Club Estates, So. Burlington, VT, Rev. 10. This property is encumbered with a 10-foot utility easement fa the installation and maintenance (020' ' 15, Section 3", prepared by C.H. Willis, dated April 1971, and recorded in Volume 80. page 172 of the of underground utility lines. The limits of this City of South Burlington land Records. easement is offset 10 from the sidelines of Country f. "Revision of Country Club Estates. Owner Rene Club Drive and Dairy Lane, as shown hereon. �� Berard", re ared b M0 Engineering. an Unless stated otherwbe hereon, no evidence of p p y g' g, doted June any type of easementa. Including prescriptive it - ` 1971, and recorded in Mau Volume 80, purge 1B,, o. easements or any structures inert'.. was im-iii! the City of South Burlington Land Recoros. during the survey of the premises. If easement g. 'Revislan of Country Club Estates, Owner Rene information is needed an abstract of title and a Berard", prepared by Willis Engineering, surveyed by detailed inspection of the premises is required to be R=2Vaughn C. Button, L.S. 415, dated June 1971, and performed at on additional fee. No liability is L-1 recorded in Map Volume 107, page 68 of the City assumed by the undersigned far any lose that may D=0' of South Burlington Land Records. be associated with the existence of any easements. T=7 h. 'Country Club Estates, S. Burlington, VT, 12. The premises shown and described hereon are Ch t I Developed by Rene Berard', prepared by Engineers, subject to any existing easements, rights- of -way, t Found Ch Inc., dated March 1967, and recorded on Map restrictive covenants, zoning regulations, and/or t be SET Volume 80, page 57 of the City of South Burlington setback Imes whether or not they may be shown on Land Records. the plot hereon or whether or not recorded In the t SET or I. "White Rock Point, Temporary Gravity Sewer, Site public records. Refer the Site Pion cited in note 1.1 Plan" prepared by prepared by Fitzpatrick-LLewellyn, for additional restrictions approved by the South Inc., dated May 1992. and recorded in Mop Volume Burlington Development Review Board. No liability is It 480, page 83 of the City of South Burlington Land assumed by the undersigned for any loss that may Is Records. bse associated with the existence of any easements J. 'White Rock Point, Country Club Estates, South of restrictions on the use of the property. le Burlington, VT, PoiSit, Country prepared by 13. There are boundary inconsistencies along the O'Leary -Burke Civil Pion*,Associ.pre, PLC, doted southerly boundary of this property as shown on ne/Page 12/13/00, last revised 2/14/01, to be recorded In Sheet e 2.e The record property / lot line differs the City of South Burlington Land Records. with the existing fence line. Inconsistencies were also found for various lot descriptions shown an 2. Bearings are based an Vermont State Plane previously recorded plans and written deeds. The Coordinates (SPC-VT) using NAD83 (1996) control descriptions of these lands and the evidence located datum. The survey data collected in the field was and existing on the ground were compared and adjusted with a digital orthophoto to determine analyzed to conclude a final boundary most Vermont Grid North. indicative of the original Intent of the deeds and in 3. Properties shown hereon are a portion of the harmony with existing physical manumentatlan. properties conveyed to John H. Bolter and Joyce N. Where conflicts between physical evidence and Bel ter by Rene J. and June A. Berard by their written evidence are substantial, deeds and/or warranty deed dated May 8, w1979 and recorded In documents should be executed to eliminate any Volume 148 at pages 225-228 of the City of South color of title or conflict. Burlington Land Records. A more specific description of the Land and premises shown hereon is drafted Fec.W In o warranty deed of John H. Boter, Jr. and Joyce irlington Development N. Boter to Thomas B. Sheppard and Paul B. Carrier, dated December 28, 2000 and recorded in volume 490, pages 538-540 of the City of South Rurlinntnn [and Records. the resolution. Signed 4 1A o'oa 6� 02 - 0 e� ��b�29c, at and record. attest: PRELJMINARY HIC SCALE SKETCH/CONCEPT 120 r-BURKE MUTES, PLC N FEET) D. = 60 ft» IUE, SUITE 5 T., VT 3-9990 -9989 South !BY I White Rock Country Club Estates South Burlington, VT DATE ' JOBI 99104 FtLE 99104-pll Property Plat North Section Plat T of 2 PLAN SHEET / plll This is an Original Mylar• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW €A,r,, Ethan Allen Drive. C. Site Plan Application #SP-01-15 of Waste Systems International, Inc, to allow automobile repair and service in conjunction with a truck terminal, 73 Ethan Allen Drive. The Chair asked if anyone wanted a full hearing on any of these items. No such requests were made. Mr. Farley moved to approve the Consent Agenda subject to the stipulations in the Administrative Officer's memorandum of 27 April 2001. Ms. Quimby, seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing: Final Plat Application #SD-01-19 of White hock Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved 36 lot single family subdivision on 14.68 acres. The amendment consists of reducing the number of lots from 36 to 30, Country Club Drive: Mr. Burke reviewed issues from Preliminary Plat. He noted they had met with the Fire Chief, and he is all set with the details of the path. Legal documents have been forwarded to the City Attorney. The stormwater area on portions of lots 4 & 5 will be maintained by the Association. Bill Szymanski had asked that it also be owned by the Association, but the applicant does not want to do this as the setbacks for common land are greatly increased, and there are long-term headaches for the Association. The City Attorney was OK with this. Mr. Belair said staff has no problems either. Regarding the pump station, Mr. Burke showed the location and noted they will provide a curb cut, though he did not feel it would be used. It will be the same size as it always was and will be centered on the 30 ft. plot it is on. Trees have been moved inside the right-of-way. In a few cases, there won't be the full 7 ft. from the water line (about 4 ft. in a few places) because there is not enough room. No other issues were raised. 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 MAY 2001 Mr. Boucher moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-01-19 of White Rock Development, LLC, subject to the amended stipulations; of 1 May 2001. Ms. Quimby (Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Public hearing: Application #CU-01-03 of (Marcel Beaudin, AIA, seeking conditional use approval under Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, and Section 3.50(d) of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to construct: 1) a sea wall to elevation 103 for approximately 50 feet, and 2) construct a set of stairs Tx20° from an existing deck to the proposed sea wall, 5 Lyons Avenue: Mr. Beaudin noted that Richard Cassidy owns the property. The Board had expressed concern with using pre -cast concrete blocks for the wall. Mr. Beaudin said they explored using something else, and have gone back to using rip rap. 2/3 of the shore has been rip rapped. It looks more natural than the concrete blocks. Mr. Belair said staff has no problems with this. Mr. Belair also noted that the City Engineer does not have a problem with the end of the rip rapping being over the sewer line. It can be easill, --moved, if necessary. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Application #CU-01-03 of (Marcel Beaudin subject to the stipulations in the amended draft motion of 1 May 2001. Mr. Schmitt seconded. Lotion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Site Plan application #SP-01-10 of Terry Riggs for warehousing, storage and distribution use in conjunction with a contractors yard not including retail, 16 Lime Rock Road: Mr. Dinklage noted an agreement with the city to allow Mr. Riggs to remove some or all of the island. This will allow the applicant to meet the setbacks. Mr. Riggs will check with the city on the details. No other issues were raised. Mr. Schmitt moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-01-10 of Terry Riggs subject to the stipulations in the draft motion of 1 (May 2001. Ms. Quimby seconded. (Motion passed unanimously. 3 State of Vermont LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO: 4C0643-6R-2A I AWSIREGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT: John H. Belter, Jr. 10 V.S.A.,Chapter 151 2 Country Club Drive (Act 250) South Burlington, VT 05403 District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues a Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0643-6R-2A pursuant to the authority vested in it in 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Volume 148, pages 225-228 of the land records of the City of South Burlington, Vermont as the subject of a deed to John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter, the "Permittee" as "Grantee." This permit specifically extends the construction completion date to December 15, 2002 on the previously approved authorization to construct a 36-lot residential subdivision with municipal water and sewer services and associated roadways and utilities. This project is located off Country Club Drive in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. The Permittee, and his assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to complete and maintain the project only as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4C0643 and amendments remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. 2. This permit specifically extends the construction completion date to December 15, 2002. 3. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Section 6090(b) (effective June 21, 1994), this permit amendment is hereby issued for an indefinite term as long as there is compliance with the conditions herein. 4. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Section 6090 (c). Page 2 Land Use Permit #4C0643-6R-2A John H. Belter, Jr. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this day of May, 2000. B YG�— Patricia Tivnan, Acting Chair for the District #4 Commission Commissioners participating in this decision: Rayburn Lavigne Myron Wheeler 4C643r2a.xt/eb CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify tha ) this 2� day of May, 2000 a copj )the foregoing Land Use Permit #4C0643-6R-2A was sent, first class mail, postage prepaid, to: PARTIES: John H. Belter, Jr., 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel & Shea PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Margaret Picard, City Clerk Chair, City Council Chair, Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Michael Crane, Executive Director Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Jon Groveman, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main St. - Center Bldg., 3rd Floor Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0301 District #4 Environmental Commission Patricia Tivnan, Acting Chair/Myron Wheeler/Ray Lavigne 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dated at Essex Junction, Verm jt, this da4f May, 2000. • Edie Bowen, Administrative w:4C06436R.cs/eb 879-5660 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND HEARING ACT 250 MINOR APPLICATION #4CO643-6R-1 10 V.S.A., CHAPTER 151 Notice is hereby given that on September 15, 1992, an application was filed by the City of South Burlington, to construct a temporary sewer collection line, approximately 568 feet in length, across the property owned by John and Joyce Belter in South Burlington, known as White Rock Estates, to serve the adjacent Country Club Estates development. The District Environmental Commission will treat this application under Environmental Board Rule 51 -- Minor Applications (amended effective 9/1/184). A proposed permit has been prepared by the Commission and is available at the Commission's office. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will not be prepared unless a public hearing is requested. The request shall state in writing with specificity why a hearing is required and what additional levidence will be presented. !No hearing will be convened unless, on or before October 12, 11992, a party notifies the Commission or the Commission sets the matter for hearing on its own motion. If a timely hearing request is received, the hearing will be convened on or before October 23, 1992. Parties entitled to participate are the municipality, the municipal planning commission, the regional planning commission, state agencies, adjoining property owners, and persons granted party status pursuant to Board Rule 14(B). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 1(pti)day of September, 1992. By Faith Ingulsrud District Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 879-6563 ,stricts #1 & #8 R.R. #2, Box 2161 Pittsford, VT 05763 (802) 483-6022 Districts #2 & #3 RR #1, Box 33 N. Springfield, VT 05150 (802) 886-2215 V Districts #4, #6 & #9 111 west Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 879-6563 STATE OF VERMONT Environmental Board District Environmental Commission MEMORANDUM TO: All Parties FROM: Faith Ingulsrud, District Coordinator DATE: September 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Land Use Permit Application #4CO643-6R-1 District #5 324 North Main Street Barre, VT 05641 (802) 479-3621 District #7 184 Portland Street St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 (802) 748-8787 Environmental Board Office 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-3201 (802) 828-3309 Enclosed for your review is a copy of the proposed land use permit for the above referenced project. As indicated in the Notice of Application and Hearing, this application is being processed as a "Minor" pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 51 (as amended on September 1, 1984) and no hearing will be held unless specifically requested. Any hearing held at the request of a party would only be for the purpose of considering issues raised by the requesting party under the appropriate criteria of Act 250. Because this proposed permit has been prepared based upon consultations with only the Chairman of the District Commission, it is subject to further revision.or amendment after review by the full District Commission. If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit or the "Minor" application procedure being used to process this application, do not hesitate to contact me at the District #4 Environmental Office (telephone #879-6563). S • o Vermonn LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT THIS IS A PROPOSED PERMIT: PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS BY October 12, 1992. CASE NO: 4C0643-6R-1 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151 APPLICANT: City of South Burlington (Act 250) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 and John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit (Amendment) #4C0643-6R-1, pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in the land records of the City of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to John and Joyce Belter, the "Permittees" as "Grantees". This permit specifically authorizes the Permittees to construct a temporary sewer collection line, approximately 568 feet in length, across the property owned by John and Joyce Belter in South Burlington, known as White Rock Estates, to serve the adjacent Country Club Estates development. The Permittees, and its assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4CO643 and amendments are in full force and effect except as amended herein. 2. The project shall be completed, operated and maintained as set forth in accordance with the plans and exhibits stamped "Approved" and on file with the District Environmental Commission, and in accordance with the conditions of this permit. No changes shall be made in the project without the written approval of the District Environmental Commission. Land Use Permit #4CO643-6R-1 Page 2 3. The District Environmental Commission maintains continuing jurisdiction during the lifetime of the permit and may periodically require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the project is being completed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms of the permit. 4. By acceptance of this permit, the Permittees agree to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this permit. 5. By acceptance of the conditions of this permit without appeal, the Permittees confirm and agree for themselves and all assigns and successors in interest that the conditions of this permit shall run with the land and the land uses herein permitted, and will be binding upon and enforceable against the Permittees and all assigns and successors in interest. 6. The Permittees shall apply and maintain calcium chloride and/or water on all roadways or disturbed areas within the project during construction and until pavement and/or vegetation is fully established to control dust. 7. Construction that will generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 8. The Permittees shall comply with Exhibits # 3 and 8 for erosion control. Hay bale dams and silt fences shall be installed as depicted on the plans prior to any soil disturbance. The Permittees shall prevent the transport of any sediment beyond that area necessary for construction approved herein. From October 1 to April 15 of any calendar year, all disturbed areas of the construction site shall be mulched until final vegetative cover is established. All erosion control devices shall be periodically cleaned, replaced and maintained until vegetation is permanently established on all slopes and disturbed areas. The Commission reserves the right to schedule hearings and site inspections to review erosion control and to evaluate and impose additional conditions with respect to erosion control as it deems necessary. 9. In addition to conformance with the requirements of condition # 7, the Permittees shall not cause, permit, or allow the discharge of waste materials into any surface waters. Compliance with the requirements of this condition Land Use Permit #4CO643-6R-1 Page 3 does not absolve the Permittees from compliance with 10 V.S.A., Chapter 47, Vermont's Water Pollution Control Law. 10. All construction on this project must be completed by November 15, 1993. 11. This permit shall expire on October 15, 2022 unless extended by the District Commission. Notwithstanding the latter date, this permit shall expire two years from date of issuance if substantial construction has not occurred, unless construction is delayed by litigation to secure of permits. 12. Failure to comply with all of the above conditions may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Section 6090(b). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this BY Faith Ingulsrud District Coordinator day of October, 1992. John Collins, C a i_-rr- r )Y, District #4 Commission members participating in this decision: John C. Drake Susan Wheeler CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Marsha Cota, District Office Clerk of the Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing ACT 250 MINOR NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND HEARING #4C0643-6R-1 by U.S. Mail, postage paid on this 16th day of September, 1992 for the following: PARTIES City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter White Rocks Estates Two Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Steven Stitzel Stitzel & Page, P.C. 171 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05401 Margaret Picard, City Clerk Chair, Board of Selectmen Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P. O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Kurt Janson, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street, 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental John Collins Susan Wheeler Jack Drake 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT Commission 05452 Tom Gould District Conservationist Soils Conservation Service 12 Marketplace, Unit 9 Essex Junction, VT 05452 1 Page #2 Certificate of Service #4C0643-6R-1 Tom Bushey 41 Pond Road Shelburne, VT 05482 (William Hall, County Forester ILarry Garland, Fish & Wildlife Coordinator IANR, 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Burlington Free Press Classified Ad Section 191 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Stuart Slote, Energy Engineer Dept. of Public Service Energy Efficiency Division State Office Building Montpelier, VT 05620 David Grimason Green Mountain Power Corporation P. O. Box 850 South Burlington, VT 05402-0850 Scott Albertson Vermont Gas Systems P. O. Box 467 Burlington, VT 05402 ;;,ADJOINING LANDOWNERS - The following addresses are located in South Burlington, VT 05403: - Andrew & Ann Hong, 41 Mountain View Blvd. - John Morin, Jr., 37 Mountain View Blvd. j - Paul, Ruth & Guerett Solange, 33 Mountain View Blvd. - Norman Lavalette, 29 Mountain View Blvd. - Ralph & Lydia Trosa, 25 Mountain View Blvd. - Bruce & Sandra Beynnon, 91 Country Club Drive East Stephen & Colleen Dengler, 95 Country Club Drive East - Robert & Heiderose Gagnon, 92 Country Club Drive East Patricia Myette, 46 Country Club Drive - Denny Johnson, President, Country Club Estates Homeowners Association, 114 Country Club Drive East Dated at Essex Junction, VT this 16th day of September, 1992. Marsha Cota 4C6436R1/#2 ,r RY �.•.«ELMNr...e..Aoj�a.v.—>-.[t-..,.ee-,.e •<G--aw_uo--.'.-nin+.�r� .tL.uBa�P\o<e II1I� - _ /8I I ��"_ I D.i.� -�-" ��-�' r�-�'—e_�1_jr��__'.ff. 4''//1 � N�,\'J -/-._. '. �rT�1D�-z��-A' s--D. -u\ -q----�`("''•-_t'�I •: �� i Mo._�I \u/�.77 t-•e-��'t/aij %.'/ Gi i/'�-l' s . .•�I "_ `�\./-a`\ -. ..-j�_./��/�-�„•L ,% �.i \.> ,''_/✓�/.�.\�C/_,�J`/�•� .\`'� _'' =�.._ /'/ F- - _- -I- /-, .�/j ti_��W�\ I•/ .•i_�.D.� �"/ � �„--I f� 2T.'�'_�4fi--1 .�` / ��i`�✓ �x"�t_� ' __-` ..; •f� �� d8d111�//// .rI,.�-� .�-. .��/ �-,.�_"J+..i `i�_.� L/��ax\ r�._jrti:__•..-..� oy 7 ��l`\+��.\.a�.•�' --._ 1�G� {A � \33�fG»1/4-�-"/♦ -5�� '_'eb �. t ..� ,%_�•�\`�='��"-�-..`- e55/�I .n _�-�._ •r%_MJ_ ll�4C�ct,amoorot4ocoeaT'S.wacYyacIT.cuoiRt„naO rEL-Na•i eLt .tw,owt++a��t nwsuo'/waaaN��wuu o+oY,�.�VTut,[r�aD■ wT.t4[.KTa6.. wic_TT��s.Yascar + x LOCUS sLEGEND �1� Es G � LJ .—y/R—Q-mT Io��w[.r n.`• }�1 ■+. GoucLaTe .rco .aaTu 7(0 134) 331 SCALE I 10' o a WHITE ROCK OFJOHN B _- SITE 9 UTILITIES PLAN R ; '._ 1 --- / ,✓-^'' Y_ y __-�-.. _._\ _--,.__._--I '-___-"-.� l�l! /� \,�.� � � .�� LE ,FEMAUER WEe\ ,. t,e/�INCORPORATED rLOT LINES IN THIS AREA EX T£N TQ(EOGE OF IVER _. i I caa[lle�te e[o .LAMING uarieet 25 »/y " .••",�''+''J... -._.- SKI A/ \ VVV f 1. J. .� d 09 WIN00 I'Eq �� '--_-- ✓ �, �� I ` WIILISTON VERMONT 2 trl 11 CHARLES T. SHEA STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR. CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. KNAPP JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL SUSAN W. SWEETSER MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY Vermont Environmental Board c/o Pearl Houghton 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 76 ST. PAUL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 369 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 June 8, 1990 AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 658-0220 FAX 658-1456 0 Re: Belter Appeal - Application No. 4C0634-6R-EB Dear Pearl: On behalf of the Appellants, John and Joyce Belter, I am filing an original and 10 copies of each of the following: 1. Prefiled Testimony of Lance Llewellyn, P.E. with attached Road Agreement; April 29, 1971, South Burlington Planning Commission minutes; and Willis survey (Overview and Project Summary); 2. Prefiled Testimony of Roger Dickinson, P.E. with attached '"Traffic Impact Evaluation"; 3. Prefiled Testimony of Michael Lawrence with attached "Landscape Specification for Area Along Winooski River"; 4. Prefiled Testimony of Charles Hafter; 5. Prefiled Testimony of Lance Llewellyn, P.E. with attached letter from Karl L. Jurentkuff and Martha Abair (Erosion Control); 6. Prefiled testimony of Gregory Wight, P.E. with attached "1990 Noise Study"; 7. Prefiled testimony of Larry Myott; 8. Prefiled testimony of Lee Tillotson; GRAVEL AND SHEA Vermont Environmental Board June 8, 1990 Page 2 9. Site plan "White Rock Point Conservation Plan, Planting Along Winooski River" and "Section", Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. and Michael Lawrence; 10. Site Plan "White Rock Point, Location Plan, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn; 11. Site Plans "White Rock Point" Sheets 1-12. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn; and 12. Appellants' List of Witnesses and Exhibits. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto JRP:wba Enclosures cc: Parties of Record Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I, John R. Ponsetto, Attorney for Appellants John and Joyce Belter, sent a copy of the foregoing by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 8th day of June, 1990, to the following: President, City Council City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Ann & Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip L.aroque, Marc Roy by David Conard, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 Dated at Burlington, this 8th day of June, 1990. John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants [certify.b061 State of Vermont Vermont Environmental Board Re: Application of John and Joyce Belter Application #4C0643-6R-EB Aupellants' List of Witnesses and Exhibits Witnesses: 1. Lance Llewellyn, P.E. Summary of Project; Criterion 1(F) (Shoreline), Criterion 4 (Erosion Control), and Criterion 9(K) (Public Investments). 2. Lee Tillotson 3. Gregory Wight, P.E. 4. Michael Lawrence 5. Roger Dickinson, P.E. Criterion 1 (Air Pollution), and Criterion 8 (Aesthetics) Criterion 1 (Air Pollution), and Criterion 8 (Aesthetics) Criterion 1(F) (Shoreline), Criterion 4 (Erosion Control), and Criterion 8 (Aesthetics). Criterion 5 (Traffic), and Criterion 9(K) (Public Investment). 6. Larry Myott Criterion 5 (Traffic). 7. Charles Hafter Criterion 5 (Traffic) and Criterion 9(K) (Public Investments). Appellants reserve the right to name additional witnesses as rebuttal witnesses following review of other parties' prefiled testimony. Exhibit List 1. Road Agreement among the Belters, City of South Burlington and City of Burlington. 2. South Burlington Planning Commission Minutes, April 29, 1971. 3. Willis survey of Country Club Estates. Items 1, 2, and 3 are attached to Lance Llewellyn's prefiled testimony. 4. '"Traffic Impact Evaluation", attached to Roger Dickinson's testimony. 5. "Landscape Specification for Area Along Winooski River", attached to Michael Lawrence's prefiled testimony. 6. "1990 Noise Study", attached to Gregory Wight's prefiled testimony. 7. Letters of Karl L. Jurentkuff and Martha Abair, attached to Lance Llewellyn's prefiled testimony. 8. Site Plan "White Rock Conservation Plan, Planting Along Winooski River" and "Section", Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn and Michael Lawrence. 9. Site Plan "White Rock Point, Location Plan" Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn. 10. Site Plans; "White Rock Point", Sheets 1-12, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn. One oversized exhibit, an aerial photograph of the area of the Belters' property is available for review at the offices of Gravel and Shea, 76 St. Paul Street, Burlington, Vermont. Dated at Burlington this 8th day of June, 1990. � Z John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants Prefiled Testimony of Lance Llewellyn, P.E. Q.1. Please state your name, address and profession. A.1. Lance A. Llewellyn 24 Mill Pond Lane South Burlington, Vermont 05403 I am a consulting civil engineer Q.2. What is the purpose of your prefiled testimony? A.2. To describe the buffer area between the Winooski River and the Belters' residential subdivision. I will address existing conditions, topography vegetation and proposed erosion control measures and proposed landscaping plans. Q.3. Please describe the present condition of the area you've referenced above in terms of soil condition, topography and vegetation. A.3. The buffer area between the Winooski River and the proposed lots consists of the steeper river bank, a flatter plateau area and finally the grade to top of the exposed rock. The river bank, extending from the waters edge (approximate elevation 190.5 + /- in May 1990) to elevation 208 + /- is undisturbed and contains oak, maple, birch, hemlock, ash, white pine, sumac, wild grape, honeysuckle, box elder, etc. as shown on the plan entitled "Conservation Plan" by Michael Lawrence (Appellants Exhibit _ ). This area will remain undisturbed. The flatter, plateau area was strewn with numerous piles of soil materials left over from the gravel removal operations. To prevent erosion, Mr. Belter retained Alan Berard to regrade this area on May 1990, to the configuration shown on the plan entitled site plan drawing, sheet 3, revised June 1, 1990 by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn. This plan accurately depicts the existing site grading and is Appellant's Exhibit After the site was graded, Mr. Belter harrowed the area in preparation for seeding. The soil contains a sandy loam as manure had been applied over the years, A forage mixture seed - containing alfalfa, timothy and rye-grass was used. The remaining grade to the top of the exposed rock was similarly prepared and seeded. The area along the top of the river bank and onto the plateau will be landscaped in accordance with the Conservation Plan prepared by Michael Lawrence as part of the White Rock Point Development. Mr. Lawrence's testimony describes this plan. Q.4. Will the Belter lots extend to the rivers edge? IIPM A.4. The layout of the Belter's subdivision has been designed to avoid activities along the Winooski River by including a 75 to 100 foot buffer area as shown on the site plan drawings sheets 2 and 3, Appellants' Exhibit Q.S. Are you proposing a reclamation plan along the river between the Belter lots and the rivers edge? A.S. This area of land, which has also been the site of a sand and gravel operation, will continue to be owned by the Belters. To improve the overall character of this area, both as an amenity and to further protect the Winooski River from development activities, this area is and will continue to be reclaimed. This reclamation consists of regrading, as shown on Appellants' Exhibit _, soil preparation, seeding and ultimately landscaping as shown on Appellants' Exhibit Q.6. Is this White Rock Point Development located on the shoreline of the Winooski River as "shoreline" is defined by Act 250? A.6. No. Act 250 defines "shoreline" as the land adjacent to the waters of lakes, ponds, reservoirs and rivers" and includes "the land between mean high water mark and mean low water mark of such surface waters." The mean low water mark of the Winooski River at this project site was 188.5 (USGS Datum) for 1989 water year- (Oct - Sept), and the Ordinary High Water elevation could reach 193, NGVD, as described by Marty Abair, Corps of Engineers, letter dated May 5, 1990, which accompanies this prefiled testimony. (Appellants' Exhibit ). The lowest elevation of any -3- lot line is 206 (+/-) USGS Datum. Therefore, the subdivision is not located on the shoreline and technically criterion 1(F) does not apply to this project. 0.7. Have you requested a jurisdictional ruling from the Agency of Natural Resources or the Corps of Engineers. A.7. Yes. I accompanied Marty Abair, Corps of Engineers, to the site on May 8, 1990, specifically to address this concern. She explained that Corps jurisdiction extends to the Ordinary High Water Mark which she determined to be 193 +/- NGVD. I assured her that no work would take place below that elevation. This is further shown on our site plans. Her letter, Appellants' Exhibit _ accompanies this prefiled testimony. I met with Carl Jurentkuff, Flood Plain Engineer, Flood Plain Management, Agency of Natural Resources, to discuss the Agency's involvement with this project under this subcriteria. Because of the setbacks of the lots from the river, and as they do not effect the floodplain, he felt no comment was necessary. We requested, and received the enclosed letter, Appellants' Exhibit , which also accompanies this prefiled testimony, stating his division's position. -4- Q.8. Have you prepared a plan that depicts erosion control measures and sequencing, and have you prepared a landscape plan for the area abutting the river? A.8. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn has prepared an erosion control plan in conjunction with the anticipated site work which is site plan drawing sheets 2 and 3, Appellants' Exhibit _. A street landscape plan was also prepared by our office which is Appellants' Exhibit _, site plan drawing sheet 12. Michael Lawrence, a landscape designer has prepared a landscape plan for the area along the Winooski River which is Appellants' Exhibit Q.9. Please describe the erosion control plan. A.9. In our efforts to minimize erosion and contain waterborne sediment within Area the site, we have evaluated the erosion potential of the site using the procedures outlined in the Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites. Using conservative assumptions, the site was determined to have a Total Rating Number (TRN) of between 100 and 400, or a medium potential for erosion as listed by the Handbook. The four coefficients involved in making up the TRN, consist of Area, Slope, Exposure Factor, and Proximity to downstream critical features. We have calculated that approximately 10(+ /-) acres will be involved with the anticipated site work. The site work will include the re -grading of the -5- Slopes site to provide level building areas, and excavation for utilities construction. Due to the indications of bedrock in the area, some blasting is required. The erosion control plan will be implemented in conjunction with the blasting schedule. Erosion control barriers have been listed as one of two types, and the sequence of occurrence during the construction phase has also been indicated on the construction drawings. The type B containment device, consists of a wooden snow fence staked into the ground with a permeable filter fabric attached to the up hill side. The filter fabric is keyed into the existing grade and forms a barrier which prevents the movement of waterborne sediment from the site. We have required the type B barrier to be installed around the downhill perimeter of the site prior to the initiation of any site work. The type A sediment barrier consists of staked hay bales keyed into the slope. The hay bales function in a similar manner to the reinforced silt fence but the are used in areas where runoff velocities are minimal. These barriers are usually installed to minimize runoff velocities and in the areas of disturbance after final grading is completed. After all utility construction has been completed the site will be seeded and mulched As we have indicated on the erosion potential analysis the slope from the highest area of disturbance to the lowest area of disturbance is KIM Proximity approximately five percent. However, sections vary in their steepness, Once final grades have been established, our erosion control plan calls for a specific seeding combinations. In areas where finished grade exceeds five percent, the slopes shall be stabilized with staked jute matting until the vegetative cover is established. Specification on seed mix and jute matting have been provided on the typical erosion control details. The project is surrounded by the Belters Farm on the east, north and west sides, Country Club Estates borders the Project on the south. The Project area is slightly lower than Country Club Estates, and therefore will not contribute runoff toward Country Club Estates. The lots within the Project have been designed so that they do not encroach upon the shoreline of the Winooski River. A conservation zone approximately 75' to 100' feet wide will provide a vegetative buffer along the river. This buffer strip has been augmented with additional landscaping as shown in the plan by Michael Lawrence. The remaining lots will abut part of the existing farm and Country Club Estates. Reinforced silt fence will be installed at the toe of the proposed slope to contain any waterborne sediment. An access for construction vehicles will be provided. Vehicles involved with the site work will access the Project through the former Haul Road which was once used to remove material from the quarry operation. -7- Exposure The majority of the site work will involve the regrading of the existing topography and placement of fill. The anticipated duration of construction will be 3 to 4 months. Q.1O. Has the Agency of Natural Resources reviewed your erosion control plan? A.1O. I reviewed the proposed erosion control concepts with Jerome J. McArdle, Assistant Water Resources Planner, Water Quality Division, Agency of Natural Resources on May 29, 1990. Mr. McArdle insists we incorporate erosion control elements contained in the "Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Site". We are submitting copies of our erosion control plan to Mr. McArdle and will provide the Board with his response when it's available. Q.11. In your opinion as a professional engineer, will the erosion control plan provide protection of the site and prevent sediment from reaching the river? A.11. The erosion control plan, when implemented and maintained, will contain waterborne sediment on site, thereby protecting the river and adjacent areas. [lance2.b06] lrz `'tC �A _ 2 State of Vermont Z Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05676 Department of Environmental Conservation FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 10 North Building (802) 244-6951 r May 29, 1990 jug Mr. Lance A. Llewellyn, P.E. Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Dear Mr. Llewellyn: Subject: White Rock Point Development I have reviewed the "Site and Utilities Plan" dated February 1988. Unless I have missed something, the only work that is proposed in the flood plain on this plan is the minor relocation of the haul road and installation of a force main along the western side of the development and installation of a storm drain with rip -rap at it's outlet at the northwest corner of the area. The haul road relocation and the force main are in a floodway fringe area and, therefore, will not be a problem. The rip -rap at the end of the drain pipe would be located in the floodway. As long as the rip -rap is placed at or below the existing ground level, it will not obstruct flood flows and will not be a problem. If there are any questions on this please call me. Sincerely, Karl L. Jurentkuff Flood Plain Engineer vlh KJ/149-1000.90 Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsforcl/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury OF dt� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY r NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS I 424 TRAPELO ROAD WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149 11 Lincoln Street, Room `0'' wiNi Essex �JunctiOYI, Vertllont 05452 "1a5- Z'5 , 1990 Regulatory Division CENED-OD-R-ti I. P1r. Lance I,lewel.l_yn Fi_tzla tri ch-IJ.elvel._Lylr 01-10 Wentworth Drive Zvi ]. l ist.o11, Ver•nlo11t 0:549:5 Dear Lance: 'I'llis is to fox Low-l.lp ollr Play 8, 1-9'.)0 site• Visit to the Proposed Wlaite ft,ac.lc Poirlt sl_Ibdivi.sLO11 ill South l3ur.l.i.rii;ton, Vermorli.• The Ptll'Pose of the site visit was to discuss permit re<ilr.i rernc:n l s felt' a l,roi>osc d rec Lorna L. i or1/] andsc.:11) ing plan alone; the hank of l.hr- river• 1 ;iho1.o,4ize for my clel,a"- i.n r et::t;ing back to you. Let. me f.it•st briefly c p_L..lin Corns Jurisdiction. A Corf?s of I?rl>;:inc'ers permit i..s regllired for raft work Uevo id_u._Ord_i,narV_-Il It 6vater i.n naviva.b.1e waters of 1-he United St:at.es nder• Section 10 of 1:11e River all(-] harbor Act of 1899. Permits are :31so reCJl_lileci under Sect.i.on 404 of the Clean Water Act for activities invo.l.ving the of dredged or fi.1.1. mate.ri.al in a1.1 wa.ter•s of the United States, :i.ncl.tld.ing liniarld rivers, lakes, st.re-irns, and wet, lands . I)l.lri.ng the v_i_s.i L, we det:el:•mined that the Ordi.na.rj° Ili.( ;l1 Water elevation of the Winooski. River at this location was at:, apJ,�l o :im<Ite�l.y ej,evat. iorl 193' , NG\71). From our di.scl.issi_orrs on- :�.ite, it. is my IlndOI'st.aYld:i 11cr ghatno work wi a:1 take p.l.ace bol ow t-he .1.9 ' e.l.evat:ion. Should the plans for the projectcl-iall.ge, such t;ha t arly laor•I: w.i.11 take p:Lace beyond Ordinary High Water of Lite riper, p1easn' corltact rue t:o di.scllss permit. requ:i.remerlt,s. Again, 1 lr)c ).og i.ze for my delay in 0Lti —1 g ack to yo1.1. l: f roll have ally ('11ri her quest.ioils , pI-ease contact: me or iii.lce ,\drL111S at, 951 -6755 . ncer. e:l,v, �I "larthn Abair Pro,ie -t. Mana>'er IIerm i t.s 13r.a1.1011 li.egu l.atory I-Iiv i sioll Prefiled Testimony of Lance Llewellyn Q.1. Please state your name, address, and profession. A.1. Lance A. Llewellyn, 24 Mill Pond Lane, South Burlington, Vermont. I am a consulting civil engineer. Q.2. With whom are you associated? A.2. I am a principal in the firm of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Incorporated. Q.3. What type of services does Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn provide? A.3. We are a consulting engineering and planning firm located in Williston, Vermont. The firm was formed in 1980 to provide services to municipal, industrial and private clients. We offer a range of engineering and related services including site planning, surveying, and civil engineering and utility designs, process systems designs, transportation studies and designs, landscape architecture, preparation of local and state permitting applications and supporting documentation, construction layout and construction certification. We presently employ 21 professional, technical and support staff. Approximately 75% of our work has involved site planning, preparation of construction documents and the local and state permitting processes. The remainder of our work includes municipal facilities designs such as roads, sewers, bike paths, etc. and industrial process designs. Q.4. Briefly describe your educational background. A.4. I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Vermont in 1967 and a Master of Science Degree (Civil Engineering) from the University of Vermont in 1972. I am a Professional Engineer registered in Vermont, New York, and Colorado. Q.5. Please describe your professional experience. A.5. I have practiced engineering for approximately 21 years, 13 of these in Vermont. My professional experience includes the preparation of studies and designs for wastewater treatment systems, roadways, stormwater management systems, water supply facilities, sludge disposal systems, erosion control plans, bike paths and industrial process systems. In addition, I've designed subdivisions for single family and multifamily residential projects, and site plans for commercial developments. These past eleven years, the majority of my projects involved the preparation of construction documents and applications for the local planning and Act 250 processes. Q.6. What is the purpose of your prefiled testimony? A.6. I have been retained by the Belters to design and engineer their proposed subdivision, White Rock Point, and to act as a Project Manager for the -2- preparation of their Act 250 and other state and municipal permit applications. The purpose of my testimony, at this time, is to provide the Environmental Board with an overview of the Belters' proposed 36 lot residential subdivision and a summary of the Belters' application and presentation. Q.7. Please do so. A.7. John and Joyce Belter own a 345 (±) acre parcel of land in South Burlington, Vermont. The land is located in the northeast area of the City, between the Burlington Airport and the Winooski River, and is adjacent to and an extension of Country Club Estates, an existing 72 lot residential subdivision. The Belter property is the site of the Belters' Ethan Allen Farm, one of the largest remaining dairy farms in Chittenden County, a 42 lot industrial/commercial subdivision, and this residential subdivision. The industrial/commercial park, is the subject of Land Use Permit 4CO643 and several amendments. The Master Plan for development of the Belter property, was filed with District Environmental Commission IV on August 19, 1985. According to the Master Plan, approximately 107 acres of the Belters' property will be the site of residential and industrial/commercial development. The balance of the property, or approximately 238 acres, will remain in agricultural use. -3- The present application is for a 36 lot residential subdivision on 14.6 acres of land a portion which is the site of a former gravel sandpit. Each lot is 9,500 square feet (minimum) and the site of a single-family residence. All South Burlington and State permits, with exception of the Act 250 Land Use permit, have been issued for this residential subdivision. A site plan entitled 'Ethan Allen Farms Site Plan", dated May, 1990, prepared by Michael Lawrence showing the entire Belter property and the location of the industrial and residential development and agricultural use accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit , and a location plan prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, dated February, 1988, accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit _. A plan set of construction drawings for the Belter subdivision, "White Rock Point" also accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit The proposed residential subdivision is located within the Residential 4 District of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. This District allows four (4) single-family residences per acre. The South Burlington Planning Commission approved the residential subdivision on July 26, 1988. Planning Commission approval of the residential subdivision and prior approvals of the industrial/commercial subdivision were conditioned and required: 1. Dedication of a 5.25 foot strip of land on either side of Ethan Allen Drive for future street widening; -4- 2. Dedication of 0.5 ± acres of land at the intersection of Shamrock Road and Airport Parkway; 3. $5,000 to be paid for improvements to Ethan Allen Drive; 4. Sewer allocation fees for the industrial/commercial lots for $15,000.00; 5. Intersection improvement costs paid to City (for industrial/commercial lots) for $18,480.00; 6. Impact fees for sidewalk construction of $31,500.00; 7. A landscape bond for the residential subdivision for $33,200.00; 8. Impact fees for improvements to Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive Intersection for $3,920.00; 9. Recreation fees for $7,200.00; 10. Sewer allocation fees for the residential subdivision for $40,500.00; 11. Turning lane construction at Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Drive completed by Belter; -5- 12. Widen and pave Air Guard Road with estimate cost to Belter up to $33,750.00; 13. Provide capacity in the Industrial Park Pump Station and force main construction to accommodate residential development from Belter Subdivision and Country Club Estates. The impact of the Belters' subdivision with respect to the following criteria will be addressed by the Board in this appeal: Criterion 1: Air pollution, caused by drilling and blasting at the site; Criterion 1(F), Impact of the subdivision on the Winooski River; Criterion 4, Erosion control; Criterion 5: Impact of traffic on streets of Country Club Estates; Air National Guard Road; and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road; Criterion 8: Aesthetics, as affected by blasting and views of the subdivision from the Winooski River; and Criterion 9(K): Public Investments. Blasting, Drilling, and Construction Noise Ledge in a section of the site of this subdivision must be removed by blasting to accommodate building foundations and utilities. Residents of Country Club Estates are concerned about the impact of drilling and blasting and other construction activities. The impact of blasting and drilling, vibration, noise and dust, will be addressed by Lee Tillotson of Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc., and Gregory D. Wight, P.E. of Norwich University. Mr. Wight has prepared a report entitled "1990 Noise Study", for the Board's consideration. Winooski River Buffer Area: Erosion Control The layout of the Belters' subdivision has been designed to avoid construction on the shoreline of the Winooski River. The property lines of lots 11-19 have been located approximately 100' from the river's edge. This strip of land, which has also been the site of a gravel removing operation will continue to be owned by the Belters. Although a portion of this buffer area is beyond the land which is the subject of this application, the District Commission found that because of the present disturbed soil conditions, the project could aggravate that situation and cause erosion. To improve site conditions and to eliminate potential erosion problems, this past spring the Belters graded and seeded the area. FitzPatrick-Llewellyn and Michael Lawrence have developed a permanent plan which includes grading, erosion control and landscaping plans of the buffer zone between the river's edge and the lot lines. The purpose of this plan is to reclaim that portion disturbed by the gravel -7- Traffic operation, control erosion and provide screening of the subdivision from the views of persons using the Winooski River, the latter also being a concern raised by the District Commission. The Belter subdivision is not on the "shoreline" as defined by Act 250 and addressed later in my prefiled testimony. However, the grading, erosion control and landscaping plans, and the Belters' agreement to allow access by the public to the area will satisfy issues raised by Criterion 1(F). Immediate access to the proposed subdivision will be over existing City streets in Country Club Estates and a 60 foot right-of-way owned by the Belters. The right-of-way is located between parcels of land owned by Andrew R. Hong and Ann Cramer Hong and David P. Myette and Patricia M. Myette, both of whom are parties to this appeal. The right-of-way is located at the northerly end of the intersection formed by Mountainview Boulevard and Country Club Drive. The Belters' right-of-way is delineated on a survey prepared by C.H. Willis entitled "Country Club Estates South Burlington, Vermont, Section 3, Revision 5", dated April, 1971, which is recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records in Volume 80, Page 173 and is successively shown on plans recorded in Volume 80 at Pages 183 and Volume 107 at Page 68. A certified copy of the Willis survey as approved by the Planning Commission accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit The reservation of the right-of-way to provide access to future development on land adjacent to Country Club Estates was done pursuant to the terms and requirements of the approval of the Country Club Estates subdivision by the South Burlington Planning Commission, set forth in the Planning Commission minutes dated April 29, 1971. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes accompany this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit Traffic generated by the Belter residential subdivision will also travel over Poor Farm Road, Shamrock Road, the Air National Guard Road and through the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road. The Air National Guard Road is a length of road approximately 2,600 feet long which lies between Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road. Although the Road is a private road located within the City of South Burlington, it is owned by the City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners. The Commissioners are concerned about continued and increased use by the public of this private right-of-way. The Commissioners and the City of South Burlington agree that it is in the long-term interest of both cities that the Road be owned and maintained by the City of South Burlington. South Burlington agrees to assume ownership on the condition that certain improvements to the structure of the Road are constructed. Although the Road in the present condition is adequate to accommodate existing traffic and traffic from Belters' subdivision (which will contribute only 11% of the total traffic using the Road), the Belters have agreed to contribute a majority of the cost of the improvements. The Airport Commissioners and the Belters entered into an agreement with the City of South Burlington whereby the three parties will participate financially in upgrading the road to meet South Burlington specifications. Fulfilling the terms of this Agreement, depends upon the Belters obtaining a permit and actual construction of their subdivision. Upon upgrading of the road, the Airport Commissioners will convey the Road to the City of South Burlington for future ownership and maintenance. The cost of upgrading the Road to meet South Burlington specifications is estimated to be $45,000. The Cities will each contribute 25% or $6,000, whichever is less. The Belters will arrange to have the work done and will pay the balance of the cost of upgrading. According to the agreement, the improvements must be completed before any homes in the proposed project are occupied. The Road agreement accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit As for the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive, Airport Parkway, and Shamrock Road, safety and congestion concerns are predicted with the addition of traffic from the Belters' project at completion, and future -10- normal growth in traffic volumes. These deficiencies will be corrected prior to buildout of the Belter subdivision, projected for 1995. A traffic study of the intersection was conducted by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and JHK & Associates for the City of South Burlington. The study and recommendations for upgrading the intersection will be discussed by Craig Leiner, transportation consultant for the Planning Commission and South Burlington City Manager, Charles Hafter. Roger Dickinson, a transportation engineer employed by FitzPatrick- Llewellyn, has also prepared a traffic impact report entitled 'Traffic Impact Evaluation - White Rock Point" dated June 1, 1990. Roger will discuss in detail the traffic and public investment issues related to use of the streets of Country Club Estates, Air National Guard Road and the intersection in his prefiled testimony. Q.8 Does this conclude your testimony? A.8. Yes. [lance.b05] - 11 - EXHIBIT B REQUIRED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1. Generally, the existing paved roadway is to be widened by two feet (from 20 feet to 22 feet) for a distance of approximately one-half mile. This widening will occur exclusively on the south side of the existing roadway. 2. Associated with this widening, 18 inches of gravel subbase and two inches of Type II bituminous concrete base course will be installed on the south side of the existing roadway. 3. Each existing drop inlet on the south side of the roadway (seven by count of Fitzpatrick-Llewelly) will be rebuilt so as to provide a standard cast iron frame and grate inlet. The rim elevations will set so as to collect drainage from the roadway and surrounding terrain. 4. The entire widened roadway (22 feet) will be overlaid with a one inch Type III bituminous concrete wear course. 5. Upon completion of new paving, the shoulder on the south side of the widened roadway will be regraded and all disturbed areas around the drop inlets restored to their original condition. 6. The roadway approximately at the former National Guard entrance will require extra shimming to correct the super elevation in the area. 7. After the final surface course is applied to the entire width of roadway, the road shall have shoulder of stone dust constructed along each side of the new paving. McNEIL & MURRAY t URLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 # 4 0/ 57 3 90 _, C ► ROAD AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is by and among the CITY OF BURLINGTON, by and through its Board of Airport Commissioners, a municipal corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Vermont ("Burlington"), the CITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON, a municipal corporation, duly organized under the laws of the State of Vermont ("South Burlington"), and JOHN H. BELTER and JOYCE N. BELTER, of South Burlington, Vermont ("Belters"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, there is a private road which proceeds through property owned by Burlington in the City of South Burlington, which road is described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Road"); and WHEREAS, Burlington is willing to convey the Road to South Burlington; and WHEREAS, South Burlington is willing to accept the Road land maintain the Road as a public highway, provided improvements to the Road are made prior to acceptance as described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the Belters are owners of land in South Burlington which they plan to subdivide into a thirty-six (36) lot residential development (the "Subdivision"), the principal access to which is over the Road; and 1 McNEIL & MURRAY ;URLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 A� WHEREAS, the Road will be required to be improved in order to obtain an Act 250 land use permit for the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Belters agree that if an Act 250 land use permit is granted for the Subdivision they shall assume responsibility for constructing the Improvements; and WHEREAS, Burlington and South Burlington are each willing to contribute to the construction of the Improvements to the Road; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in their mutual interests that the Improvements be made to the Road and the Road thereupon be conveyed to South Burlington to be maintained as a public highway and the parties are willing to cooperate to achieve that goal in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and among the parties as follows: 1. Covenants of Burlington. (a) Burlington represents that by Deed dated January 31, 1979, and Amendment dated November 21, 1979, the United States of America conveyed certain interests in lands now a part of the Burlington International Airport, including 3.6 acres described generally as a portion of National Guard Road. Burlington further represents that it has been duly 2 McNEIL & MURRAY II tURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 r � authorized by the United States of America to convey title to the aforementioned portion of National Guard Road in the form and subject to the restrictions as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto. (b) Burlington represents that it is authorized to contribute Six Thousand and No/100 ($6,000.00) Dollars or Twenty -Five (25%) percent of the total cost of the Improvements whichever is less, to the Belters as its shares of the cost of the Improvements to the Road, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. (c) Simultaneously with execution of this Agreement, Burlington shall deliver to South Burlington an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the Road, with an attached executed deed and transfer tax return, all in the forms set forth in Exhibits C and D attached hereto. (d) Upon written notification by the Belters to Burlington that the Improvements to the Road have been constructed and upon receipt from the Belters of a statement of the total cost of the Improvements, Burlington shall immediately deliver to the Belters a check in the amount of Six Thousand and No/100 ($6,000.00) Dollars or Twenty -Five (25%) percent of the total cost of the Improvements, whichever is less, as Burlington's share of the cost of constructing the Improvements to the Road. 3 McNEIL & MURRAY 19 URLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 (e) Burlington shall allow access to the Road to the Belters and those persons retained by the Belters for any and all purposes related to construction of the Improvements to the Road. 2. Covenants of South Burlington. (a) South Burlington represents that it is authorized and willing to accept the Road provided it is improved in the manner described in Exhibit B and said improvements are inspected and approved by South Burlington. South Burlington agrees to reimburse the Belters for their actual cost, less any discounts, in constructing the improvements for the road up to a maximum of 25% of the total cost or $6,000, whichever amount is smaller. (b) South Burlington agrees to cooperate with the Belters in obtaining the required permits for the subdivision by offering testimony through City officials that if the Road is improved as provided above, the City of South Burlington will accept the road as a public roadway. The City of South Burlington will offer further testimony that the acceptance of the road and its maintenance thereafter will not place unreasonable fiscal burdens upon the City. (c) Upon written notification by the Belters that they have constructed the improvements to the road required by Exhibit B, South Burlington will promptly 4 McNEIL & MURRAY II 1URLINOTON, VERMONT 05401 inspect the improvements and notify the Belters of the results of the inspection. Upon approval of the improvements by South Burlington, the Belters shall deliver to South Burlington an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the road and documentation for the cost of improving the Road. Within 30 days of the receipt of said Irrevocable Offer of Dedication and documentation, South Burlington will deliver to the Belters any payments due under subparagraph (a) above. 3. Covenants of the Belters. (a) Subject to satisfaction of the contingencies set forth in Section 4(b), the Belters shall be responsible for construction of the Improvements to the Road, provided that all final required permits are issued for the Subdivision . (b) The Belters agree that as part of their applications for permits for the Subdivision, that they will advise the appropriate regulatory agency or commission of their intent to construct the Improvements to the Road as a condition of all final required permits for the Subdivision. (c) Subject to satisfaction of the contingencies set forth in Section 4(b), the Beaters shall construct the Improvements to the Road within days of receipt of all required final permits for the Subdivision. 5 McNEIL & MURRAY II IURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 4. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) Contingencies to Belters' Obligations. The Belters' obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon (i) the Belters obtaining all required final permits for the subdivision; (ii) said permits containing no conditions which would require improvements to be made to the road other than the Improvements set forth in Exhibit B, or containing reasonable modifications thereto which the Belters are willing to accept and comply with; and (iii) the Belters' decision, at their sole discretion, to construct the Subdivision as finally approved. If any of the contingencies are not satisfied, the Belters may notify Burlington and South Burlington and this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. (b) Notice. Any notice required herein shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when personally delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery to: As to Burlington: With a copy to: Nancy G. Sheahan, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05401 6 McNEIL & MURRAY t URLINGTON, VE:RMONT 05401 C ) As to South Burlington: With a copy to: As to the Belters: With a copy to: John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea Corporate Plaza P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 (c) Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding among the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and there are not covenants, promises, agreements, conditions, or understandings, oral or written, except as set forth herein. (d) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Vermont. (e) Succession. This Agreement shall apply to, inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. (f) Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by mutual agreement set forth in writing and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day of 1989. 7 McNEIL & MURRAY f URLINGTON, VERMONT05401 r IN THE PRESENCE OF: II Witness II Witness IN THE PRESENCE OF: Witness I Witness IN THE PRESENCE OF: IWitness Witness CITY OF BURLINGTON ("Burlington") BY: Its Duly Authorized Agent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ("South Burlington") BY: Its Duly Authorized Agent John H. Belter Joyce N. Belter STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. At in said County and State, this day of 1989, personally appeared duly authorized agent of the CITY OF BURLINGTON ("Burlington"), and he/she acknowledged the within instrument, by him/her signed and sealed to be his/her free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF BURLINGTON ("Burlington"). BEFORE ME, Notary Public 8 McNEIL & MURRAY II 1URLINGTON, VERMONT05a01 10 STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. At , in said County and State, this day of , 1989, personally appeared , duly authorized agent of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ("South Burlington"), and he/she acknowledged the within instrument, by him/her signed and sealed to be his/her free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ("South Burlington"). BEFORE ME, STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. Notary Public At , in said County and State, this day of , 1989, personally appeared JOHN H. BELTER and JOYCE N. BELTER, and they acknowledged the within instrument, by them signed and sealed to be their free act and deed. BEFORE ME, Notary Public #35/886 9 McNEIL & MURRAY II '.URLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 c C EXHIBIT C QUITCLAIM DEED KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT the CITY OF BURLINGTON, of Burlington, in the County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, Grantor, in consideration of TEN AND MORE Dollars paid to its full satisfaction by the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, of South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, Grantee, have REMISED, RELEASED, AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMED unto the said CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, all right and title which the CITY OF BURLINGTON or its successors and assigns have in, and to a certain piece of land in South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: A parcel of land located in the City of South Burlington, County of Chittenden, State of Vermont, as shown on a Webster -Martin, Inc., plans as the Right -of -Way for National Guard Road, South Burlington, Vermont dated October 1980, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron survey marker which lies on the southerly right-of-way line of Shamrock Road; said marker lies S69°421E and sixty and nineteen hundredths feet (60.191) from a marble monument that locates the southeasterly property corner of now or formerly Lawrence D. Copp; thence from a tangent line bearing S03°53150"W, southeasterly two hundred seventy-seven and thirty-three hundredths feet (277.33') along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of three hundred eighty-two and fourteen hundredths feet (382.141) to a point of tangency; thence S48°41137"E one hundred sixty and ninety-one hundredths feet (160.911) to a point of curve; thence southeasterly one hundred eighty-six and thirty-two hundredths feet (186.321) along a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of four hundred ninety-four and forty-six hundredths feet (494.461) to a point of tangency; thence along a bearing of S27°0610611E three hundred thirty-nine and eighty-eight hundredths feet (339.881) to a point of a curve; thence proceeding southeasterly two hundred fifteen and two hundredths feet (215.021) along a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of one thousand two hundred sixty-five and thirty-one hundredths feet (1,265.311) to a reverse curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of one thousand two hundred eighty-nine and seven hundredths feet (1,289.071), a radial line through said beginning of reverse curve bearing S72°36124"W; thence southeasterly three hundred eighty-six and sixteen hundredths feet (386.16') along said curve through a central angle of 17*16130" to a point of tangency; thence S34°40'05"E two hundred forty-eight and sixty-nine hundredths feet (248.691) to a point of curve; thence southeasterly four hundred seventy-eight and C C sixty-seven hundredths feet (478.671) along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of six hundred sixty-four and sixty-two hundredths feet (664.621) to a reverse curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of one thousand five hundred three and thirty-four hundredths feet (1,503.341) a radial line through said beginning of reverse curve bearing N13°52130"E; thence southeasterly one hundred seventeen and fifty- nine hundredths feet (117.591) along said curve through a central angle of 04°28'58" to a point of tangency; thence S71°3813611E ninety-eight and thirty-seven hundredths feet (98.37') to a point; thence N18°49'29"E sixty and zero hundredths feet (60.001) to a point; thence N71°38136"W ninety-eight and eighty-six hundredths feet (98.861) to a point of curve; thence northwesterly one hundred twenty-two and twenty-nine hundredths feet (122.291) along a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of one thousand five hundred sixty-three and thirty-four hundredths feet (1,563.341) to a reverse curve concave to the northeast having a radius of six hundred four and sixty-two hundredths feet (604.62') a radial line through said beginning of reverse curve bearing S13°52130"W; thence northwesterly four hundred thirty-five and twenty-five hundredths feet (435.251) along said curve through a central angel of 41°27124" to a point of tangency; thence N34°4010511W two hundred forty-eight and sixty- nine hundredths feet (248.691) to a point of curve; thence northwesterly three hundred sixty- eight and seven hundredths feet (368.071) along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of one thousand two hundred twenty-nine and seven hundredths feet (1,229.071) to reverse curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of one thousand three hundred twenty-five and thirty-one hundredths feet (1,325.311) a radial line through said beginning of reverse curve bearing N72"36124"E; thence northwesterly two hundred twenty-four and fourteen hundredths feet (224.14') along said curve through a central angle of 09*42131" to a point of tangency; thence along a bearing of N27°06106"W three hundred thirty-nine and eighty-eight hundredths feet (339.88') to a point of curve; thence northwesterly two hundred eight and ninety-one hundredths feet (208.911) along a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of five hundred fifty-four and forty-six hundredths feet (554.461) to a point of tangency; thence N48°41137"W one hundred sixty and ninety-one hundredths feet (160.911) to a point of curve; thence northwesterly two hundred ninety-five and sixty-eight hundredths feet (295.681) along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of three hundred twenty-two and fourteen hundredths feet (322.141) to a point of tangency; thence NO3°5315111E one hundred eighty and three hundredths feet (180.031) to an iron survey marker located on the southerly right-of- way of Shamrock Road; thence S15°4312911W two hundred fifty-eight and forty-six hundredths feet (258.461) along the southerly right-of-way of Shamrock Road to a point of beginning. Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to the City of Burlington by Deed Indenture of United States of America, acting by and through the General Services Administration, dated January 3, 1979, and of record in Volume 150 at Page 397 and by its Amendment dated November 21, 1979, and of record in Volume 181 at Page 107 of the South Burlington Land Records. Also, being all and the same lands and premises released from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in the aforementioned Deed Indenture and Amendment by a Deed of Release by the United States of America, acting by and through the Administration, Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation dated and of record in Volume at Page of the South Burlington Land Records. By the acceptance and recording of this Deed, the Grantee, City of South Burlington, for itself, its successors and assigns, does hereby covenant and agree to the following restrictive covenants and conditions, which shall run with the land and be enforceable at law or in equity. (1) That the City of Burlington reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, for the use and benefit of the public a right of flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the surface of the real property herein described, together with the right to cause in said airspace such noise as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, now known or hereafter used, for navigation of or flight in the said airspace, and for use of said airspace for landing on, taking off from, or operating on the airport. (2) That the Grantee expressly agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, to restrict the height of structures, objects of natural growth and other obstructions on the concerned real property to such a height so as to not exceed 310 feet above mean sea level. (3) That the Grantee expressly agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, to prevent any use of the hereinabove described real property which would interfere with or adversely affect the operation or maintenance of the airport, or otherwise constitute an airport hazard. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned instruments, the records thereof, the references therein contained, and to their respective records \ and references, all in further aid of this description. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all right and title in and to said quitclaimed premises, with the appurtenances thereof, to the said CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns forever. AND FURTHERMORE, it, the said CITY OF BURLINGTON does for itself and its successors and assigns, covenant with the said CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, its successors and assigns, that from and after the ensealing of these presents, the said CITY OF BURLINGTON will have and claim no right, in, or to the said quitclaimed premises. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF BURLINGTON hereunto sets its hand and seal this day of A.D. 1989. IN PRESENCE OF CITY OF BURLINGTON Witness BY: L.S. Witness Duly Authorized Agent for the City of Burlington STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. At Burlington, Vermont, this day of A.D. 1989, , duly authorized agent for the City of Burlington. personally appeared, and he/she acknowledged this instrument by h_ sealed and subscribed to be h_ free act and deed, and the free act and deed of the City of Burlington. Before me, Notary Public #35/891.ngs r` The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting at the Middle School, Room 142, Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Thursday, April 29, 1971 at 7:30 P. M. Mr. Lamphere, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 P. M. t� I:t�+• James Lamphere; Joseph Allard; Douglas Tudhope; Richard Haigis. OTHERS PRESENT C. Harry Behney, President of City Council; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Jere S. Meserole, Lakelands Corp.; Ernest J. Bourgeois, Berard Construction Co.; Richard W. Posey, C. S. Cook, D. B. Haslam, Jr. all with Lakeview Buick, Inc.; Robert Chittenden; Mrs. Arlene Krapcho, League of Women Voters; I�rs. Jean Hildick; Mrs. Dorothy Guilford, Secretary. Rene Berard, Country Club Estates Revision Mr. Ward showed a plan of this revision, explaining that Mr. Berard proposes to place Lots 30 D and 30 C on Revision 5 through Lot 47 Revision 4 back into farm land. A memorandum dated April 29, 1971 sulmitted by Mr. William Szymanski, City Engineer with his recommendations and comments is attached to these minutes. Discussion followed. Mr. Tudhope moved that the Planning Co=, ssion require that a right-of-way be shown on a map of this district so that access to the farm land be provided for possible future development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that right-of-way shown from both dead end streets. 2•a, Allard seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. 2•117. Haigis said he would like to reco=end to Mr. Berard that Lot 30 next to 30A be changed to allow 30A more frontage. 2-fr. KUard made the request that 2.!r. Berard and Mr. Bourgeois return with a revised nlan showing the right-of-way. Pdl members agreed that this should be done. IN CITY CLERIC'S OFFTC'E io. Burlington, Vt. / 19 7 / 2eceiued for record at _/ , V _r-- o'doci — Cr' M+ recorded in .Vol koest City Clerk _4— f m I, I ,%Il. e 41;J1, NN, do ell NO 'Oe.. . ID�7DA a; Idd PREFILED TESTIMONY OF LEE TILLOTSON Q.1. Please state your name, address, and occupation. A.1. My name is Lee Tillotson. I live in Bakersfield, Vermont. I am Vice -President and Regional Manager of Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. The Vermont regional office is located in Barre, Vermont. Q.2. How long have you been employed by Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc.? A.2. I have been employed by Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. since April, 1984. Q.3 What duties do you perform for the company? A.3. I am responsible for all the company's activities in Vermont. These responsibilities include general supervision of all drilling and blasting operations in the state. Q.4. What has been your professional experience? A.4. I have been in the blasting business since 1972. I started as a laborer, worked up to a driller, and then blaster. I was employed by Rowe Contracting, a blasting contractor with a place of business in Malden, Massachusetts and Carl B. Thomas, another blasting contractor, located in Spofford, New Hampshire, before being hired by Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. as Regional Manager. I was named Vice -President in 1989. I hold a State of Vermont blasting license. Q.S. How many blasting projects do you supervise in an average year? A.S. In an average year I supervise approximately 100 blasting projects. 0.6. What is your educational background? A.6. I am a graduate of Wentworth Institute, with an Associate Mechanical Engineering Degree. Q.7. Have you been asked by John Belter to advise him on blasting which may be required to construct the Belters' proposed subdivision in South Burlington? A.7. Yes. Q.8. Have you been to the site of the proposed subdivision? When did you visit the site, and what was the purpose of your visit? A.8. Yes. I have been to the Belters' property on several occasions starting in February, 1988. The last visit was on May 7, 1990. All of the visits were for the purpose of determining the exact location of ledge that must be blasted and calculating the amount of material to be removed and relocated on the site. Q.9. Describe the topographical and geological conditions you found at the site. A.9. The site of the subdivision is a limestone deposit covered with varying depths of sandy soil. Q.10. Is blasting required to construct the subdivision as planned? A.10. Yes. The latest plans for the Belters' project would require blasting to remove ledge. Blasting is required to add basements to housing and to bury utilities. Without blasting, foundations and utilities would need to be covered with a large amount of fill. Q.11. Describe the areal and vertical extent of blasting which will be required. A.11. The area which will be blasted covers approximately 130,000 square feet, with an average cut in mass rock of 8 feet to a maximum of 18 feet, and average cuts in trench areas of 7 feet. Mass rock is the general area that will be blasted. -2- Trench area is the area in which utility lines will be installed and is typically a trench 4 feet wide. Q.12. Have you calculated the volume of rock which must be removed? How much? A.12. Yes. Approximately 38,500 cubic yards of mass rock, and 550 cubic yards of trench rock must be blasted. The blasted rock will be redistributed on -site to fill low areas. Q.13. Did you determine the distance between the area to be blasted and the nearest residence? A.B. Yes. The distance between the area to be blasted and the nearest residence is approximately 325 feet. A site plan entitled "White Rock Point, Site and Utilities Plan, as revised June 5, 1990", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc., accompanies this testimony as Appellants' Exhibit . The site plan shows the area which will be blasted and the location of nearby residences. Q.14. The residents of Country Club Estates have expressed concerns about the impacts of dust, vibrations, and noise which may be caused by drilling and blasting. I would like you first to describe in general terms your standard procedures for drilling and blasting. A.14. The first step in the blasting process is to meet with residents within 500 feet of the blast site. The purpose of the meeting is to explain the drilling and blasting process and to arrange to conduct a preblast inspection of structures within the 500 foot area. Preblast inspection documents by video tape structural conditions which will serve as a base line to judge future claims of damages. -3- Next, a Blast Plan is prepared by the superintendent of the project, the blaster in charge of the project, and me. The purpose of the Blast Plan is to calculate typical drill patterns and explosives loading information. After the Blast Plan is prepared, holes are drilled in rock in a predetermined pattern to an established depth. The holes are then loaded with explosives which in this case will be a combination of ammonia nitrate and water gel as a primer. The explosives are detonated by means of electric blasting caps. In situations where rock is exposed and there is a possibility of flying rock, the area will be covered by rubber tire blasting mats. The threat of damage to nearby residents from flying rock will not be a problem at the Belters' site because the rock is covered by overburden and the direction of the blast will be away from existing structures. Drilling operations are scheduled between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Blasting would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Typically, there are three blasts per day. The length of time of each blast is measured in milliseconds. Drilling and blasting will occur Monday through Friday. There will be no work on weekends and holidays. Before any blast, nearby residents are warned by an audible warning horn. Vibrations created by blasting is what may potentially cause structural damages to nearby residences. Standards for the blasting industry have been set by U.S. Bureau of Mines to control blast caused vibrations. Vibrations are measured in inches per second. The industry standard to protect structures from damage is two inches per second, measured at the structure of concern. Vibrations are controlled by limiting the amount of explosives used for each blast. It is company policy to achieve a vibration measuring 1.5 inch per second or less at the property line of the blast site, which is very conservative and provides an additional measure of safety to nearby structures beyond the property line. This is the standard which will be applied in the Belters' project. Vibrations are continuously monitored by a seismograph located at the property line. Through constant monitoring, necessary adjustments can be made to keep vibration levels below the limit of 1.5 inches per second. Q.15. Given the specific topography, geologic conditions, and distances to nearby residences at the Belter subdivision site, please describe in detail the specific procedures that you would follow to ensure that the impacts of blasting will not adversely affect the residents of Country Club Estates and their property. A.15. At each blast site, the general topography, rock type, drilled depth, and proximity to structures, have a definite effect on the Blast Plan. Through the use of a generally accepted formula, safe limits can be determined for the initial blast prior to seismograph information being obtained. The standard formula developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, is used to determine the amount of explosives to be used during the blast to achieve a certain inch per second level of vibration. The formula is W = (D/Ds)2 where W equals the maximum weight of explosives in pounds per delay; D is the distance to the nearest structure; and Ds is the Scaled Distance value, an arbitrary figure developed by the Bureau. In this case, we would use a Ds value of 50 which usually generates a .3 to .5 inches/second vibration, a very conservative approach. If this value is used, the -5- formula would tell us to use 20.25 lbs/delay of explosives ((225/50)2 = 20.25 lbs/delay), which would produce a vibration of .3 to .5 inch/second. Let me explain how an explosion occurs. An explosive is actually a series of small explosions separated by a very short, approximately 1/25,000 of a second, delay. Typically, there are 40 separate explosions. For this project, therefore, each explosion would take 40/25,000 of a second. Blasting will be started at a location on the site with an unconfined or free face, and at the greatest distance from existing structures. The accuracy of the Blast Plan and results of the formula will be verified by one or more small test blasts and adjustments would be made to approach the 1.5 inches/second limit. Q.16. How long will the Belters' blasting project take? A.16. Approximately 10 weeks. Q.17. How will you control dust during drilling and blasting? A.17. Hydraulic drills equipped with dust collection systems will capture dust at the top of the drill hole. Dust in collected in an enclosed bin located at the rear of the drill. Periodically, the bin empties a pile of dust directly below the hopper on the ground. There is no dust to speak of during blasting. Q.18. Is the drilling equipment to be used rated for noise levels; what are those noise levels? A.18. Yes. The hydraulic drills are rated to create 106 decibels at a distance of 6 feet from the drill hole. The noise level 325 feet from the drill hole will be a lower decibel. I Q.19. What noise levels will be caused by blasting? A.19. The normal range of noise associated with blasting is 85-90 decibels at 100 feet from the blast. Gregory Wight of Norwich University, recently measured the sound level of drilling and blasting at another blasting site in Charlotte. He will present his findings to the Board in his report and prefiled testimony. Q.20. In your opinion, will drilling and blasting if conducted as you describe, cause any dust or vibration problems to the residents of Country Club Estates or their property? Please explain. A.20. No. There will be no dust beyond the immediate area of the blast site. Vibrations will be controlled well below the level that may cause structural damage to nearby residences. Q.21. Does that conclude your testimony? A.21. Yes, it does. [lee.b06] -7- Prefiled Testimony of Michael Lawrence Q.1. Please state your name, address, and profession. A.1. My name is Michael Lawrence. I have a place of business at 34 Church Street in Burlington, Vermont. I am a Landscape Architect. Q.2. With whom are you associated? A.2. Michael Lawrence and Associates, Inc., Consulting Landscape Architects. Q.3. Describe the type of services provided by Michael Lawrence and Associates. A.3. Landscape Architecture, including park design, campus planning, streetscape design, residential planning, garden design, preparing site analysis and evaluation drawings, concept plans, presentation drawings including rendered plans and perspective sketches, working drawings, contract documents and installation observation. We typically address design layout, earthwork and grading, plant materials, both existing and proposed. Our profession is disciplined in both art and engineering, combining aesthetics, and practicality. Q.4. What is your educational background. AA My grandfather was a Civil Engineer and my father was an Architect. I have a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture Degree from the University of Michigan. 0.5. Describe your professional experiences. A.5. Hoag Wismar Henderson - Architects/Engineers Cleveland, Ohio - Site Planning Department Ole Norgaard - Havearkitekt - Copenhagen, Denmark Landscape Architectural Draftsperson Miceli Kulik - Landscape Architects Rutherford, New Jersey - Junior Landscape Architect M. Paul Friedberg Assoc. - Landscape Architect New York City, New York - Landscape Architect Terry Boyle - Landscape Architects & Site Planners Burlington, Vermont - Landscape Architect Burlington Associates - Architects Burlington, Vermont - Chief of Site Planning Department The Site Concern - Landscape Architects Burlington, Vermont - Founding partner & president Michael Lawrence & Associates, Inc., Landscape Architects Burlington, Vermont - President Q.6. What is the purpose of your prefiled testimony? A.6. The purpose of my prefiled testimony is to: 1. Describe the natural conditions along the Winooski River adjacent to the proposed homesites of the Belters' planned residential subdivision; 2. Describe the intended landscape improvements in the same area; 3. Explain the rationale for those improvements especially keeping in mind views presented to people canoeing on the Winooski River. To provide visual support for my presentation, I have prepared with the assistance of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, exhibits, including aerial photographs (Appellants' Exhibit _), a site plan entitled "Ethan Allen Farms Site Plan" dated May, 1990 (Appellants' Exhibit _); and a site plan entitled "Conservation Plan and Section" dated March, 1989 (Appellants' Exhibit - Q.7. Please describe the land which will be landscaped according to your plan. A.7. The land we're focusing on is about one acre in size, parallels the Winooski River for a distance of approximately 500 feet. It runs along the rear of homesites 11 through 19. Q.8. Please describe the present condition of this particular area in terms of vegetation, topography, and soil conditions. A.8 Vegetation: the riverbank adjacent to lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 is heavily wooded with mature red oak, sugar and red maple, white ash, paper and river birch, hemlock and white pine trees. The bank behind lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is covered with blackberry, wild rose, and honeysuckle, wild shrubs, grapevines, and young alder, poplar, willow and box elder trees. In addition there are 5 large trees, some standing alone and others in groups near the top of the bank. These are -a 12" diameter american elm, a 14' tall canada hemlock, a 10" diameter red maple, a 12" diameter cottonwood poplar, and a grove of trees consisting of 8" - 18" diameter white birch, canada hemlock, american basswood, white ash, red maple, and american elm trees. Topography: The water level in the river adjacent to the site is ordinarily at about elevation 190. The riverbank slopes up uniformly to elevation 208 in a horizontal distance of approximately 30 feet (a slope of 1.6/1). The site levels off over the next 80 feet, then rises an additional 26 feet in a distance of about 120 feet. Soils: Are sandy and gravelly with much exposed white bedrock. Q.9. What is the total length of Winooski River shoreline adjacent to the Belters' entire tract of land? A.9. The total length of the Belters' land is over 19,000 feet, or over 3'/2niles. Q.10. What is the length of the shoreline which will be landscaped under your plan? A.10. The length of shoreline landscaped is approximately 500 feet. Q.11. What is the purpose of your landscape plan? A.11. The purpose of the plan is to: 1. Reinforce the existing visual screen between the river and the new homes; 2. Tie the existing riverbank shade trees together from south to north; 3. Establish vegetative cover and prevent soil erosion in those areas that will be disturbed due to regrading the upper slope. 0.12. Have you been on the Winooski River where it passes the Belters' property? A.12. Yes. Q.13. When and what was the purpose of your visit? A.13. I canoed down the Winooski on May 13th of this year in order to get a firsthand impression of the river perspective. Q.14. I would ask you to describe the landscape and land uses in the general area of the Belters' subdivision from the river, first as viewed by a canoeist moving downstream, then upstream, past the Belters' property and subdivision site. A.14. While moving downstream and approaching from the southeast, the river is set down between 15 and 20 feet below the level of the surrounding land and views are enclosed and limited to the trees along the shoreline, with longer vistas along the river axis. The river twists and turns so even these views are somewhat limited. Approaching the site, one Country Club Estates home is visible due to what appears to be a conscious clearing of the vegetation uphill from the riverbank. The river turns sharply to the right, and runs past the site of the subdivision. As one canoes near the western side of the river, the steeply sloping bank cuts views off from the lands beyond. While moving upstream; the river here is also well below the banks, and views are limited to the thick vegetation, and the next bend. A short portion of the river aligns with the proposed homesites for a distance of about 300 feet. This is about 2000 feet from the closest proposed homesite, and looks along 2000 feet of mature overhanging riverbank trees and is further interrupted by a small (3/4 acre) island. 0.15. How would you characterize the view? Rural, suburban, or urban? Please explain. A.15. I would characterize the view as primarily rural, with a strong suburban influence. Perspectives from the river are primarily treed riverbanks. However, the river occasionally opens to a view of the populated valley edge, or nearby suburban homes. For example, the industrial park on Belters' Drive near the airport runway, St. Michael's College, Fanny Allen Hospital, the house just described above, the red and white checkered air force water tower, are all visible from the river. Q.16. Is the Belters' planned subdivision out of character or inconsistent with the type of development that prevails in the area? A.16. No. The Belters' subdivision is an extension of a suburban neighborhood, and is in character with development in this area and with what is visible from the Winooski River. Although the construction of houses will occupy open space, the amount of acreage is small compared to the balance of the Belters' agricultural operation and insignificant when one considers the literally thousands of acres in the general area which are not developed because they are wetlands or because they are in the flood plain. Q.17. Now describe in detail the elements of your landscape plan. A.17. The detail elements of the landscape plan are as follows: 1. Along the top edge of the riverbank, lots 11-15, a total of 40 deciduous trees planted at 2-21l2' caliper, 12-14 feet high. Tree varieties, red maple, paper birch, and white ash, are the same as on the adjacent land. These will reinforce the backbone of existing trees and over time become one with the existing vegetation along the riverbank. These will be reinforced with groupings of white pines and hemlocks, (also indigenous to the immediate area) a total of 35, planted; 11 @ 3-4 feet high, 12 @ 4-5 feet high, and 12 @ 6-7 feet high. Trees are specified to be planted near the ton of the hank thur. rnicina cite lines and screening the new homes from further out on the river (see Section in Appellants' Exhibit _). 2. Disturbed areas are to be topsoiled and seeded with sheeps fescue, a quick growing, deeply rooted grass, and a mix of wildflowers, to add beauty and variety to the river meadow. A document entitled "Landscape Installations Specifications" accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit Q.18. Assuming that the Belters' subdivision has been approved and houses built, can you tell the Board whether the houses will be visible from the river, and if so, where in the river the houses are visible? A.18. Yes, you will see the homes. Perhaps four or five, depending on your perspective, from a distance of 800 feet as one rounds the bend, as one moves downstream, until you are within 60 feet of the shore at which point the homes will not be visible. The view will be interrupted by the existing tree islands, the emerging plant material, and the new planting. The view of houses as you move downstream is to the left side and is the middleground; as you move upstream the view of homes is also in the middleground. As time passes, and the trees arms, the ,r;P« .F },,. a b-�••, Iry vi 110mes will diminish. Q.19. Are you familiar with the Environmental Board aesthetic principles as proposed in the so-called Quechee Lakes decision? A.19. Yes, in very simple terms, the test is whether a particular development is in harmony with its surroundings. Namely, does it fit. Q.20. As a professional landscape architect, do you have an opinion as to whether the Belters' subdivision fits with its surroundings? A.20. Yes. In my opinion, it does. The homes which will be constructed are an extension of an existing 72 lot subdivision, Country Club Estates. The open space which will be lost is small (15 acres), the site of a former gravel pit, and is consistent with the Belters' master plan for their 345 acres, which in large measure is designed to remain open and in agriculture. The development also conforms with the City's plan for development in this area. Q.21. In your opinion, is the Belter planned subdivision "offensive or shocking" or out of character with its surroundings? A.21. No. As I've said before, the subdivision fits well into the existing rural - subdivision scene. The most sensitive point of view of the development would be from the perspective of some one recreating on the River. With the landscaping in place, a small number of homes will be visible for a short period of time, but considering the existing development and landscaping in the area, the subdivision will not diminish the area's existing scenic qualities. Q.22. Do you believe that with your landscaping plan that the Belters have made a bona fide effort to mitigate any adverse affect their project may have? A.22. Yes. Q.23. Does that conclude your testimony? A.23. Yes. [mike.252] I � MICHAEL LAWRENCE &. ASSOCIATES, INC. THIRTYFOUR CHURCH STREET, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 802-864-0253 LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATION FOR AREA ALONG WINOOSKI RIVER WHITE ROCK POINT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT SECTION A TREES PART I - GENERAL 1.01 REFERENCES A. The General Documents, as listed on the Table of contents, and applicable part of Division 11 General Requirements, shall be included in and made a part of this section. B. Examine all Drawings and all other Sections of the Specifications for the requirements affecting the work of this trade. 1.02 DESCRIPTION A. The work of this Section consists of all site plantings and related items to complete the work as indicated on the Drawings L-1 and/or as specified herein, including, but not limited to: 1. Soil preparation. 2. Trees 3. Planting mixes. 4. Mulch and planting accessories. 5. Maintenance of new plantings 1.03 RELATED WORK UNDER OTHER SECTIONS A. Site Preparation. B. Earthwork. C. Seeding. D. Wildflowers E. Landscape Accessories. 1.05 QUALITY ASSURANCE White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 A. Comply with Section 02000 requirements. B. Plant names indicated comply with "Standardized Plant Names", as adopted by the latest edition of the American Joint Committee of Horticultural Nomenclature. Provide stock true to botanical name and legibly tagged. C. Comply with sizing and grading standards of the latest edition of "American Standard for Nursery Stock". A plant shall be dimensioned as it stands in its natural position. D. Stock furnished shall be at least the minimum size indicated. Larger stock is acceptable, at no additional cost. F. All Plants shall be inspected and approved at the site for compliance with quality, size, and variety. 1.06 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING A. Deliver fertilizer materials in original, unopened, and undamaged container showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. Store in manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. B. Take all precautions customary in good trade practice in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet the highest standards will be rejected. Spray deciduous plants in foliage with an approved "Anti - Desiccant" immediately after digging to prevent dehydration. Dig, pack, transport, and handle plants with care to ensure protection against injury. Protect all plants from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery, properly protect them with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the Landscape Architect. Water heeled -in plantings daily. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. C. Cover plants transported on open vehicles with a protective covering to prevent wind burn. D. Provide dry, loose topsoil for planting. Frozen or muddy topsoil is not acceptable. 1.07 PROJECT CONDITIONS White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 A. Work Notification: Notify Landscape Architect in writing at least 7 working days prior to installation of plant materials. B. Protect existing utilities, paving, and other facilities from damage. 1.08 WARRANTY A. After a minimum sixty days maintenance period, the contractor shall request the Landscape Architect in writing, for an inspection,to determine whether the plant material is acceptable. If the plant material and workmanship are acceptable, written notice will be given by the Landscape Architect to this contractor stating that the guarantee period for the respective area begins from the date of the Certificate of Acceptance. B. If a substantial number of plants are sickly or dead at the point of inspection, acceptance will not be granted and the Contractor's responsibility for the maintenance of all plants shall be extended untill replacements are made. All dead and unsatisfactory plants shall be promptly removed from the project. Replacements shall conform in all respect to the specifications for new plants C. Plants shall be guaranteed for a period of one year after inspection and the acceptance shall be based on alive and satisfactory growth at the end of the guarantee period. D. At the end of the guarantee period, inspection will be made again. Any plant required under this contract that is dead or unsatisfactory shall be removed from the site. Each plant shall show at least 85% healthy growth and shall have the natural character of the plant of it's species in accordance with the American Nurserymen's Association standards. Dead or unsatisfactory plants shall be replaced during the normal planting season, until the plants live through one year. A final inspection for acceptance of replaced plants will be made after replacements have lived through one year. E. All replacements shall be plants of the same kind and size specified in the PLANT LIST. The cost shall be borne by this Contractor. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 F. Warranty shall not include damage or loss of trees, plants, or ground covers caused by fires, floods, freezing rains, lightning storms, or winds over 75 miles per hour, winter kill caused by extreme cold and severe winter conditions not typical of planting area, acts of vandalism or negligence on the part of the Owner. G. Remove and immediately replace all plants determined by the Landscape Architect to be unsatisfactory during the initial planting installation. 1.09 EXAMINATION OF CONDITIONS A. All areas to be maintained or planted shall be inspected by this Contractor before starting work and any defects, such as unhealthy plants, incorrect grading, etc., shall be reported to the Landscape Architect prior to beginning this work. The commencement of work by the Contractor shall indicate his acceptance of the areas to be maintained or planted, and he shall assume full responsibility for the work of this section. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A. Plants: Provide plants typical of their specie or variety with normal, densely -developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Provide only sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, disfiguring knots, sunscald, injuries, frost cracks, abrasions of the bark, plant diseases, insect eggs, borers, and all forms of infestation. All plants shall have a fully developed form without voids and open spaces. 1. Dig balled and burlapped plants with firm, natural balls of earth sufficient diameter and depth to encompass the fibrous and feeding root system necessary for full recovery of the plant. Provide ball sizes complying with the latest edition of the "American Standard for Nursery Stock." Cracked or mushroomed balls are not acceptable. 2. Provide tree species that mature at heights over 25 feet with a single main trunk. Such White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 trees that have the main trunk forming a "Y" shape are not acceptable. 3. Plants larger than those specified in the plant list may be used when acceptable to the Landscape Architect. a. If the use of larger plants is acceptable, increase the spread of roots or root ball in proportion to the size of the plant. 4. The height of the trees, measured from the crown of the roots to the top of the branch, shall not be less than the minimum size designated by the plant list 5. No pruning wounds shall be present with a diameter of more than 1" and such wounds must show vigrous bark on all edges. 6. Evergreen trees shall be brached to the ground. 7. Shrubs and small plants shall meet the requirements for spread and height indicated in the plant list. The thickness of each shrub shall correspond to the trade classification "No. 1." a. The measurements for height shall be taken from the ground level to the height of the top of the plant and not the longest branch. b. Single stemmed or thin plants will not be accepted. C. Side branches shall be generous and well -twigged. Shrubs as a whole shall be well -bushed to the ground. d. Plants shall be in a moist, vigorous condition, free from dead wood, bruises, or other root or branch injuries. Plants shall not be pruned prior to delivery. 2.02 ACCESSORIES A. Topsoil: 1. Shall be a "fine sandy loam" or a "sandy loam" determined by mechanical analysis and based on the "U.S.D.A. Classification System." It shall be of uniform composition without admixture of subsoil. It shall be White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 free of stones greater that one inch, lumps, plants and their roots, debris and other extraneous matter over one inch in diameter. It shall not contain toxic substances harmful to plant growth. It shall be obtained from naturally well drained areas which have never been stripped before and have a history of satisfactory vegetative growth. 2. topsoil shall have an acidity range of pH 5.8 to pH 7.0 and shall contain not less than 4% nor more than 20% organic matter as determined by the loss of ignition of oven - dried samples. B. Peat Moss: Brown to black in color, weed and seed free granulated raw peat or baled peat, containing not more than 9% mineral on a dry basis. C. Fertilizer: shall have the following composition by weight: Nitrogen 10% Phosphoric Acid 6% Potash 4% D. Anti -Desiccant: Mixed and applied in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. E. Mulch: 6-month old, well -rotted, shredded native hardwood bark mulch not larger than 4" in length and 1/2" in width, free of woodchips and sawdust. F. Bone Meal: Commercial raw bone meal, finely ground. G. Water: Clean, potable, free of substances harmful to plant growth. Hoses or other methods of transportation furnished by contractor. H. Stakes for Staking: Hardwood, 21Ix2" x 8'-0" long. I. Guying/Staking/Wire: No. 10 or 12 gauge galvanized wire. J. Staking and Guying Hose: Two ply, reinforced garden hose, not less than 1/2" inside diameter. K. Tree Wrap: Standard waterproofed tree wrapping paper 2-1/2" wide. PART 3 --EXECUTION 3.01 INSPECTION White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 A. Examine proposed planting areas and conditions of installation. Do not start planting work until unsatisfactory conditions are corrected. 3.02 PREPARATION A. Time of Planting: 1. Spring: April 1 through June 15 2. Fall: Deciduous materials -September 1 through November 15 Evergreen materials -August 15 through October 15. B. Planting shall be performed only by experienced workmen familiar with planting procedures under the supervision of a qualified supervisor. C. Locate plants indicated or as approved in the field after staking by this Contractor. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, do not proceed with planting operations until alternate plant locations have been selected by the Landscape Architect. D. Excavate circular plant pits with vertical sides. Provide shrub pits at least 12" greater than the diameter of the root system and tree pits at least 24" greater. Depth of pit shall accommodate the root system. Tree pits shall be one foot deeper than the ball. Shrub pits shall be at least six inches deeper than the ball. Remove excavated materials from the site. E. Provide pre -mixed planting mixture for use around the balls and roots of the plants consisting of planting topsoil and 1/2 lb. plant fertilizer Type "A" for each cu. yd. for mixture. F. Maintain a stockpile of approved loam during planting operations. 3.03 INSTALLATION A. Set plant material in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. The plants shall be centered in the pit. Set plants upright, plumb, and faced to give the best appearance or relationship to each other or adjacent structure. Set plant material 2"-3" above finish grade. No filling will be permitted around trunks or stems. Backfill the pit with planting mixture. Loam White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 shall be backfilled in layers of not more than six inches, and each layer watered sufficiently to settle before the next layer is put in place. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water six inches in depth for trees, four inches deep for bushes. B. After balled and burlapped plants are set, muddle planting soil mixture around bases of balls and fill all voids. 1. Remove all burlap, ropes, and wires from the tops of balls. Do not pull burlap out from under root balls. C. All plants shall be flooded with water twice within the first twenty-four hours of the time of planting and all plants during the maintenance period shall be watered at least twice a week. At each watering the soil around each tree or shrub shall be thoroughly saturated. If sufficient water is retained in the soil, as determined by the Landscape Architect, the required watering may be reduced. Trees will require a minimum of ten gallons of water. D. Mulch tree and shrub planting pits with required mulching material 3" deep within one week after planting. F. Wrapping,and Staking: 1. Inspect trees for injury to trunks, evidence of insect infestation, and improper pruning before wrapping. 2. Wrap trunks of all trees over 1/2" in diameter spirally with a single layer,of tree wrap from bottom to top, and secure in place within one week after planting. a. Overlap 1/2 the width of the tree wrap strip and cover the trunk from the ground to the height of the second branch. b. Secure tree wrap in place with twine wound spirally downward in opposite direction, tied around the tree in at least 3 places in addition to the top and bottom. 3. Firmly stake all trees within one week after lawn seeding and prior to acceptance. Stake deciduous trees over 1" caliper. Stake evergreen trees over 6" tall. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 4. All work shall be acceptable to the Landscape Architect. H. Pruning: 1. Prune branches of deciduous stock, after planting to balance the loss of roots and preserve the natural appearance of the plant. In general, remove 1/4 to 1/3 of the leaf bearing buds. Remove or cut back broken, damaged, and unsymmetrical growth. Do not cut leaders. Prune trees and shrubs in accordance with the American Arborist Association standards. 2. Multiple Leader Plants: Preserve the leader which will best promote the symmetry of the plant. Cut branches flush with the trunk or main branch. Make cut on an angle. 3. Prune evergreens only to remove broken or damaged branches. 3.04 MAINTENANCE A. Maintain planting for a period of at least 60 days after completion of planting operations or until all plants are in a healthy growing condition acceptable to the Landscape Architect. Maintain plantings installed in the fall after September 15 until May 30 of the following year. B. Maintenance shall include pruning, cultivating, weeding, watering, and applications of appropriate insecticides and fungicides necessary to maintain plants free of insects and disease. 1. Re -set settled plants to proper grade and position. Restore planting/saucer and adjacent material and remove dead materials. 2. Tighten and repair guy wires and stakes as required. 3. Correct defective work as soon as possible after deficiences become apparent and weather and season will permit. 4. Water trees, within the first 24 hours of initial planting, and not less than twice per week until final acceptance at the beginning of the guarantee period. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 3.05 ACCEPTANCE A. Inspection to determine acceptance of planted areas will be made by the Landscape Architect upon this Contractor's written request. Provide written notification at least 10 working days before requested inspection date. 1. Planted areas will be accepted by Landscape Architect provided all requirements, including maintenance, have been complied with and plant materials are alive and in a healthy, vigorous condition. 2. If the plant materials and workmanship are acceptable, written notice will be given by the Landscape Architect to this Contractor stating that the one year guarantee period begins from the date of inspection. 3.06 CLEANING A. Perform cleaning of site and pavement areas affected by the work of this contract. Remove from site all excess materials, soils, debris, and equipment. Any damage to the work of others by this trade shall be done by others at this Contractor's expense. -END OF SECTION- 1 � White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 SECTION B WILDFLOWERS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 REFERENCES A. Requirements of the agreement & General Conditions apply to work under this section. 1.02 DESCRIPTION A. The work of this section includes all labor,superintendence, materials, tools, equipment, transportation, and services necessary to complete and maintain the wildflower areas as detailed on the construction drawings and specified herein. B. Included in this section are the following items of work: 1. Preparing the seed bed. 2. Seeding. 3. Mulching. 4. Maintaining wildflower seed beds. 1.03 QUALIFICATIONS A. Work in this section shall be performed by an individual, firm, or corporation who: 1. Has an organization devoted to the type of work under consideration and experienced personell. 2. Has been engaged in this type of work as a principal for a period of not less than five (5) years. 3. Has completed work of this type and quantity in the past two (2) years. 1 White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. The Contractor shall submit a certified analysis of the seed used on this project to the Landscape Architect for approval. B. Procedures and Applications: 1. The Contractor shall provide seed mixtures in accordance with the specifications. 2. Seedbed Preparation: a. Exercise caution so that surface shall not be trafficked over with heavy trucks or equipment. The surface shall remain loose and free, ready for workable hand raking and finish grading. b. Rake up all large stiff clods, hard lumps, roots, litter, other foreign matter and stones larger than 1 1/2 inches in the greater dimension from seedbed and remove from the site. C. The areas to be seeded shall be thoroughly loosened with a double disc or other suitable device, to the depth of not less than two inches (211). Any surface irregularities shall be corrected in order to prevnt pocket or low area formations which will allow water to stand. 1.06 SEEDING A. Seeding: 1. Description: a. Soil preparation b. Seeding wildflower areas C. Mulching d. Maintenance 2. Submittals: Submit seed vendor's certification for required wildflower mixtures indicating percentage by weight and percentages by purity and germination for each species. 3. Delivery, Storage and handling: Deliver seed in original unopened containers, showing weight, analysis and name of manufacturer. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 Store in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. 4. Project Conditions: a. Work notification: Notify Landscape Architect at least seven (7) working days prior to start of wildflower seeding. b. Protect existing utilities, paving and other facilities from damage caused by seeding operations. C. Perform seeding work only after planting and other work affecting ground surface has been completed. d. Restrict traffic from seeded areas until wildflowers are established. Erect signs and barriers as required. 6. Warranty: a. Provide a uniform stand of wildflowers by watering, and maintaining seeded areas until final acceptance. Reseed areas, with specified materials, which fail to provide a uniform stand of wildflowers until all affected areas are accepted by the Landscape Architect. 7. Materials: a. Seed: Fresh, clean and new crop seed mixture mixed by an approved method. b. Blend: Wildflower seed shall be New England Mix, Putney Nurseries, Putney Vt. or approved equal. RATE: 9 LBS PER ACRE C. Straw mulch: Clean oat or wheat straw well seasoned before bailing, free from mature seed -bearing stalks or roots of noxious weeds. d. Water: Shall be free of substances harmful to seed growth. 8. Inspection: a. Examine finish surfaces and grades. Do not start seeding work until unsatisfactory conditions are corrected. 9. Preparation: a. Limit preparation to areas which will be immediately seeded. b. Loosen soil of wildflower seed areas to minimum depth of 411. Remove stones over 1" in any diameter and sticks, roots, rubbish and extraneous matter. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 C. Remove existing weeds and grasses by pulling or tilling under. d. Grade wildflower areas to a smooth, free draining even surface with a loose, moderately coarse texture. Remove ridges and fill depressions as required to drain. e. Restore prepared areas if eroded, or disturbed prior to seeding. 10. Installation: a. Seeding: (1). Seed immediately after preparation of bed. Spring seeding between April 1 and June 1, and fall seeding between August 15 and October 15, or at such other times acceptable to the Landscape Architect. (2). Seed indicated areas within contract limits and areas adjoining contract limits disturbed as a result of construction operations. (3). Perform seeding operations when the soil is dry and when winds do not exceed five (5) miles per hour velocity (4). Apply seed with a rotary or drop type distributor. Install seed evenly by sowing equal quantities in two (2) directions, at right angles to each other. (5). Sow lawn seed at a rate of nine (9) pounds per acre. (6) After seeding, rake or drag surface of soil lightly to incorporate seed into top 1/8" of soil C. Mulching: Place straw mulch on seeded areas within 24 hours after seeding. Place uniformly in a continuous blanket at the rate of two (2) fifty (50) pound bales per 1,000 square feet of area. A mechanical blower may be used for straw mulch application d. Provide straw bale checking in ditches or problem swales at intervals required to adequately slow water velocity and impede soil loss. 11. Maintenance: a. Maintenance of installed and accepted seeded areas will be performed by the owner. White Rock Point Riveredge Landscape Specification-MLA-8910 b. Maintain seeded areas, including watering, and re -seeding until a full healthy uniform stand of wildflowers, free of weeds, is established and accepted by the Landscape Architect. (1) Water twice weekly to maintain adequate soil moisture for proper seed germination. for not less than thirty (30) days. (2) Repair, rework and re -seed all areas that have washed out, are eroded or do not catch. 12. Acceptance: a. Inspection to determine acceptance of wildflower areas will be made by the Landscape Architect, upon Contractor's request. Provide notification at least ten (10) working days before requested inspection date. (1). Seeded areas will be acceptable provided all installation and maintenance requirements have been complied with and a healthy uniform stand of wildflowers is established. b. Upon acceptance, the owner will assume maintenance. 13. Cleaning: a. Perform cleaning during installation and upon completion of the work. Remove from site all excess materials, debris and equipment. Repair damage resulting from seeding operations. c-END OF SECTION- Prefiled Testimony Of Charles Hafter Q.1. Please state your name, address and occupation. A.1. My name is Charles Hafter. I live at K10 Stonehedge Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. I am City Manager of the City of South Burlington. Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony? A.2. The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the City of South Burlington's plans for improving certain intersections and roadways that will be used by traffic generated by John Belter's residential subdivision in the City. In particular, I will discuss the City's plans for improving the intersection of Airport Parkway, Shamrock Road, and Ethan Allen Drive; the streets of Country Club Estates; and the Air National Guard Road to accommodate existing and future traffic, including that which will be generated by the Belters' subdivision. Q.3. Directing your attention to the intersection of Airport Parkway, Shamrock Road, and Ethan Allen Drive, are you familiar with the traffic study and report prepared by JHK & Associates and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission entitled "Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road/City of South Burlington" dated December 15, 1989 (Appellants' Exhibit ), which defines existing problems and suggests future solutions at that intersection? A.3. Yes. This is a study commissioned for the City by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The City recognized that improvements are needed at this intersection to handle existing, as well as future traffic, as a result of normal growth, whether the Belters' subdivision is ever approved and constructed. Q.4. The JHK report recommends specific improvements to the intersection, including immediate actions, short-term actions, and intermediate and long-term actions. Please discuss what actions the City intends to take and when, in response to the JHK report? A.4. First, I should point out that as a condition of City Planning Commission approval of the Belters' industrial subdivision, which is being developed, and this proposed residential subdivision, the Belters were required to dedicate land and finance improvements to that intersection. These improvements include dedication to the City of a one half acre triangular piece of land between Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road; dedication to the City of right-of-way on Ethan Allen Drive; construction of additional turning lanes on Airport Parkway; and payment of impact fees totalling $28,480 for improvements to Ethan Allen Drive and future long-term improvements of the Airport Parkway and the Lime Kiln Bridge. Construction of the additional turning lanes has already been completed. Also, the immediate actions recommended by the JHK report, namely the elimination of existing pavement markings and provision of new markings, and installation of additional lighting have been completed. -2- As stated in the report and discussed by other witnesses in these proceedings, the long-term solution is relocation of Airport Parkway, but that is at least ten years in the future. The report recommends modifications to the existing intersection alignment, including redirection of left turning traffic; relocation of a stop sign, and physical improvements to the Airport Parkway curve. The details of these modifications have been discussed in detail by other witnesses. The City has carefully evaluated these recommendations and intends to implement them. The City will include these improvements in the capital budget and have them in place by 1995. Q.5. Now, please discuss the City's plans for the Air National Guard Road. A.5. While the Air National Guard Road is located in South Burlington, it is owned by the City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners. As I understand it, the Airport Commissioners were concerned about the impact of the additional traffic from Belters' residential subdivision on the road, even though Belters' traffic would amount to only 11% of the traffic which uses the road on a daily basis. The Commissioners also wanted to dedicate the road to South Burlington. The City of South Burlington has entered into an agreement with the City of Burlington and the Belters whereby South Burlington will take over ownership of the road from Burlington provided that the road is upgraded, according to the terms of that Agreement. (The Road Agreement is Appellants' Exhibit _). A -3- description of the improvements is set forth on Exhibit B of the Agreement and will be discussed by Roger Dickinson, Belters' transportation consultant. It is estimated that the improvements will cost $45,000.00. The Cities each agreed to pay 25% or $6,000 each, whichever is less, towards the improvements. For their part, the Belters agreed to arrange for the construction of the improvements and to pay the balance of the costs involved provided they obtain an Act 250 permit for their residential subdivision with a condition that the improvements satisfy the Environmental Board's concerns about traffic and impact on public investments. It is the City of South Burlington's position that with the upgrading, the Air National Guard Road will adequately and safely handle traffic from both existing and future development, such as the Belters' residential subdivision, and on that basis the City is willing and able to take over ownership of the road and assume responsibility for future maintenance and improvements. Q.6. Does the City have future plans for upgrading the streets of Country Club Estates and connecting roadways in the immediate vicinity? Please discuss these plans. A.6. 'Be City's present plan and budget calls for upgrading, with a new base and pavement of all the streets of Country Club Estates at the same time that sewer lines are installed to serve the residents of Country Club Estates. At the present, all of the residents of Country Club Estates discharge wastewater into individual onsite septic systems. Some of these systems have failed. A major component of the future sewer system for -4- that area is a pumping station which will be constructed by Belters to serve their proposed residential subdivision. The Belters have agreed to construct the pumping station and then dedicate it to the City. The City will use the pumping station to also serve the residents of Country Club Estates. So, the present plan to upgrade Country Club Estates streets depends upon the approval and construction of the Belters' subdivision. Of course, the area will eventually be sewered in any event because of existing public health and environmental problems caused by inadequate septic systems. If the Belters' subdivision is not approved, however, a different plan and new budget will have to be approved by the voters to construct the sewer system, and street improvements may be delayed. As for other upgrading and maintenance work in the immediate area of Country Club Estates, drainage, widening, and repaving of sections of Country Club Drive, Shamrock Road and Poor Farm Roads, has recently been completed. Q.7. As City Manager, do you feel that traffic from the Belters' subdivision will unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the City's investment in the streets and highways of South Burlington? A.7. No. It is the City's position that with the improvements planned for Air National Guard Road and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road, the streets and highways of the City are capable of handling the additional traffic from the Belters' subdivision.. - 5 - The Belters contribution in land dedication and funds adequately compensate the City for the impacts caused by the Belters' traffic. Q.8. Does this conclude your testimony? A.8. Yes, it does. [hafter.b06] �IV Prefiled Testimony .M Roger J. Dickinson, P.E. Q.1. Please state your name, your profession, and by whom you are employed. A.1. My name is Roger J. Dickinson. I am a professional engineer employed by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc., Williston, Vermont. I specialize in transportation engineering. 0.2. Please describe your educational and professional background. A.2. A copy of my resume is attached to this prefiled testimony. Q.3. Were you retained by John and Joyce Belter to conduct a study of the impact of traffic generated by their proposed 36 lot subdivision in South Burlington? A.3. Yes, I conducted a study of the impact of the proposed subdivision on three intersections, including Poor Farm Road/Country Club Drive; Poor Farm Road/Mountainview Boulevard; and Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road. I studied the impact of Belters' traffic on Air National Guard Road and the streets of Country Club Estates. I also analyzed alternative accesses to the subdivision which would avoid directing traffic over the streets of Country Club Estates. The study area is shown on a site plan entitled "Ethan Allen Farms Site Plan" and is Appellants' Exhibit Q.4. Did you prepare a report detailing your findings, conclusions, and recommendations? A.4. Yes. The report accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit _. The report is entitled 'Traffic Impact Evaluation - White Rock Point, South Burlington, Vermont" and is dated June 1, 1990. The report is an updated compilation of previous reports, correspondence, and testimony which I presented to the District Environmental Commission in its deliberations on this application. Q.5. Please summarize your conclusions. A.5. The only practical access to the site of the Belters' proposed subdivision is over the streets of Country Club Estates, namely Country Club Drive, and Mountainview Boulevard. Constructing a city street through the Belters' farmstead, which is now basically a farm lane, would severely conflict with their agriculture operation and would cross agricultural lands and wetlands. Reconstruction of the so-called Haul Road would be extremely difficult and expensive because of poor site conditions. Reconstruction of the Haul Road would also infringe on wetlands and a stream. I also concluded that the streets of Country Club Estates are adequate in structure and design to accommodate Belters' additional traffic. The actual design capacity of those 2 lane streets to handle traffic is 2000 vehicles per hour on both lanes. The recommended traffic volume for -2- local streets in a residential area is 1500 vehicles per hour. The present current daily traffic volumes on Country Club Drive are estimated to equal 400 vehicles per and during a peak hour I actually counted 20 vehicles per hour on Country Club Drive. With Belters' traffic, the volumes per day will increase to 762, well within the recommended volumes on this type of streets. Based on the ITE trip generation rate applicable to the project, I project 36 additional vehicles, 23 coming, 13 going, on Country Club Drive during the p.m. peak hour. I do point out that there is a sharp curve on Country Club Drive which does not conform to South Burlington subdivision standards with respect to radii of the curve for new streets. However, in my opinion, the present design of Country Club Drive is not undesirable in a residential area with pedestrian and bicycle traffic because the curve slows traffic. I would also point out that the design standard for curve radii is frequently waived for new residential development by the South Burlington Planning Commissions for precisely this reason. With regard to the Air National Guard Road, the present structure and configuration of the road is, in fact, adequate to handle Belters' additional traffic, which will amount to only 11% of the total traffic volumes using the Road. However, to satisfy the City of South Burlington's conditions for taking over ownership of the road from the City of Burlington Airport -3- Commissioners, additional improvements will be made which will serve to further improve safety conditions. With regard to the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road, the present level of service for left turns from Ethan Allen Drive onto Airport Parkway during average day peak hours is level of service C. During design peak hour (the 30st highest hour of the year), the level of service is F for that one turning movement. Belters' residential traffic at buildout in 1995 would contribute only 2% of the total volume of traffic at that time. With the improvements recommended by JHK & Associates and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission in place, overall traffic conditions will improve to level of Service B. Those impacts are mitigated by the Belters' contribution ($3,920) toward the implementation of those improvements to the intersection. Q.6. In your opinion, will the traffic from Belters' proposed subdivision cause unreasonable congestion and unsafe conditions with respect to the streets and intersections of the area? A.6. No. Belters' traffic will not cause or contribute to congestion or unsafe conditions on the streets of Country Club Estates or the Air National Guard Road. Insofar as the Belters' traffic contributes to congestion or unsafe conditions at the intersection, that contribution is extremely minor (2% at total buildout) and the Belters' contributions effectively mitigate that diminimus impact. In addition, I conclude that, overall, future traffic -4- congestion and safety conditions on the affected streets, and intersections will be substantially improved with the improvements described in place, over existing conditions. Q.7. Does this conclude your testimony? A.7. Yes, it does. [roger.b06] - 5 - FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 June 1. 1990 Mr. John Belter Country Club Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Traffic Impact Evaluation - White Rock Point South Burlington, Vermont FILE: e7063 Dear Mr. Belter: As requested, we have analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the above referenced 36 lot residential subdivision, which is to be located adjacent to Country Club Estates on Poor Farm Road. The study area of this evaluation includes three intersections: Poor Farm Road/Country Club Drive, Poor Farm Road/Mountain View Boulevard and Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road. The study area also includes the Air National Guard Road and the streets of Country Club Estates. Three major areas of concern to local and state officials are addressed herein: Access Alternatives, Traffic Congestion, and Geometric Conditions. The objective of this evaluation is to identify and assess potential traffic impacts created by this project in each of the above areas of concern, for both existing and future traffic conditions. ACCESS ALTERNATIVES As presently proposed, access to this subdivision will be via existing public streets; notably Country Club Drive and Mountain View Boulevard. At previous hearings for this project, it has been suggested that consideration be given to alternate routes of access. Those alternate routes include: a connection to Country Club Drive East, an extension of Ethan Allen Drive and the use of the old "Haul Road". Country Club Drive East The Country Club Estates subdivision includes a 60' wide right-of- way linking the present cul-de-sac at the end of Country Club Drive East to this project. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies • Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. John Belter FILE: e7063 June 1, 1990 Page Two At local hearings for this project, the South Burlington Planning Commission considered the use of this right-of-way for vehicular access. That commission decided however, that the close proximity of existing houses on either side of this right-of-way severely limited its use by vehicular traffic, and instead directed that this right-of-way be used for utility purposes only. Ethan Allen Drive Extension This potential access route would necessitate the construction of approximately 2,000 feet of new public roadway. Approximately one-half of this new roadway would be on new alignment through the farm yards, and the remaining portion would essentially follow the route of the existing Haul Road into this project. The first portion of this route, through the farm yards, would severely disrupt existing farm operations. Additionally, the continual movement of farm machinery in this area would create numerous conflicts and unsafe conditions for both farm operations and the general public which would be traveling on this roadway. Once beyond the immediate farm area, this new route crosses a designated wetland and a stream before reaching the existing Haul Road. In addition to further impacting the agricultural use of this area, wetlands modification permits would be required from both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. A perpendicular crossing of this wetland and stream would most likely be required in order to minimize environmental impacts. The construction of new roadway along this portion would also require the removal of poor existing subsoils and the construction of a substantial fill section. The second portion of this access route would involve constructing a new roadway along the alignment of the existing Haul Road. Being located along the base of an embankment, extensive drainage and earthwork would be required along this portion as well. Overall, the construction of a public street along this potential access route is estimated to cost $200,000 - $300,000. Haul Road The Haul Road was originally constructed as a temporary road extending north from Poor Farm Road into the area of this project. Its purpose was to enable the removal of sand and gravel from this FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: e7063 June 1, 1990 Page Three area. Since that ceased several years ago, its use has been primarily for the movement of farm machinery. The Haul Road parallels the westerly edge of the Country Club Estates subdivision for a distance of approximately 2,400 feet. The terrain that it traverses is characterized by silty soils and steep embankments. Much of this roadway was constructed by benching the side of the embankment which forms the rear of the lots of adjacent parcels within Country Club Estates. This bench is of sufficient width to permit only one-way traffic at the present time. To widen it so as to construct a public street would require extensive earthwork. Further cutting into the embankment is not possible due to the steep slopes and unstable soil conditions. Widening therefore would necessitate extensive filling along the west side, which would again impact an existing wetland and stream. The existing vertical alignment of the Haul Road is also of concern. Substantial portions of this existing roadway have grades exceeding 10 percent, and as great as 13 percent. Reduction of those grades would require extensive vertical realignment starting at Poor Farm Road and extending approximately 1,600 feet north. Numerous groundwater seeps are also visible along the existing Haul Road. Those seeps combined with poor subsoil conditions would require extensive drainage work in addition to the actual roadway construction. Overall, it is estimated that the construction of a public street along this route would cost $300,000 - $400,000. Overall As noted in the above discussion of the latter two routes, the construction of either to serve this proposed subdivision would create significant impacts on existing environmental conditions and agricultural operations. In the way of traffic impacts, local public streets in residential areas, such as Country Club Drive and Mountain View Boulevard, are typically designed to serve traffic volumes of up to 1,500 vehicles per day ("Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1964"). That limit is primarily intended to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods; in reality the streets themselves can carry FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: 87063 June 1, 1990 Page Four substantially greater traffic volumes without creating adverse traffic congestion or safety conditions. If all 72 lots of Country Club Estates were to use only one access, the corresponding daily traffic would equal approximately 700 vpd. That is not the case, however. Instead, at the present time, daily traffic volumes on Country Club Drive are estimated to equal approximately 400 vpd. That volume, plus the projected additional traffic which would be generated by this project (362 vpd), is still considerably less than the 1,500 vpd threshold outlined above. The traffic congestion and safety benefits of an alternate access would therefore be insignificant. Additionally, there are other disadvantages of the latter two alternate access routes. Either route would create an extremely long cul-de-sac linking this project to existing streets. Such road layouts are undesirable with respect to municipal services due to increased public safety risks plus increased road maintenance costs. TRAFFIC CONGESTION Information regarding traffic volumes within the study area was obtained from the following sources: 1. Automatic Traffic Recorder Counts, Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 11-12, 1999. 2. Turning Movement Count, Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, May 18, 1989. 3. Turning Movement Count, Poor Farm Road/Country Club Drive, FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, March 14, 1988. 4. Turning Movement Count, Poor Farm Road/Mountain View Boulevard, FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, March 14, 1988. Because of the lack of data documenting average daily traffic volumes on Poor Farm Road, the observed turning movement volumes for the latter two intersections were adjusted to a P.M. peak hour during the peak month of the year (August). Typically, projects, such as this, are seldom fully developed and occupied within a one-year period. It is necessary, therefore, to project existing traffic volumes to a future design year, and to FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: B7063 June 1, 1990 Page Five also analyze traffic congestion conditions for that design year. For this project, a five-year projection, from 1990 to 1995, was developed using an annual growth rate of 3 percent in daily traffic volumes. For the purpose of this evaluation, background traffic volumes at the Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road intersection were also increased to reflect anticipated full development of the commercial area along Ethan Allen Drive. Once existing and future background traffic volumes were determined, it was necessary to estimate the volumes and direction patterns of the additional vehicular traffic which this project will generate. The major determinants of the volume of traffic which will be generated by this project are the type and size of the proposed land uses. An estimate of the traffic generation was developed through the use of vehicular trip generation rates from "Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th Edition". That report outlines the results of trip generation studies for numerous land uses during both daily and peak hourly periods. The category used for this project was "Single Family Dwelling - Land Use Category 210". Table 1 outlines the projected vehicular trip volumes. TABLE 1 PROJECTED VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION Enter Exit Total Average Weekday 161 1B1 362 vte/day A.M. Peak Hour 7 20 27 vte/hour P.M. Peak Hour 23 13 36 vte/hour The directional distribution of project -generated traffic was estimated using existing traffic patterns and potential origins/destinations. Appendix A illustrates the resulting patterns of project -generated P.M. peak hour traffic within the study area. Since traffic flow on a street network is typically limited by available capacity at intersections, the potential traffic congestion impacts of this project were determined by performing capacity analyses at the three intersections. The methodology FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: 87063 June 15 1990 Page Six used to determine intersection capacity was obtained from the "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985". Traffic conditions were analyzed using 1990 and 1995 volumes, as outlined above. Table 2 presents the results of those analyses. TABLE 2 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 1990 1995 w/o w/ w/o w/ w/imp Poor Farm Road/Country Club Drive Poor Farm Road A A A A A Country Club Drive/National A A A A A Guard Access Poor Farm Road/Mountain View Boulevard Poor Farm Road A A A A A Mountain View Boulevard A A A A A Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive Airport Parkway A A A A B Ethan Allen Drive (LT) F F F F C Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road Airport Parkway A A A A A Shamrock Road (RT) A A A A A Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road Shamrock Road A A A A C Ethan Allen Drive EB A A A A A Ethan Allen Drive WB C C D D C Urban local and collector intersections are generally designed to maintain Level of Service D or better during design hour conditions. The concept of levels of service has been developed to define reasonable ranges in the degree of utilization and resulting congestion experienced. Level of Service A represents very low loading with ample reserve capacity and no vehicular delays, C represents average conditions, and E/F represents a street or intersection at capacity, causing very long queues and vehicular delays. At unsignalized intersections, it is not uncommon for traffic exiting the minor street to experience long delays, particularly Mr. John Belter FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: e7063 June 1, 1990 Page Seven where high traffic volumes exist on the major street. This is caused by minor street movements having to yield right-of-way to major street traffic. The Highway Capacity Manual recognizes that unsignalized intersections are unique in this respect, and identifies the threshold of Level of Service E/F as being the point at which unreasonable traffic congestion conditions typically occur. Based on the results of the intersection capacity analyses, it is apparent that lower than desired levels of service already exist at the Ethan Allen approach to Airport Parkway. This approach primarily serves left -turns destined to points south. Because of their proximity, this congestion likely affects traffic operations at the Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road intersection as well. Potential improvements to this intersection to improve existing levels of traffic congestion will be discussed in Geometric Conditions. GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS Several areas of concern exist relative to existing geometric conditions of roadways and intersection within the study area. For clarity, each location will be discussed individually. Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road This intersection has been found to be a location of high levels of traffic congestion and accidents. Recent improvements to this intersection included the construction of a northbound right -turn and a southbound left -turn lane. Those lanes were constructed as part of Phase III of the Ethan Allen Farm Industrial Subdivision. Their purpose was primarily to improve traffic safety by separating turning vehicles from through traffic on Airport Parkway. Additional improvements have been evaluated in detail in a report entitled "Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Assistance Project - Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road, JHK & Associates, December 15, 1989". That report was commissioned by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission on behalf of the City of South Burlington. It FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: 197063 June 1, 1990 Page Eight recommends a number of improvements including upgrading street lighting, repaving and restriping, new traffic signage and the future installation of a traffic signal. We understand that the City will undertake those improvements in order to restore desirable congestion and safety conditions at this intersection. An analysis of future (1995) traffic conditions at this intersection with a traffic signal indicate that traffic congestion conditions will be improved to Level of Service B. This project will increase future P.M. peak hour traffic volumes passing through this intersection by approximately two percent. To mitigate that impact this project has been required to pay an impact fee of $3,920 for future improvements to Airport Parkway and this intersection. It should also be noted that the Ethan Allen Farm Industrial Subdivision has been previously required to pay an impact fee of $23,41D0 for the same purpose. National Guard Road This project will increase future P.M. peak hour traffic volumes on National Guard Road by approximately eleven percent. To mitigate this project's impact on existing traffic congestion and safety conditions, this project will widen and repave National Guard Road as part of a mutual agreement with the Cities of Burlington and South Burlington. Upon completion of those improvements, ownership of this roadway will be transferred to the City of South Burlington. These proposed improvements, which are described in Appendix B, will maintain Level of Service C traffic congestion conditions and improve traffic safety by providing additional pavement width plus a shoulder on each side of the roadway. The proposed pavement width of 22 feet is adequate for two-way traffic on a roadway of this type which does not have on -street parking. Country Club Drive The adequacy of Country Club Drive to safely accommodate the additional project -generated traffic has been questioned at previous Act 250 hearings for this project. Specifically, those questions have focused on the area of two sharp corners in Country Club Drive and the lack of sidewalks along the roadway. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Bel ter FILE: 87063 June 1, 1990 Page Nine The streets of Country Club Estates meet current City standards for local residential streets, with the exception of the items noted above. These streets are 30 feet wide and have curbs on both sides. Two sharp corners in Country Club Drive have centerline radii of 30 feet. That, combined with a grade of approximately 7 percent, forces traffic to slow to a speed of approximately 15 mph in order to comfortably negotiate them. No accidents have been reported on Country Club Drive or any other streets within Country Club Estates during the most recent 29 month period. While these two corners are sharp, they do slow traffic, which is a desirable design element of residential streets. To that end, the City has often waived its minimum standards for corner radii for streets in residential subdivisions We also understand that there is reported opposition from residents of Country Club Estates to sidewalks being installed along these streets. It would be possible to increase the centerline radii to 45 feet and still maintain the roadway within the existing right-of-way. Such a modification, however, would principally serve to increase vehicular speeds through these curves, with no resulting improvement of existing traffic safety conditions. The existing physical condition of Country Club Drive and Mountain View Boulevard are adequate to safely accommodate both existing and future traffic volumes with this project. While portions of these two streets have experienced some physical deterioration in pavement surface, those conditions are not atypical of streets in this climate. CONCLUSION This report has evaluated potential traffic impacts resulting from a proposed 36 unit residential subdivision. Based on the results of the analyses presented herein, we conclude that alternate access routes to this subdivision would create significant impacts on the existing farm operation and adjacent wetlands. Additionally, the traffic congestion and safety benefits of each route are questionable at best. Accordingly, we continue to recommend that access be via Country Club Drive. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. John Belter FILE: e7063 June 1, 1990 Page Ten This project was found not to significantly impact existing traffic congestion and safety conditions. With the improvements proposed to National Guard Road and the Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Shamrock Road intersection, any impacts created by this project will be effectively mitigated. We also find that the streets of Country Club Estates are safe and have sufficient capacity to absorb the additional project - generated traffic without creating unreasonable impacts on adjacent residential uses. We wish to thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWE LYN INCORPORATED Ro�q�, r Dickinson, P.E. CC. John Ponsetto FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX A P.M. PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT —GENERATED TRAFFIC FITZPATRIC K-LLEWE L LYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services FITZPATRICK LLEWELLYN I, APORATED Engineering & Planning Services The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 878-3000 nuw--. i. �— —.. .......... JOB �7063 A g. ' SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY— Ky —I) DATE J - I R CHECKED BY DATE ere,c %K'7I? 'ID 1C-Ik?1,-.,AI\of\J - pyV)• pc")Z)Y W/)Iiv% APPENDIX B DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL GUARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services EXHIBIT B REQUIRED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1. Generally, the existing paved roadway is to be widened by two feet (from 20 feet to 22 feet) for a distance of approximately one-half mile. This widening will occur exclusively on the south side of the existing roadway. 2. Associated with this widening, 18 inches of gravel subbase and two inches of Type II bituminous concrete base course will be installed on the south side of the existing roadway. 3. Each existing drop inlet on the south side of the roadway (seven by count of Fitzpatrick-Llewelly) will be rebuilt so as to provide a standard cast iron frame and grate inlet. The rim elevations will set so as to collect drainage from the roadway and surrounding terrain. 4. The entire widened roadway (22 feet) will be overlaid with a one inch Type III bituminous concrete wear course. 5. Upon completion of new paving, the shoulder on the south side of the widened roadway will be regraded and all disturbed areas around the drop inlets restored to their original condition. 6. The roadway approximately at the former National Guard entrance will require extra shimming to correct the super elevation in the area. 7. After the final surface course is applied to the entire width of roadway, the road shall have shoulder of stone dust constructed along each side of the new paving. McNEIL & MURRAY II URI.I NGTON. VERMONT05401 #40/573 ` Prefiled Testimony of Gregory D. Wight, P.E. 0.1. Please state your name, address, and profession. A.1. Gregory D. Wight. I live in Brookfield, Vermont, 05036. I am an Associate Professor, Environmental Technology at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. Q.2. Please describe your educational background. A.2. I received a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T. in 1967 and an M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Florida in 1968. Q.3. Please describe your professional experiences. A.3. Air Force Jet Engine Development Engineer, 4 years; Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Air Quality Engineer, 4 years; Professor Environmental Technology, 12 years; and Noise Evaluation Teaching and Consulting experience, 10 years. Q.4. What is the purpose of your prefiled testimony? A.4. I have been asked by John and Joyce Belter to study the affect of noise caused by drilling and blasting and other construction activities during construction of their proposed subdivision. In particular, I have been asked to determine the noise levels from such activities within an adjacent subdivision, Country Club Estates. I conducted that study and my findings and conclusions are discussed in a report entitled "1990 Noise Study for John and Joyce Belter". That report accompanies this prefiled testimony as Appellants' Exhibit _). Q.5. Please summarize your report. A.5. I was advised by Lee Tillotson of Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. that one would expect to measure sound caused by blasting to be in range of 86 to 88 decibels (dBA) at 100 feet from the explosion, and sound from drilling to be at a level of 106 dBA at six feet from the drill. To verify these values, I measured sounds from drilling and blasting and other construction related activities at a drilling and blasting operation in Charlotte. The drilling and blasting operation was also conducted by Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc. The results of that test are contained in Table 1 of the report. The noise level from drilling ranged from 109 dBA measured at five feet from the drill to 65 dBA measured at 280 feet from the drill. The noise level from blasting was 82 dBA measured at 280 feet from the explosion. The other noises I measured were that caused by the backup beeper of a bulldozer which measured 90 dBA ten feet from the bulldozer, and the blast warning horn which measured 62 dBA 50 feet from the horn. I also measured sound levels one currently experiences in the vicinity of Country Club Estates and the Belter property. Background sound with -2- little activity measured in the 45 to 50 dBA level range. Sound generated by low flying small private plane which flew over the Belter property and Country Club Estates, as it was landing at the Burlington Airport, measured 60 dBA. A garbage truck as it passed through Country Club Estates measured 82 dBA at 10 feet. A commercial jet plan taking off measured 80 dBA; and F-16 jet fighter flying over measured 78 dBA. All of these sound measurements were made on May 18, 1990. 0.6. Based on the information you obtained, are you able to predict what the various levels of noise will be at 325 feet, the closest residence in Country Club Estates to the blasting site? A.6. Yes. There is a formula which estimates sound at a distance from a point when the sound level at that point is known. Based on that formula, at a distance of 325 feet, the noise level of drilling would range between 64 dBA and 73 dBA. The noise level from blasting would range between 76 dBA and 81 dBA. The noise level from the backup beeper in the bulldozer is predicted to be 60 dBA at 325 feet; the noise level from the blast warning horn is predicted to be 46 dBA at 325 feet. It is important to note that all of these noise levels at 325 feet would be heard outside of any building. Noise levels inside a building, even with the windows open, would be much lower. For instance, noise levels would -3- drop by 27 dBA inside a building with the windows closed. With the windows open, noise levels would drop 17 dBA, on average. Q.7 How do these sound levels of drilling between 64 and 73 dBA and dBA blasting between 76 and 81 dBA compare with other familiar sounds? A.7. Figures 2, 3, and 4 of the report provide illustrations of sound levels from other activities. Also, based on my measurements, blasting would be about as loud as a passing garbage truck at ten feet. Drilling would be more persistent, but would be less loud. For a person inside their home at 325 feet with the windows closed, noise levels from drilling and blasting would be about the same as conversational speech (on the order of 50 to 60 dBA) and would be heard, but not if an air conditioner or other household appliances which produce a range of 45 to 86 dBA were in operation within the residence. Another example for comparison purposes would be noise generated by average street traffic at 85 dBA by the roadside and from a jet take -off at 80 dBA. Q.8. In your opinion, would the sound levels from drilling, blasting, and other construction activities expose nearby residents of Country Club Estates to unacceptable noise levels? A.8. During construction on the Belter property, residents of Country Club Estates will hear the construction noises, particularly when they are outside. The noise levels, however, will be similar to those generated by activities in the common experience of suburban dwellers. Though the noise levels in Country Club Estates will temporarily be louder than they -4- currently are, it is incorrect to characterize the forecast noise as "excessive". Q.9. Does this conclude your testimony? A.9. Yes, it does. [wight.b05] -5- 1990 NOISE STUDY for JOHN and JOYCE BELTER South Burlington, Vermont Prepared by Gregory D. Wight, P.E. May, 1990 In order to develop estimates of potential noise levels due to drilling and blasting operations at the proposed White Rock Point development in South Burlington, VT, measurements were made at that site and at a drilling and blasting operation currently underway in Charlotte, VT. The measured data are reported in Table 1. and Figure 1. of this report. The values measured are largely consistent with information previously provided by Maine Drilling and Blasting: 86 to 88 dBA at 100 feet from the explosion 106 dBA at 6 feet from the drill The Charlotte site is mostly open, like the Belter property, so the data may be used to estimate effects on neighboring residences of a similar drilling and blasting operation at the proposed development site. The frequency spectrum ("OCTAVE BAND DATA") in Table 1. and Figure 1 indicate that the drilling process results in noise that is loudest in the lowest frequencies, but has a significant high frequency component. The data in the lower half of Table 1. are measurements at various distances during drilling and blasting operations. [dBA means decibels, A -weighted, the units used to measure the loudness or amplitude of noise as perceived by the human ear, which does not respond equally to all frequencies. decibels, unweighted refers to acoustic pressure related measurements, unadjusted for human ear frequency responses.] DATA SHEET FOR 1990 DELTER PROPERTY NOISE STUDY Table 1. GREGORY D. WIBHT 05/21/90 Time: 7:M AM Date: 5118/90 Location: Charlotte Weather: Temperature: 55 F; partly cloudy Relative Humidity: 30% Slight breeze (<2 mph), from drill to meter OCTAVE BAND DATA 1 2 3 4 drill dist. 82 ft 14 ft M ft 260 ft Frequency —------__ --__--_ 31.5 Hz 60 73 11 54 ; 63 85 93 91 69 ; 125 82 88 88 72 ; 250 ; 73 82 85 59 ; 500 70 86 85 54 ; 1000 ; 72 88 84 58 ; 2000 ; 72 89 82 60 4000 69 so 77 53 ; BU00 62 85 68 42 ; 16000 47 76 55 27 ; 31500 23 53 31 28 ; Overall Noise Level (0) 80 65 dirt to engine: 68 ft 20 ft 16 ft 255 ft OTHER MEASUREMENTS Location: Charlotte, 5/18/90 Location: Belter Property, 5/18/90 distance Noise Comment Rise from drill Level Level (feet) (dBA) (dBA) 82 73.5 drill idling ; Top of white rocks 45-50 82 80 drilling, behind engine 12 99 drilling, off to side With private plane 15 98 drilling,off to side ; landing 60 5 109 drilling, by operator's head ; 12 102 drilling, 1' from engine ; 10 ft fm Garbage truck 91 78 drilling in Country Club Est. 82 280 57 drill idling 280 65 drilling 10 ft fm bulldozer 90 backup "beeper" 50 ft fm blast warning horn 62 280 ft fm EXPLOSION 82 Impulse mode 3 100 00 80 70 60 50- 40- 30- 20- 10 -1 ril Maine Drillin"Blasting DrUntu in C110 to -- 5 /18 /00 'uuu 2UUU 4UUU 80001600031500 fruquency -�- 14 feet - -K-- 30 feet --A 82 feet - - 260 feet Figure 1. 3 To estimate the noise level, based on the Charlotte measurements, at other distances, the pertinent equation is: Sound level - Sound level +20*log(Rl/R2) - A (at distR2) (at dist R1) where A = attenuation of sound between R1 and R2 Attenuation is a function of several factors: temperature pressure humidity precipitation wind speed trees and vegetation frequency barriers j Attenuation in air (reduction in noise level) is very small except at high frequencies, very low humidity, or in high winds. In a distance of 325 feet, attenuation would typically amount to 0 to 2 dBA, even under worst conditions, so will be ignored here to estimate worst (no attenuation) impacts. Actual levels will be slightly less under most conditions. 4 Therefore, at a distance of 325 feet from the drilling operation on the Belter property, the drilling and engine noise level can be estimated from various drilling noise measurements in Table 1: Measured in Distance Predicted at 325" F Charlotte (feet) 80 dBA 82 68 dBA 99 12 70 109 5 73 78 81 67 65 280 64 Thus, the drilling operation can be expected to result in continuous noise levels of between 64 and 73 dBA at maximum at the nearest house, if the drilling takes place no closer than 325 feet. f i q Similarly, noise from the blasting can be estimated from data measured at Charlotte and/or that provided by Maine Drilling and Blasting. Measured Distance Predicted 325' Blast, Charlotte 82 280 81 Blast, MDB data 86-88 100 76-78 Also, other construction equipment noise can similarly be estimated: Measured Distance Predicted 325' Bulldozer at Charlotte 80 10 60 Blast Warn Horn 62 50 46 What will be the impact of these predicted noise levels on current levels in Country Club Estates? Current daytime levels in the area are: little activity: 45-50 dBA small aircraft landing: 60 garbage truck (10'): 82 F-16 flying over 78 commercial jet take off 80 Thus, the blasting (1 to 3 times per day) will be about as loud as a nearby garbage truck or an aircraft taking off or passing over. The drilling operation will be less loud, but more persistent. Figures 2., 3., and 4. show sound levels that have been more commonly experienced by most people, and allow comparison of familiar noises to the loudness of drilling (64 to 73 dBA) and blasting (78 to 81 dBA) at a house 325 feet away. E r S TYPICAL WEIGHTED SOUND - NELS AT A GIVEN DISTANCE FROM NOISE SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL Figure 2. 50 HP SIREN (100') JET TAKEOFF (200') 'RIVETING MACHINE *CUT-OFF SAW 'PNEUMATIC PEEN HAMMER -TEXTILE WEAVING PLANT SUBWAY TRAIN (20') DECIBELS RE 201,N m2 140 I 130 120 1 1 0 CASTING SHAKEOUT AREA loo ELECTRIC FURNACE AREA I 90 BOILER ROOM 1 PRINTING PRESS PLANT PNEUMATIC DRILL (50') 80 FREIGHT TRAIN (100') VACUUM CLEANER (10') 70 SPEECH (1') 60 � t LARGE TRANSFORMER - 200' <`n.`:......... 50 k � - 40 OFT WHISPER 5' S ( ) I 30 I 20 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING YOUTHS 1000 - 4000 H: 0 TABULATING ROOM INSIDE SPORT CAR (50 MPH) NEAR FREEWAY (AUTO TRAFFIC) LARGE STORE ACCOUNTING OFFICE PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE LIGHT TRAFFIC (100') AVERAGE RESIDENCE MIN LEVELS - RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN CHICAGO AT NIGHT STUDIO (SPEECH) STUDIO FOR SOUND PICTURES '- - o Refrigerator HIM; Figure 4. Sound Pressure Sound Pressure Level Jet Engine _} (25 m Distance) N Pa 140 dB Threshold of Pain 100000000 130 Jet Take -Off (100 m Distance) 121 10000000 Rock Music —+ 110 io0-w- Pneumatic Chipper 1000000 Heavy Truck —► �nl — Average Street Traffic 80 100000 ;n Business Office Conversational Speech ru 10000 50 Library --= }0�— Living Room (No TV or Radio, 1000 etc.) 30 Bedroom 30 100 IU 20J& a Threshold of Hearing Relative scale of sound pressure levels 8 EPA document 4 550/90--78-•100, "Protective Noise Levels" says that closed windows, in a cold climate, will reduce noise levels by 27 dBA from outdoors to in. This means that outside noises of up to 81 dBA will be reduced to 54 dBA indoors. Referring to Figure 4., this is quieter than the level of conversational speech. And, from Figure 2, this is about the noise level found in the "average" residence. This means that, although the sounds of drilling and blasting will be heard (though probably not with air conditioning or other home appliances running, see Figure 3.) they will not interfere with normal conversation. Even with windows open, the EPA document says, noise levels drop 17 dBA from outside to in. An 81 dBA outside noise will be on 64 dBA inside. L BIBLIOGRAPHY Introduction to Environmental Engineering, Davis & Cornwell, PWS Publishers, Boston, 1985. Primer of Community Noise Measurement, General Radio Corp., Concord, MA, 1974. "Protective Noise Levels", EPA 550/9-79-100, EPA, 1979. Acoustic Noise Measurements, Hassall & Zaveri, Bruel & Kjaer Corp., 1979. Prefiled Testimonv of Larry Myyott Q.1. Please state your name, address, and occupation. A.I. Larry Myott, Essex Junction. Regional Extension Agent with the UVM Extension Service. 0.2. What are your responsibilities as a regional extension agent with the UVM Extension Service? A.2. As Regional Extension Agent, my time is divided at about 40% each for Small Fruit and Vegetable Management and Maple Production Management, 20% is for administrative. Q.3. Please describe your educational background. A.3. Born and brought up on a Vermont dairy farm, educated at the University of Vermont with a degree in Agricultural Education. Q.4. Please describe your professional experience. A.4. Teacher of Vocational Agriculture, 4 years. UVM Extension Service Agricultural Agent since 1975. Until 1984, as general agent with responsibility for all agricultural enterprise management in Chittenden County. Since 1984, as a Regional Agent for Maple and Small Fruits/Vegetables. Prior to Extension Regionalization, I worked extensively with dairy farmers in Chittenden County. Q.5. Are you familiar with John and Joyce Belter's Ethan Allen Farm in South Burlington? A.5. Since December 1975, I have worked with the Belters extensively on farm management practices, financial management, and dairy problem solving. When the Belters lost their barn to fire, I was very much involved in helping them to recoup and rebuild. Q.6. Under what circumstances have you come to know about the Belters' farming operation? A.6. As Extension Agent for Agriculture. Q.7. The Belters are in the process of obtaining an Act 250 Land Use Permit for a proposed 36 lot subdivision on a 14.6 acre portion of their property. It has been suggested by the Belters' neighbors in Country Club Estates that access to the proposed subdivision should go through the Belter farmstead. What is your reaction to that proposal? Please explain in detail. A.7. Some time ago, John Belter spoke with me about the neighbors' proposal and I visited the site to look at possibilities. To be blunt, I feel that there are serious problems with the proposal. To suggest that residential traffic should be channeled through the Belter barnyard would be to suggest that the Belters go out of the dairy business. A road suitable to carry that traffic plus service vehicles would have to be a city street. The Belters -2- would have to be constantly moving cattle across that road and it would be used by all the farm equipment. The construction of this roadway would cut the farmstead into two pieces making it very difficult to continue the dairy operation of this farm. Q.8. Do you have an opinion as to whether providing access to the subdivision to the farmstead would adversely affect the agricultural potential of the Belters' farm? What is that opinion and on what basis do you hold it? A.8. Constructing a city street access through the middle of the Belter [myott.b06] farmstead would cause irreparable harm to the farm. Not only would there be the hazard of the extra vehicles each day, but the pedestrian and bicycle traffic would certainly be a liability to the farm business. This is a viable farm that would certainly be adversely affected in many ways if a street were to exist through the farmstead. -3- GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST. PAUL STREET SrEmEN R. CRAMrroN AREA CODE 802 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 TELEPHONE 658-0220 RORM B. HEMLEY FAX 658-1456 WuIjAm G. POST, JR. BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CRMIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. XNAm CLARKE A. GRAVEL JOHN R. PoNserro COUNSEL DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLWa PETER S. ERLY Roam F. O'NEu.L SUSAN W. SWEErsER MARGAREr L. MONTGOMERY July 9, 1990 Vermont Environmental Board Attention: Pearl Houghton 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Re: John and Joyce Belter Application No. 4C0643-6R-EB 0 Dear Pearl: Enclosed are the original and ten (10) copies of Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of John Belter and Roger Dickinson, P.E. Very truly yours, TRAVEL ACID-SHEA / ohn R. Ponsetto JRP:wba Enclosures cc: Parties of Record Prefiled Rebuttal Testimonv of Roger J. Dickinson Q.1. Please state your name. A.1. I am Roger J. Dickinson. Q.2. In their prefiled testimony, the Neighbors express a number of concerns about the impact of additional traffic from the Belters' subdivision on the streets and roads in the area. I will state the Neighbors' concerns and ask you to respond to each. 1. Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road are impassable at several points if two cars meet each other at the same time at the same place. Response: This is not true. There is sufficient width throughout the entire lengths of Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road to handle two-way traffic. The Neighbors Exhibit N-6 is a photograph of Poor Farm Road, which was widened and repaved last summer. In the area depicted in the photograph, Poor Farm Road is 23 feet wide, with an additional one foot of clearance on each side. That width is adequate for two-way traffic based on recommended AASHTO and ITE roadway design standards. I have attached copies of these standards which are relevant to the design of the types of streets and roads in the area of the Belter subdivision as Appellants' Exhibit _, ("A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1984") and Exhibit ('Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets"). I visited the area on June 20 and June 21 of this year at 4:00 p.m. when the Air National Guard employees leave work. There was no problem with two-way passage of vehicles when traffic on Shamrock Road is at its heaviest. 2. Additional traffic will add to the present deterioration of the roads in the area. Response: It is technically true that any additional traffic will increase wear on streets and roads. I would point out, however, that the present condition of the streets and roads which will be used by the Belters' traffic is good. Poor Farm Road was widened and repaved last summer. Shamrock Road is scheduled for repaving and widening next summer. The Air National Guard Road will be substantially upgraded, if the Belters' project is approved. Finally, the streets of Country Club Estates are scheduled for repaving with the installation of sewers in the area. In my opinion, the small incremental increase of light residential traffic from the Belters' subdivision will have no material impact on either existing or future conditions of streets and roads in the area. -2- 13 0 3. The S-curve on Country Club Drive is a totally blind curve. One cannot see a car coming in the opposite direction until you are in the middle of the curve. Response: This is not true. The S-curve on Country Club Drive is not a blind curve. As a driver approaches each curve in either direction, the driver can clearly see vehicles approaching in the opposite direction before he or she enters the curve. As you approach the upper curve (the one closest to Poor Farm Road), at a distance of 35 feet from the curve, you can see 35 feet beyond the curve. The site distance at the lower curve at a distance of 150 feet before the curve is 100 feet beyond the curve. These distances allow drivers to adjust their speeds and travel path in the event they view an oncoming vehicle approaching the curves. 4. The S-curve on Country Club Drive is narrow to the extent that a school bus (or other large vehicle), cannot negotiate the corner at the same time as another vehicle, without the danger of collision. Response: This is true. Two cars can pass on the curves without difficulty. A school bus, or large truck and a car cannot pass on the curve at the same time. However, given the extremely low traffic volumes on -3- Country Club Drive, even with Belters' traffic, the statistical likelihood of this happening is extremely low. A statistical analysis of the occurrence of a truck and/or bus meeting a car was performed. The results of that analysis indicate that, even with this project, the probability of this occurring is extremely low (less than 1%). 5. The corner at the top of Country Club Drive where it intersects with Poor Farm Road is a blind corner. Response: The intersection of Country Club Drive and Poor Farm Road is not a blind corner. Site distances from Country Club Drive in both directions are more than adequate and exceed the Vermont Agency of Transportation standard of 330 feet at 30 m.p.h. 95% of the traffic travelling on Country Club Drive turns right onto Poor Farm Road. Site distances to the right are not important because that turn does not conflict with oncoming traffic. The site distance from Country Club Drive to the right is 340 feet. That distance could be substantially improved by trimming existing vegetation within the Poor Farm Road right-of-way. The site distances to the left, which is a relevant approach, is 615 feet. -4- 6. A car approaching the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive, Airport Parkway, and Shamrock Road from the north cannot see cars stopped at the intersection making a left turn until a short distance away? Response: The site distance from a vehicle travelling south on Airport Parkway approaching a vehicle stopped to make a left turn at Ethan Allen Drive and Shamrock Road is 400 feet. The standard for safe stopping site distance at 45 m.p.h. (which is over the posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h.), is 400 feet. 7. At times industrial traffic entering the intersection on Ethan Allen Drive blocks this intersection. Response: This is true. There are times when a truck travelling on Ethan Allen Drive may block the intersection as the driver waits to turn left onto Airport Parkway. This situation, which does not occur often, will be substantially improved with the installation of traffic signals which is recommended by the JHK & Associates' report. It is important to remember that the traffic from the Belters' subdivision will only contribute a 2% increase in the total amount of traffic at this intersection. This volume of traffic will have an insignificant impact on the current situation. 8. All of the above problems at the intersection, will remain until the long-term solution, the entire relocation of Airport Parkway is complete. -5- Response: This is not true. As is pointed out in the JHK & Associates' report, my previous testimony, and the testimony of Craig Leiner, there will be significant improvements in the overall situation at the intersection with the implementation of the recommended short-term and intermediate - term improvements. 9. The proposed improvements to the Air National Guard Road do not address two blind curves, one where Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road and the other at the top of the hill where Air National Guard Road joins Poor Farm Road. Response: This is not true. There are two vertical curves (a crest of a rise in the road at these locations). Approaching the vertical curve at Poor Farm Road/ Air National Guard Road the site distance to another vehicle is 275 feet; the site .distance at Air National Guard Road/Shamrock Road vertical curve is 200 feet. 10. Belters' subdivision will increase traffic on the entire length of Country Club Drive between 178% and 256%, and from 220% to 340% on that length of Country Club Drive below 16 Country Club Drive, depending upon whether the percentage of new traffic which will use Country Club Drive is 50% or 100%. S� Response: Percentage increases in traffic caused by the Belters' subdivision are meaningless numbers because the existing traffic volumes are so low. Even with the addition of Belters' traffic, the volume of traffic remains low and well within the capacity of the streets of Country Club Estates. 11. The pavement where the Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road is tilted, making it difficult for vehicles to remain in the proper lane Response: I have travelled the Air National Guard Road many times, and during my most recent site visit I paid particular attention as to whether this type of condition exists. I was not able to detect a superelevation problem in the pavement where Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road. 12. There is no room for pedestrian travel on Air National Guard Road because the shoulders are narrow. Response: If the Belters' project is approved, the Air National Guard Road will be widened to 22 feet, with one to two foot shoulders on each side. This width will easily accommodate future volumes of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. -7- 13. The agreement among the Belters and the cities of South Burlington and Burlington does not include any efforts to improve site distances around the curve at the entrance of the Air National Guard Road, or at the curve where the Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road. Response: The available site distances at these two locations could be improved by trimming roadside vegetation. This can be done at the same time the Air National Guard Road is upgraded. 0.3. Does this conclude your rebuttal testimony? A.3. Yes, it does. [dickins.b06] A POLIO � on GEOMETRIC DESIGN, of HIGHWAYS and STREETS E k. 111� AASHTOrm American Assoclltlon of State Highway and Transportation Officials Suite 225, 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5800 Copyright, 1984, by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the ,publisher. Printed In the United States of America. Design Speed imphi A."wtiwd Spuedfor Cocidicion (rnph) Brake Reaction Time Distance Coot) (ft) Coefficient of Friction f Braking Distance anLweP (ft) Stopping Sight Distance Rounded Computeda for Design Ift) Ift) 20 W 20 2.5 73.3- 73.3 0.40 33.3- 33.3 106.1-106.7 125-125 25 24-25 2-5 88.0- 91.7 0.38 50-5- 54.8 138.5-146.5 150-150 30 2&30 2.5 102.7-110.0 0-35 74.7- 85.7 177.3-195.7 200-200 35 32-35 2.5 117.3-128.3 0.34 100.4-120.1 217.7.248.4 225-250 40 2.5 1320-146.7 0.32 135.0-166.7 267-0-313.3 275-325 45 40-45 2.5 146-7-165.0 0.31 172-0-217-7 318-7-3827 325AW 50 44-50 2-5 161-3-183.3 0.30 215.1-277-8 376.4-461.1 400-475 53 48-66 2-5 176.0-2D1.7 0.30 256.0-336-1 432-0-5378 450-550 bG 52-80 25 190.7-221(i.0 029 310.8-413.B 501.5633.8 525- 50 bb 55-65 2.5 201.7-238.3 029 347.7-485.6 549.4-724.0 550-725 70 56.70 2.5 212-7-256.7 028 400.5-583.3 613.1-840.0 625-850 "L.it, .,,,..t ......oa kn and tarn sp+rad rw%k from usirQ urkqud eoefi.aernts of I -Gon. TuLld 111-1. Stopping gist di.l*nca (wet paveruaccta). 1 s Local ,Roads and Streets 471 LOCAL URBAN STREETS General Design Considerations A street is a public way for purposes of vehicular travel including public transit and refers to and includes the entire area within the right-of-way. The street also serves pedestrian and bicycle traffic and usually accommodates public utility facilities within the right-of-way. The improvement or development of streets should be based on a functional street classification that Is part of a comprehensive com- munity development plan, The design values should be those for the ultimately planned development. Most urban functional classifications include three classes of streets: arterials, collectors, and local access routes, detailed discussion of which appears in Chapter 1. Geometric design guides for arterial streets are given in Chapter ViI, and those for collector streets are r covered in Chapter Vi, It is not practical to enumerate separate dcsign guides for local streets for each item discussed herein. Where there is a significant difference, separate guide values arc given. The design features of local urban streets are governed by practical limitations to a greater extent than those of similar roads in rural areas, The two dominant design controls arc (1) the type and extent of { urban development with its limitations on rights -of -way, and (2) zoning I� or regulatory restrictions. Some streets primarily arc land service ' streets in residential areas, In such cases the overriding consideration +� is to foster a safe and pleasant environment, The convenience of the motorist is a secondary consideration. Other streets are land service 1 only in part, and features of traffic service may be predominant. On streets serving industrial or commercial areas, the vehicle dimen- sions, traffic volumes, and vehicle loads differ greatly from those on residential streets, and different dimensional and structural design values are appropriate, Here, safety and service to traffic usually are the major design controls. Where a particular design feature varies depending on the area served, viz., residential, commercial, or In- dustrial, different guide values are enumerated for each condition, The 6 designer should be apprised of local ordinances and resolutions that affect certain design features. Drs+gw Effie Volumes Traffic volume is not usually a major criterion in determining the geometric values to be used in designing residential streets. Tradition- ally, these streets are designed to a standard two-lane cross section but may be a four -lane cross section in certain urban are -as, as governed by traffic volume, administrative policy. or other community considera- tion s. For streets serving industrial or commercial areas, however, traffic volume is a major factor. The DHV projected to some future design year should be the basis of design. It usually is difficult and costly to modify the geometric design of an existing street unless provRion is made at the time of initial construction. Design traffic in these areas should be that estimated for at least 10 years, and preferably 20 years, from the date of completion of construction. Deogn Speed Design speed is not a major factor for local streets. For consistency in design elements, design speeds ranging from 20 to 30 mph may be used, depending on available right-of-way, terrain. adjacent develop- ment, and other area controls_ In the typical street grid the closely spaced intersections usually limit vehicular speeds. malting the effect of design speed of little signifi- cance. Design speeds exceeding 30 mph in residential areas may require longer sight distances and increased curve radii, which would be contrary to the basic function of a local street. SWA Pkt" e Minimum stopping sight distance for local streets should range from 120 to 200 ft. Design for passing sight distance seldom is applicable on local streets. Grades Grades for local res &ntial steeds should be as fb# a, ;. -.y,, 5,, vF7tb the surrounding terrain. TNe gradi-nt fnr k"I st'", i6,,,,v 4 less than 15 percent. Where grades of 4 percent tic o"T_ to necessary, the drainage design may becrme critical On sly h R-aan special care must be take-n to prevent erosion on 0,nwa ,n drainage facilifi _ . For streets in commercial and in d u stria I areas, grad ;rnt Snip should be less than 8 percent-, desirably, it shoutd be Irv; firs S percent, and flatter gradients should be emphasi7e3. To provide for proper drainage, the desirable ro;nir-mnrn grade that should be used for streets w6ith outer crabs is 0_10 Twirrrm. bcl t minimum grace of 0.20 percent may be rsed- Alinement in residential areas should fit clo-rJy with the existing topography to minirnve the need for cuts or fills without sacrificing safety. There is an advantage in residential areas in pugwvsely arrang. ing the alinement to discourage thrcxigh traffic_ The alinement design should be such that the safety of the facility is not reduced. Street alinement in commercial and industrial areas sfwmld be com- mensurate with the topography but sMuki be as direct as possible. Street curves should be designed witb as large a radius curve as feasible, the minimum radius being l0Q ft- Where curves are saperelevated, lon-cr values may apply, but the radius should never be Iess than 75 ft for a 20-rnph design speed. Pavement fawn Pavement cross slope sbmid be adequate to provide prop-r drain- age. Crass slope normally should be as shown in Table IV-4 where there are flush shoulders adjacent to the traveled vray. Where there are outer curbs, cross slopes steeper by about 0.5 to I percent are desirable on the lane adjacent to the curb. The center section of the pavement crown may be parabolic to permit smooth transition of crass slope. Further discussion of this element appears in Chapter IV. Srnremk-v tloe Superelevation is advantageous for street traffic operation, but in built-up areas the combination of wide pavement areas, proximity of adjacent development, control of crass slope. profile for drainage, frequency of cross strects,-and other arban features combine to make the use of superelevation impractical or undesirable. Usually, saprrele- vation is not provided on local streets in residcoisl and commercial arras; it should be considered on local streets in industrial areas to facilitate safe operation. Where superelevation is used, street curves should be designed for a maximurn superelevalwn rate of 0.04. 1f terrain dictates sharp curva- ture, a maximum sirpereievation of 0.06 is justi5ed if the curve is long enough to provide an adequate superelevation transition. Minimum lengths of superelevation runoff are given in Table V-7. A detailed discussion of superelevati m is found in Chapter fll. (See Table 111-15.) Nernber of Imes On residential streets in areas where the primary function is to provide land service and foster a safe and pleasant environment, at least one unobstructed moving lane must be ensured even where parting occurs on both sides. The level of user inconvenience occa- sioned by the last of two moving lanes is remarkably low in areas where single-family units prevail. Local residential street patterns are such that travel distances are less than 0.5 rni between trip origin and a collector street. In multifamily unit residential areas a minimum of two moving traffic lames to accommodate opposing traffic may be required. In many residential areas a 26-ft-wide roadway is typical. This curb- face-w-curb-face width provides for a 12-ft center travel lane and two 7-ft parking lanes. Opposing conflicting traffic will yield and pause on the parting lame area until there is sufficient width to pass. in commercial areas where there will be several midblock left tares it may be advantageous to provide an additional continuous twO-Way left -turn lane in the center of the roadway. WkUk of Reedway Street Lanes for proving traffic Preferably should be at 'east 10 ft pride- Where feasible they should be 11 ft wide, and in industrial areas they should he 12 ft wide. Where availRble or attairame wiffth of right-of-way imposes severe li-nitatirwn, 9 ft 1aM-s con he aced in residential areas, as can 11-ft lanes in inrhLstrial arras. AdArd turning lanes where used at intersectins should be at "" 9 ft wicre, and desirably 10 to 12 ft wide, drperviing on tint pPrtrntagcc of try-ts. Where needed and where limitations exist in resiee-riial w"vs, a parallel parting lane at least 7 ft wide sh►Mrid be prevad-d on one or both sides. as the conditkm_. of lot size aril irrtcnsity of d_vctrrmcnl may require. 1n commercial and irdu_vrial areas, parti-R lanes choald be at least 9 ft wide; usually they are provided on Iwth sidt�_ Parking-lane-wkM deterynilWions in comr vercial and i.xl�,vtria] areas should include coosideraticm for use of the parki-v is for moving traffic during peak -hour traffic rhat may occur wf-" in+a-iries have high employment covcrIItrations. Where curb and gutter sections are used. the putt-r Fun width may be included as a part of the parking fare owidt.h. NedEan Medians provided on local urian streets primarily to enhance the environment and to ad as buffer strips sheyeld be designed to minimize interference with the traffic nerds of the land abutting the roadway. A discussion of the various pnedian types appears in Chapter FV. Openings should be situated only where there is adequate sight distance- The shape and length of the mediae openings depend on the width of median and the vehicle types to be accommodated. The minimum length of median openings should be that of the width of the projected roadway of the intersectingx cross street or driveway- The desirable length of median cTenings, measured between the inner edge of the lane adjacent to the median and the centerline of the intersection roadway, should be great enough to provide for a 40 ft turning control radius for left -turning p vehicles. Streets normalcy are designed with curbs to allow greater use of available width and for control of drainage, protection of pedestrians, and delineation. The curb should be about 4 to 8 in. high, depending on drainage considerations, traffic control, and safety. J 7 7 4FV; �17�_ On divided streets the type of median curbs should be compatible with the width of the median and the type of taming movement control to be effected. Steep -faced curbs 6 in. or higher adjacent to moving lmf%c lanes should be offset at least 1 ft. Where there is combination curb and gutter construction, the grater pan width. normally 2 ft, should be nscd as the offset distance. Drxiooge Drainage is an important consideration in an urban area beranu of high runoff and the [boding potential. Surface flow from adjacent tributary areas may be intercepted by the street system. There it is collected within the roadway by curbs and gutters, ditches, etc., and conveyed to appropriate outlets. Where drams are av:ilahle under or near the roadway, the flow is transferred at fregnent intervals from the street cross section by grating or curb -opening inlets to basins and from there by connectors to drainage channels or andergroand drains - Economic considerations usually dictate that maximum practical use be made of the street sections for surface drainage. To avoid mAesir- able tlowline conditiicus, the minimum gutter grade should be 0.30 percent. However. in very flat terrain and where drainage outlet is unavailable, a gutter grade as low as 0.20 percent may be necessary. Where a drainage outlet is available. the inlets should be spaced to provide a high level of drainage protection in areas of pedestrian concentrations or where adjacent property has an unusually irnportarri public or community purpose (e-g., schools and churches). For further details see drainage section in Cbapter Ill. Cull-De-Sms and Tr:u MmMIds A local street open at one end only should have a special turning area at the closed end. This turning area desirably shonid be circular and have a radius appropriate to the types of vehicle expeetcd. M'mimum outside radii of 30 ft in residential areas and 45 ft in oattunercial and industrial areas are commonly used. A dead-end street narrower than 40 ft usually should be widened to enable passenger vehicles, and preferably delivery trucks. to U-turn or at least turn around by backing once. The design commonly used is a circular pavement symmetrical alx,w the crn*crii-w cd tiv ct-rt some times with a central island, as efi-mn in Figum- V-X', whirfr aka sl*V%W rninimurn dimensions for the deign vrlricies. Allf ouRh this typ- mD cul-de-sac operates satisfactorily and loots veil, better nreTafrn ii• obtained if the design is offset so that the entrance half of the pave• ment is in line with the approach -half of the street, as sh(ra n in Figar-•t V-2D- One steering reversal is avoided on this design. Where a radimrs of less than 47 ft is used, the island sh-uld be borderr-d by moantabt e curbs to permit the maneuvering of an occasirmal overtired vrh;cle. An all -paved plan is shown in Figure V-2E, with a 10 h odor radiusm. In this case, little additional pavement is required. of the arTwoscl h Pavement is at ]cast 30 ft wide, the result is a cal dr-sa- on whiclh passenger vehicles can mate the customary U-turn and SU dmig" trucks can tarn by backing once. A radius of about 40 ft will ma) -,le an WB-50 vehicle to tarn around by manevrerhrg back and forth. Other variations or shapes of earl -de -sacs that include right d-way and site controls may be provided to permit vehicles to turn arms d by backing once. Several types (Figures V-2F to V-21) may also be suitable for alleys. The geometry of a cul-de-sac must be altered if adjoining residences also use the area for parking. Alleys Alleys provide for acoessibilty and service to each individual land parcel. They are characterized by a narrow right-of-way and range in width from 16 to 20 ft in residential areas and up to 30 ft in industrial areas. Alleys should be alined parallel to or concentric with the street property tines. h is desirable to situate alleys in such a manner that both ends of the alley are connected either to streets or to other Be".a Where two alleys intersect, a triangular corner cutoff or not less than 10 ft along each alley property line should be provided. Dead-end alleys should be provided with a turning area in accordance with Figure V-3- Curb return radii at street intersections may range from S ft in residentially zoned areas to 10 ft in industrial and commercial areas where targe numbers of trucks are expected. Alleys should have grades established to meet as closely as possible the existing grades of the abutting land pBrreJs. The longitudinal grade should not be less than 0.20. i wl --G- CFRCULAR rr r 1 r� F— L -TYPE DES VEHICLO M L. P 30 w Su xi too SOUARE END w_ + i MS. VEHECLO R f I. WO-40 42' 23' SU s W. - 30 N' 30 I I yi 1 I +1 —{3— CIRCULAR - OFFSET /4��t ♦ 4( It �r`1 eJt I r r 1 t r I I —G— —F�- T-TYPE Y-TYP£ T rr�3gE- vy ,� rl� r l CIRCULAR - ALL PAVED J� If �ll,PITT, —h BRANCH 0 r S.r4E Uwt -wU N-44D gM -catlR CdNnai Or - wtl�rEo�atES �&90 SEM lj qt* COW, ..t.pP.- a APfA Figure V-Z Types of cutAe-sacs and dead-ond senets. T iN R_=9ry i I of STAXDAM TURMIMG AgrA I N C► ' - N 20 YIMs+Ew TLOWi PG AREA STISHOAM CUT- WR/IERS Rgrum V-3- Age". ` tv Alley cross. sections may be V-shaped with trartwerse slopes of 25 percent toward a center V gutter. Runoff is thereby diirected to a retch basin in the aRey or to connecting street gutters. Sldewahs Sidewalks used for pedestrian Access to sclx�, parks, shopping areas, and transit stops and placed along all streets in commercial areas should be provided along both sides of the street. In residential areas, sidewalks are desirable on both sides of the street but need to be provided on at least One side of all local streets. The sidewalks should be located as far as practical from the traff"bc lanes and usnally close to the right-of-way Fines. Clear sidewalk width should be 4 ft minimum; la idths of 8 ft or greater may be needed in commercial areas. If roadside apptirtenances are situated on the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, additiofW width is required to secure the clear width. Curb -Cut Ramps Curb -cut ramps should he provided at crosswalks to accornmodste physically handicapped persons. Such ramps may be the same width as the approach sidewalks, the suggested width being 4 R exclusive of sideslopes. Further discussion of this topic appears in Chapter IV. Drialeways A driveway is an access constructed within the public way, connect- ing the public roadway with adjacent property and intended to be used in such a way that the access into the adjacent property will be complete and will not cause the blocking of any sidewalk border area or street roadway. Some of the principles of intersection design apply directly to drive- ways. One important feature is the elimination of large graded or paved areas adjacent to the traveled way, which allow drivers to enter or leave the street randomly. Sight distance is a significant design control, and driveways should be avoided where sight distance is not sufficient. Vertical elements that (_J 8 � obstruct essential sight distances he ry statatc. Driveways should be regabled as to width entrarce, plarrnir -it with respect to property lines and int+-tvxtirq-trP-4't, an& ci rnt►y, vertica! alinement, and number of en*.rar -cc to a singtr p.cYr-tf t" provide for traffic safety and marinum v-r of cirrh srs-- for paTUrK where permitted. Driveways should be srteaird as for awav fr'wn intersections as practicable, partimlarly if the Vv-rl street infer%P-C-ts an arterial street. Driveway returns should net he less gran 3 R it rarli+lc. PA-rd driveways are preferred because tbry a-r di"irr't frown i�•rrsrct+rn delineations, can properly hanfie ternivg nxr+emrnts, aru4 can mini mize the problems for bandicapped p►dKlr n_e. FLzr- grarV-c -IV „1d not exceed 125 percent. Roadway Widths for Brlclg*ar The roiuimum clear width for all new bridges on sxrrets with curbed approaches should be the same as the cuTh-to-cuxb width of the approaches. For streets with sboulders and no curbs, the clear roadway width preferably should be the same as the approach roadway width and in no case less than the width shown in Table V-9. Sidewalks an the approaches should be carried across all new structures. There should be at least one sidewalt on all street bridges. Ilerhaatal Clearance is Obstrvcomm On all streets a minimum cearance of 15 ft should be provided between the curb face or shoulder edge and obstructions such as utility poles, lighting poles, and fire hydrants. to areas of dense pedestrian traffic the eonstraetion of barrier -type curbing (curbing with neady vertical facing, 6 to 9 in. high) aids in protecting the high -volume pedestrian traffic. Trees may be minhnal hazards along local streets where speeds are low (40 mph or below) and barrier curbs exist. Generally, prudence should be exercised and careful analysis should weigh the bencras against the possibly adverse effects that tree removal could have on the roadside environment. Guardrail is not used extensively on Local streets except where there is a hazard to motorists and pedestrians, such as along sections with steep foreslopes and at the approaches to overcrnssing structures. Yes" Clearance Vertical clearance at underpasses should toe at least 14 ft over the entire roadway width, to which up to 6 in- should be adders to allow for fixture resurfacing. 16ovkr Area A border area should be provided along streets for the safety of motorists and pedestrians as well as for esthetic reasons. Selection of the street alinement should be based on minimizing of skTes. How- ever, the preservation and enhancement of the environment is of major importance in the design pnd construction of kwA streets. The border area between the roadway and the right-of-way line should be wide enough to serve several purposes. including provision of a buffer space between pedestrians and vehiicutar traffic, sidewalk space, snow storage, an area for placement of underground and aboveground utilities, and an area for Maintainable esthetic features such as grass or other landscaping. The borL-r width may be a minimum of S ft. but desirably sboald be 10 ft or wider. Where the available right-of-way is limited and in areas of high right-of-way costs, as in some industrial and commercial areas, a buffer width of 2 ft may be tolerated. Whenever practical, an additional obstacle -free buffer width of 12 ft or more should be provided between the curb and the sidewalk for safety and environmental enhancement. in residential areas wider building setback controls can be used to attain these features- litight-ef way j J&h The right-of-way width shmrld be sufficient to accommodate the ultimate planned roadway including median (if used), shoulder (if used), landscaping strip, sklewalks, utility strips in the border srcas, and necessary outer slopes unless provided for by easement. On local residential streets that use the 26-ft roadway section, a 50-ft right-of- way is commonly used to accommodate roadway. sidewalks, utilities, and laud coping strips. For commercial and industrial roadways where on -street parking is provided. the common right-of-way width is 66 ft. These dimensions should be increased when rwdians are provided_ Smaller widths may also be justified in fiMy r., a< vr •-hr•r s 3 s to adjacent properties is not required. PrsvWM far Utilities h7 additlOn t0 the primary purpose of serving t,llirulaT tTif'r grid in accordance with State law or municipal cxri;ranrr, O"ets alu► often accommodate public utility facilities wphin the strr.-t right cd way. Use Of the right -Of -way by utilities should bp planned to cauu- the least interference with traffic using the street. References 3 and 4 give general principles for location and eoastruok-, of uti"%t*Ps to rvinimize conflict between the use of the street rip,,1,4 4 wry for v-M-ular move- ment and for its secondary purpose of pr: vidi"St %rsce f.•r dnrat;on of ut�ities. IrrtirseeB" Design Intersections, including median openings, should be de-igned with adequate corner sight distance as suggested in Table V-11, and the intersection area should be kept free of c► vstacles. Where stop control is not used, the corner sight distance for local streets should be a minimum of 200 ft and desirably should be _100 ft or more. To maintain the minimum sight distance, restrictions on height of embankment. locations of buildings, and screening fences may be necessary. Any landscaping in the sight distance triangle should be low -grooving, and should not be higher than 3 ft above the level of the interseclmg street pavements. Tree overhang should be trimmed to a tine at Wast 8 ft above the level of the intersections. Intersecting streets sbould meet at approximately a W angle. The aEnemxnt design should be adjusted to avoid an angle of intersection of less than 60°. Closely spaced offset intersections are undesirable. The intersection area and oppmacb areas where vehicles store while waiting to enter the intersection should be designed with a relatively flat grade; the maximum grade on the approach leg sbonld not exceed 5 percent where practical. Where ice and snow create hazardous conditions the desirable grade on the approach leg should be 0.5 percent with so more than 2 percent wherever practical - At street intersections in miidentitl areas and areas where there are heavy pedestrian roavtrnests, the minimum radius of curb return 4 q 4- where curbs are used or the outside edge of pavement where curbs are not used should be 15 ft. A minimum radius of 25 ft is desirable_ In industrial areas the radius of the curb return should not be less than 30 ft, and desirably, use should be made Of a three -centered curve of saffideatly large radii to accommodate the largest vehicles ex - peered. " Further information pertaining to intersection design appears in Chapter IX. Ra:9rood-Street Graede Crewd"gs Appropriate grade -crossing warning devices shall be installed at all raihuad-secret grade crossings. Details of the devices to be used are given in the MUTC'D (2)_ In some States the rural approval of the devices to be used may be vested in the Public Utility Commiss on- Sightdistance is an impoct3nt consideration at ralfroad grade cross- ings. There must be suffick-ut sight distance on the street for the driver to recognize the crossing, perceive the warning device as well as the trains, and stop if necessary- (See Chapter IX.) Signalized intersec- tions adjacent to signalized RR grade crossing should be designed with RR preemption. The roadway width at all railroad crossings should be the same as the width of the approach roadway. - Sidewalks should be provided at railroad grade crossing to connect existing or future walkways that approach these crossings_ Street and Roadwity Light Rg Good visibility under day or night conditions is one of the fundamen- tal requirements enabling motorists to move on roadways in a safe and coordinated manner. Property designed and maintained street lighting will produce comfortable and accurate visibility at night, which will facilitate and encourage both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Thus, where adequate illumination is provided, efficient night use can be made of the large investment in roadway comtruction and motor vehicles. Determinations of need for lighting should be coordinated with crime prevention programs and other community needs. Warrants for the justification of street fighting invotve more than just identifying a roadway classification as being local, rural, urban, collec- tor, arterial, or major. Pedestrian and vehicular volume, night -today accident ratios, roadway geometry, merOrR lanes, rw,. r b tersettions all require careful mn. mention in etfabFslrnt 11Wwmuft Icvels. When illumination levels pr—ided for the ra•;. c• ,.�� walkway, and area classifications ate not inflaencr, M h,.* sideratiom, the suggested minimum levels of 0luny;Tu•ic..n in average maintained borizimtal feet -candles) are cnnta curl „ l� V-l2. Mumination levels at intersections should be the sum of ilF,T wj, levels on intersecting streets at the intersection. The uniformity of the lighting is an indication of the quarity d illumination and should be considered along with ?Jeaninatian lenii. Uniformity of illumination can be represented by a uniformity ratio i the average -to -minimum foot -Caudle values on the roadway er walkVIT surface. Recommended uniformity ratios ate as follews. resirk" roadways, 6A; cornmerdal roadways, 3.1; residential walkways. 101; and conumercW walkways, 4:1. Because glare is also an indication of the gvafity of lighting, the type of frztures and the height at which the light sources are mounted are also factors in design of street lighting systems. The 011ectives of the designer should be to rnirti ze visual discomfort and impairment of driver and pedestrian vision due to glare. For the condition of lighting intersections only, a gradual fighting tmnsition from dart to light to dark should be provided so that drivers tray have time to adapt their vision. Indtmtrlel-- Co rra rrracc is 1 A ssklontlsl Cbmatfics0on M-c) (ftcl Local 0-9 0 4 Af s 0.6 0.2 skwwafks 0.9 0-2 Tabfa V-12_ Minimum Fluminadon levels. More detailed discussion of this topic is contained in AASFITO's An Informational Guide for Roadway LegluiiwR (5). 486 AASHTO—Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Traffic Control Devices Consistent and uniform application of traffic control devices is im- portant. Details of the standard devices and warrants for many condi- tions are found in the MUTCD (1). Geometric design of streets .should include full consideration of the types of traffic control to be used, especially at intersections where multiphase or actuated traffic signals are likely to be needed. Erosion Control Design of streets should Include considerations for preservation of natural ground cover and desirable growth of shrubs and trees within the right-of-way as would be consistent with Federal and local statutes, Seeding, mulching, and sodding of slopes, swales, and other erodible areas should be included in the design plans. Other erosion -prevention measures may be acceptable, depending on local climatic conditions, natural environment, and resources. I j Landscaping i' Landscaping should be provided for esthetic and erosion control purposes in keeping with the character of the street and its environ- ment. Landscaping should be arranged to permit sufficiently wide, clear, and safe pedestrian walkways. Combinations of turf, shrubs, and trees are desirable in border areas along the roadway. However, care should be exercised to ensure that guidelines for sight distances and clearance to obstructions are observed, especially at intersections. Bicycle Faculties The local roadway !s generally sufficient to accomniu ldAte `.tcycle traffic; however, when special faelllties are desired they should he in accordance with AASHTO's Guide Jbr Development of ;New 3icycle 4 Facilities (6). RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineera its=' 525 School Street SW, Sulte 410, Washington, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.8050 EI F] E 1.01 Objectives in Subdivision Planning The primary objective of subdivision design is to provide maximum livability. This requires a safe and efficient access and circulation system, connecting homes, schools, playgrounds, shops, and other subdivision activities for people living there. Transportation considerations in subdivision design may be classified In two general areas: (a) the actual layout of the streets and pedestrian systems as related to land use, and (b) the engineer- ing dimensions for vehicular, pedes- trian, and any bicycle facilities. But neither the street system nor the indi• vidual design element should be analyzed separately. They must both be considered In order to design a safe and efficient transportation system, 1.02 Application There are four broad functional clas- siflcadons of streets within urban areas, as reviewed below: Local streets represent the lowest category. Their primary function is to serve abutting land use. Typical residen• tial Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranges from 100 to 1,500, with A.M. peak -hour traffic about 7 to 8 percent and P.M. peak -hour traffic about 10 percent of ADT."I Collector streets have the primary purpose of intercepting traffic from in- tersecting local streets and handling this movement to the nearest major streets. A secondary function is service to abutting land use. Collector streets 1000 Traffic Considerations in Subdivision Planning and Layout also may carry bus lines within a resi• dential subdivision. ADTs are typically 1,500 to 3,500 In residential areas, with similar proportions of peak -hour traffic as for the total streets. Major streets have the primary pur- pose of carrying through traffic and the secondary purpose of providing access to abutting property. ADTs are typically in excess of 3,500. Limited access roads have the sole purpose of carrying through traffic and provide no direct access to abutting properties. The ranges in ADT may, of course, overlap, and the above figures are not intended as design criteria, These guidelines are limited to design characteristics of local and collector type streets In residential subdivisions. The street needs to service other types of denser uses, such as retail, office, or Industrial, vary widely in operational requirements. Their design should be based upon detailed traffic analysis, which more closely approximates de- sign procedures for major streets except for lower speeds and strong emphasis on access to abutting properties, Special subdivisions exist for which these guidelines may only partially ap- ply. These include mobile home parks, recreational developments, airplane landing runway or waterway -oriented developments, and cluster housing, By their nature, such subdivisions do not necessarily fit into the planning framework of the customary residential areas. The need for special design criteria, on a case -by -case basis, is rec- ognized in most jurisdictions by the planned unit development concept. 1.03 Principlas of Systems Layout Basic principles exist that should be recognized and used in designing circu• latlon and access systems in new resi- dential subdivisions of conventional layout. These principles concern the de- sign of entire street systems rather than Individual elements of the system, and so express concepts rather than specific dimensions, In applying them, however, specific guidelines for pavement widths, Intersection design, and related design features are desirable. The design of local transportation systems must recognize the factors of: (a) safety — for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, (b) eficiency of service --for all users, (c) livability or amenities —especially as affected by traffic elements in the circulation sys- tem, and (d) economy —of land use, construction, and maintenance, again as affected by or related to the circula- tion system. Each of the following principles Is an elaboration on one or more of these four factors. These principles are not in. tended as absolute criteria, since In- stances may occur where certain princi- ples conflict. The principles should, therefore, be used as concepts for proper systems layout, as illustrated In Figure 1. I. Adequate Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Should Be Provided to Ail Parcels. The primary function of local streets is service to abutting prop- erties. Street widths, placement of sidewalks, pattern of streets, and number of Intersections are related 2 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR SUBDMSION STREETS Local Street —� � Collects Street Maps Sireat Schur Crossing Point A Exempie of Rght Angle Tum FIGURE 1. Illustrntlon of Latyout "riciplel to safety and efficiency of access to abutting lands. 2. Local Street Systems Should Be Designed to Minimize Through Traffic Movements. Through traffic on local and col- lector streets Increases the average speed and volume and thus the ac- cident potential, thereby reducing residential amenities. This can be attributed sometimes to Inadequate Peripheral major street capacity, but often the fault Iles with im- proper residential street design. Through traffic may be discouraged by creating discontlnulties in the local street pattern, by offsetting local street intersections, and by channelizing or controlling median crossings along peripheral major streets. (See Section 2.05,08, Minimum Centerline Offset of Ad- jacent Intersection, for limi- tations.) 3. Street Patterns Should Minimize Excessive Vehicular Travel. Ideally, every part of a residential area should be interconnected with every other part, and with peripheral developments, as di- rectly as possible, Although strict application of this principle may conflict with other principles, ex- cessive Indirect travel is annoying to the individual area's livability, Moreover, the added vehicle miles of travel within the neighborhood increases gasoline consumption and air pollution, It also increases midblock frictions, such as with parked cars, driveways, and pedes. trians, with resultant increased hazards. Street layout and location of ac- cess points along abutting major traffic streets should include con- sideration of the expected direc- tional distribution of at least peak- luwr w1111ML11-1 a the cxlent 00015- tent with uther planning principles, orientation should favor the minimum vehicle miles of travel to reach home sites. 4. Local Street Systems Should Be Logical and Comprehensible, and Systems of Street Names and House Numbers Should Be Simple, Consistent, and Understandable, The pattern of local streets, their names, and the house -numbering system should be designed to satisfy the needs of visitors, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles as well as local residents. A reasonable repetition in the street pattern, or conformance to topography can help in achieving an understand- able street system, Streets which wander directionally or which turn back on themselves tend to be con- fusing, and should be avoided, ex- cept in small cluster developments, 5. Local Circulation Systems and Land -Development Patterns Should Not Detract from the Eff . ciency of Bordering Mgfor Streets, This principle may involve con• trol of driveways, intersection Placement, and full or partial con- trol of access. Ideally, land de- velopment should occur so that no Parcels require direct access to major streets. Intersections of col- lector streets along major streets should be properly placed to facili• tate signal progression. 6. Elements in the Local Circulalion System Should Not Have to Rely on Extensive Trafric Regulations in Order to Ftlnctlon Efrlciently and safely. Consideration of the type and in. tensity of land use, off-street park- ing areas, zoning and subdivision requirements, off-street maneuver areas, and other accessory circula. tion elements concurrently with street design guidelines will minimize the need for traffic regu- lation and enforcement. Develop- ment controls should be sufficient to provide the circulation amenities necessary to keep the need for en. forcement to a minimum, TraIRC Grtnerators Within Residen- tial Areas Should at Considered in the local Urcuiatron f attem 0) 11 1.00 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS iN SUBDMSION PLANNING AND UYou-r 3 Schools, shopping facilities, and churches may cause traffic conges• tion on the local street system. To the extent necessary, they should serve as focal points for circulation, not only from within the area but from adjacent neighborhoods as well. 8. Planning and Construction ofResl- dentlal Streets Should Clearly In- dicate Their Local F4nctlon. These streets should have an ap- pearance commensurate with their function as local streets. They should not be overdesigned or overbuilt. Appurtenances should be in keeping with the residential character. 9. The Local Street System Should Be Designed for a Relatively Uniform Low Volume of Tralitc. To the extent possible, the design of the local and collector street sys- tem should recognize the need for residential amenities along all streets In the neighborhood. This suggests that the street system should be designed for uniformly Iowvolumes on all streets after con- tiguous land development 1s com- plete. Where traffic volumes tend naturally to be higher, as along col- lectors, then variations in the land -development pattern (l,e., permissible land uses, building set- backs, etc.) might be considered to compensate for the reduction in amenities, 10, Local Streets Should Be Designed to Discourage Excessive Speeds. Residential streets should be de- signed to discourage fast movement (more than 25 to 30 MPH, 40 to 50 KPH), through the use of cur- vilinear alinement and discon- tinuities In the street system. 11. Pedestrian -Vehicular Conflict Points Should Be Minimized. Pedestrian travel within the area (such as home to school) or from within the area to points outstde should require a minimum of street crossings. Sometimes this may be achieved through proper design of street patterns, land -use arrange• ments, school district boundaries, and pedestrian routes. Typical methods include use of cul-de-sac and looped streets, special pedes- trian routes or walkways, and the proper placement of high pedes- trian traffic generators, In general, while vehicular flow must be outward -oriented to the peripheral major streets, pedestrian travel should be Inward -oriented to avoid these heavier vehicular flows, 12, A Minimum Amount of Space Should Be Devoted to Street Uses, It Is desirable to minimize local street mileage and pavement area to reduce construction and main- tenance costs, as well as to permit the most economic land use. 13. There Should Be a Minimum Number of lntersecUor c Within the subdivision and espe- cially along abutting major streets, intersections pose an accident po- tential. The fewer intersections there are, consistent with other re- quirements, the fewer accidents there will be. From the standpoint of hazard, however, use of two T-type Intersections with proper offset is preferable to using one cross -type, within the subdivision, 14, The Arrangement of Local Streets Should Permit Economical and Practical Patterns, Shapes, and Sizes of Development Parcels. Streets as a function of land use must not unduly hinder the de- velopment of land. Distances be- tween streets, angles of inter- sections, numbers of streets, and related elements all have a bearing on efficient lot layout of an area. 15. Local Streets Should Be Related to Topography from the Standpoint of Both Economics and Amenities. Local streets will be more attrac- tive and economical (minimize cut and fill) if they are constructed to closely adhere to topography, 16. Appropriate Provisions for Transit Service Within Residential Areas Should Be Established. The routing of transit vehicles through a residential area may in- volve special consideration of street widths, pattern of streets, pedestri- an circulation system, and pattern of land development. In areas served by local surface transit, contact should be made with the appropriate agency to con- sider bus routing within the pro- posed subdivision. The probability and desirability of such service may be expected to increase with de- velopment density. if transit service is considered, the agency should, of course, be given the option of plan review with respect to geometric design features. in northern areas, special attention must also be given to grades. Generally, transit rout• ing should Involve use of only col- lector roadways. Adherence to de- sign guidelines for collectors will usually result In compatibility with transit vehicle characteristics, 0 2.01 Introduction Recommended guidelines for resi- dential subdivision streets vary with ter- rain and with population densities. They address three general groupings: local street, collector (or (eeder) street, and intersection, 2.02 Use of Guldelines These guidelines are to be used in conjunction whit material contained In the Introduction and In Section 1,00, in all cases, two factors must be strongly stressed: first, good engineering prac- tice is essential. No attempt has been made in this discussion to set up either final or complete design criteria, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has pub- lished two books: A Policy on Geometric Design otRural Hlghwaysl and APolicy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas.' The ITE has a report, "Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design,"' These sources are recommended for answers to specific problems. Second, local conditions must be evaluated in any subdivision design, This should not be an excuse for blanket disregard of guidelines. However, all de- signs must be sufficiently flexible to ac- commodate the particular needs that exist In various parts of the United States. Ranges beyond those contained herein may be appropriate. In localities having winter Icing con. dltlons, certain dimensions may require local modification. Specifically, these relate to right-of-way width, maximum grade, and minimum centerline radius of curves. 2900 Design Elements for Subdivision Streets 2.03 Local Street Design Recommended dimensions are shown in Table 1, Items are assigned reference numbers in order to properly key the discussion. The explanatory notes are Intended to amplify and clarify specific values, They may also guide the designer in his or her Individual in- terpretation and evaluation, 2.03.01. Terrain Classification. Definitions of terrain classification are: a. Level —grade range of 0 to 8 per- cent. b. Rolling —range of 8.1 to 15 per- cent, c, Hilly —grade of over 15 percent, 2, 03, 02. Development Density. Figures for density classification in terms of gross land area are: a. Low-2 or less dwelling units per acre (1 per hectare). b. Medium-2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre (1.1 to 2.4 per hec- tare), c. High —over fi dwelling units per acre (over 2.4 per hectare). 2.03.03, Right -or way Width. Sufficient right-of-way Is required to contain the elements of: a, Pavement and/or curbing, b. Sidewalks where required. c. Street utilities customarily In, stalled In border areas, such as streetlights, traffic signs, street trees, utility lines (overhead and underground). d. A moderate amount of cross• section grading, including shoul- ders where utilized. e. In extreme northern climates, ad- ditional area may be required for extensive retention of snow Plowed from the roadway. A 60-foot (18-m) basic right-of-way width is recommended, with the excep- tion of low density where a 50-foot (15-m) basic right-of-way width is pro- posed. In no case is it recommended that full grading of the entire right-of- way width be mandatory. 2.03.04. Pduement Width. A minimum pavement width must allow safe passage of moving traffic in each direction, exclusive of other Inter• ferences, such as conventional curb parking. Curb parking will occur occa. sionally within all residential subdivi. signs. The rate of occurrence will be a function of density, off-street parking code requirements, and local ordi- nances. In very low -density develop• ments, large lots with two -car garages and circular driveways are com- monplace. However, vehicle break- downs and occasional overflow parking indicate that even in the low -density area, provision should be made for the occasional standing vehicle. This can he done by means of a shoulder on one or both sides of the street. Such shoulder development requires that curbs either be omitted or be of the mountable or roll -type, when a narrow —such as 22• foot (7-m)--road is used. A second function of the shoulder is to provide for pedestrians and bicycle riders. Curb parking is infrequent :n S RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS Table 1 Loral Street Design Guidelines (Also see Detail Discussion , —Section 2.03) Reference Number 2.03.01. Terrain Classification O.Level Rolling Hilly 2.03.02. Development Density B., Low Medium High Low !Medium High Low Medium High 2,03.03. Right -of -Way Width (feet) 50 60 60 50 60 60 50 60 60 2,03,04. Pavement Width (feet) 22-27 28-34 36 22-27 28-34 36 28 28-34 36 2.03.05. Type of Curb (V - vertical face; R = roll -type; 0 - none) 2.03.06. Sidewalks and Bicycle Paths (feet) 2,03,07, Sidewalk Distance from Curb Face (feet) 2.03.08, Minimum Sight Distance (feet) 2.03.09. Maximum Grade 2.03.10. Maximum Cul-de-Sac Length (feet) 2.03.I1. Minimum Cul•de•Sac Radius (right-of-way) (feet) 2.03.12. Alley Policy and Width 2.03.13. Design Speed (MPH) 2.03.14, Minimum Centerline Radius of Curves (feet) 2.03.15. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves (feet) 2.03.16, Off -Street Parking 2.03.17. Street Lighting 2,03.16. Driveways 2,03,19. Private Streets Note. 1 ft - 0.3 m; l MPH - 1.6 KPH. very low -density areas and conflict should not normally develop between shoulder parking and pedestrian or bicycle rider usage. An alternative approach for low• density development is provision of a 27•foot (8•m) curbed street. Parking could be prohibited on one side of the street under certain conditions. This Is based upon the assumption that the community has required adequate off- street parking at each dwelling unit. (See Section 2.03.16, Off -Street Park- ing,) As density of land use increases, the probability of curb parking Increases. Pedestrian traffic is also higher. Widths of 28 to 34 feet (8 to 10 m), with curbs, O/R V V V V 0 4-6 0 4-6 V 4-6 v v 40 200 150------s*---110—a�- -0----^4%--sue +a------89b15%—o- 1,000 700 700 1,000 700 700 1,000 700 700 's 50 See Discussion --�. �--- 34--20 ..r 175 --ram y 110 --� 'o 50 — Id See Discussion Id See Discussion See Discussion sp See Discussion — are recommended for the medium - density developments, The lower width presumes adequate off-street parking, In the higher density areas, fre- quently comprising apartment de• velopments, curb parking increases still more. Parking may be expected to be found on both sides of the street. Traffic volumes are also higher with greater likelihood of two opposing vehicles meeting one another adjacent to curb. parked vehicles. The 36-foot (11-m) width provides for continuous move- ment at reasonable rates of speed. A second variable of street width con• cerns the horizontal alinement. As ter- rain becomes more difficult, frequency of curves increases. Even In the low- and medium -density areas, consideration should be given to wider streets in roll- ing or hilly terrain. This does not apply to the high density area, where adequate width for clear passing Is rec- ommended as basic. A third factor of street width concerns block length. Very short cul-de-sac streets, such as 200-foot (60-m) "courts," have such low volumes that curbed widths of over 27 feet (8 m) are unlikely to he needed, or 22 feet (7 m) with shoulders. When a school or park is located within a single-family residential area, the adjacent street may require a greater width to accommodate increased traffic and possibly added curb parking. F I .i 2.00 DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS 7 2,03.05. Type of Curb, As may be expected, a wide divergence of opinion exists with respect to curb design. The advantages of vertical curb are: a. Pedestrians, street trees, utilities, and signs are best protected by the vertical curb. b. A positive limit of vehicle en- croachment on the border area is established, This minimizes parkway erosion and also reduces probability of vehicles sliding off the roadway under unfavorable Pavement and weather conditions, c. Depression of curb is required at driveways. Such depression is de- sirable for clear identification of driveway, which minimizes block- age by curb packers. d, Excellent drainage control may be maintained by either variable height or standard height curb. e. Provides improved control of po- tential parked runaway vehicles. Advantages of the roll -type curb are: a. It is slightly less expensive than the vertical type. b. Some persons feel that the roll - type Is the more aesthetically pleasing, c. Cheap driveway construction can be employed without curb depres- sion. This allows the subdivider and developer certain flexibilities in their constructions, in that driveway locations are not re- quired to be determined prior to curb installation. A discussion of curb types would not be complete without consideration of gutter design. Some munlcipalities use a separate vertical curb. Others employ a 12- to 18-inch-wide (30- to 46-cm) gutter, poured integrally with the curb. Ing. Still others employ large V-type gutter designs, or wide apron, high - slope gutters of 3 or 4 feet (1 to 1,2 m) In width. This variation in design policy is an Important consideration In specify- ing street width. In Reference Number 2.03.04 (Table 1), the term "Pavement Width" is Intended to be a practical driv. Ing width available between faces of abutting curbs, In the case of the roll - type curb, in 12- to 18•inch (30- to 46-cm) gutter design, this distance Is measured between points approxi- mately halfway up the roll curb. In the case of standard vertical curbs, with or without gutter widths of normal slope, the distance is measured face-to-face of curb. In the case of large V-gutters or high -slope gutters, the width must be measured across only the Pavement area within which the average driver oper• ate&. The complete elimination of curbs poses a number of disadvantages as fol- lows: a. No protection is given to pedes- trians, street trees, and utilities. b. Border area erosion is prevalent. e. The roadway is poorly defined at night under rainy weather when asphalt surfacing Is used. d. Positive control of drainage is to- tally lacking. Open ditch -type ad• jacent drainage facilities are cus- tomarily employed, which leaves the subdivision with a rural ap- pearance. e. Where asphalt surface is used, pavement edge raveling poses a maintenance problem. 2.03.06. Sidewalks and Bicycle Paths. In today's typical subdivision, sidewalks have the following function: a, Providing for maximum safety of children playing on their block, b. protection of children walking to and from schools and neighbor- hood parks, c. Provision for adults to walk to and from neighborhood shopping and transit stops (If any), Sidewalks should ordinarily be provided along streets used for pedes• trian access to schools, parks, shopping areas, and transit stops, Paved sidewalks should also be provided within pedes- trianways giving midblock access to these types of generators, Wider sidewalks may be considered next to higher density pedestrian generators, such as schools, transit stops, and churches, In the very low -density subdivisions, walking distance to regular elementary schools Is often excessive, In com- munities where all such travel is by way of school buses, there will be less need for sidewalk construction as a standard policy. The need for bicycle paths is a func- tion of subdivision density, area of the county, and proximity of bicycle. oriented generators such as educational Institutions or parks. See source refer. ence No, 1 for design dimensions. There have been a number of initia- tives to provide accessibility for the handicapped through provisions such as sidewalk ramps. There Is currently no consensus on when oi< where to include such provisions, or on the best design specifications. Until some consensus is reached, decisions on whether or not to include such provisions and the spe- cifics of design should consider local regulations and/or practice, and the number of persons benefited vs, those adversely affected (i.e.. wheelchairs vs. blind, handicapped vs, nonhandicapped, etc.) 2.03.07. Sidewalk Distance from Garb Face. (See Figure 2.) Many agencies specify a standard lo- cation for sidewalk 1 foot (0.3 m), from right-of-way line, This location has the following advantages where proper right-of-way width and attendant border area of 5-foot (1.5-m) minimum remain between the street edge of sidewalk and curb face: a. Children walking and playing side by side have increased safety from street traffic, b. Conflict between the pedestrians and garbage or trash cans awaiting pickup at the curb is eliminated by using the border area for such temporary storage. c. The warped area necessary for a proper driveway gradient Is minimized by having a major por- tion of this gradient fall within the border area. d, Danger of collision by runoff -road vehicles is minimized by place- ment of the walk at maximum practical distance from the curb, and with further separation by tree plantings, e, Conflict with storage of snow plowed off the roadway Is minimized. f, Pedestrians are less likely to be "splashed" by passing vehicles. When right-of-way restrictions result In a sidewalk next to the curb, an addi- tional width of 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 m) is desirable. 8 RECOMMENUD GUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS F WAY I,r 5 7A' IIOA WAY 7 S' 7 VERTICAL CU113S BORDER AMEA----.-__ SIDEWALK——-- -- WALK OFFSET FROM RiCHT-OF-WAY LIMIT— FICURS2, Typical Cress -Section Ift. -O.3m Depending on utility placement, a meandering of the sidewalk placement within the border area may be consid. ered. Such alinement may be more vis- ually appealing, and may allow saving of trees or other major plantings, avoid rock outcroppings, etc. However, this should not be regarded as a Justification for locating long sections of walk near the street edge. In addition to sidewalk width and Placement, several physical factors should be considered: a. Provide proper traction by use of a roughened surface, b. Establish a maximum grade con- slstent with local conditions. In cold climates subject to icing, this grade is especially important. c, Provide a minimum lateral drain- age slope (normally I to 2 per- cent). d. Avoid use of steps where sidewalk ramps can be substituted. 2.03.08, Minimum Sight Distance. Design values for safe stopping sight distance are recommended as shown, They are calculated for wet pavement conditions at the various design speeds listed in Reference Number 2,03,13, De- sign Speed (Table 1). These sight distances should be provided on both horizontal and vertical curves. For hori- zontal curves, the distance Is normally checked by direct scale from the mid- point of the curb lane, The minimum vertical curve length required is readily calculated by multiplying the algebraic difference in grades, times a K factor. Rounded K factors for the speed range in Table 1 are as follows: 20 MPH, K — 15 for crest and 20 for sag curve 25 MPH, K — 20 for crest and 20 for sag curve 30 MPH, K - 28 for crest and 35 for sag curve (with proper street lighting, K — 20 for sag) 2.08.09. Maximum Crade. The maximum permissible grade rep- resents a compromise between con- struction costs and traffic safety. This allowable grade must Increase as diffi- culty of terrain increases, The 4 percent recommendation for level terrain, 8 percent for rolling terrain, and 15 per. cent for hilly terrain are suggested as reasonable design values, In areas having severe winter icing conditions, maximum grades of 8 per. cent may be preferred for all types of design conditions, 2.03.10. Maximum Cul-de-Sac Length. A 1,000-foot (300 m) length is rec- ommended as a maximum for cul-de. sacs in low -density developments, and 700 feet (210 m) for other densities. This is proposed for the ordinary type of subdivision layout, and obviously does not apply to a cluster -type development, nor to one involving a single road wind. ing up a mountain, for example. Reference 16 suggests that places (short street, cul-de-sac, or court) be designed for ADTs of up to 200, For a typical single-family subdivision, each home has been found to generate an average of about 10 trips per day. 1 "'A 200 ADT is equivalent to a 20-home genera- tion, If an average lot width of 70 feet (21 m) is assumed, with development along both sides of the street, a length of 700 feet (210 m) Is produced. A 100-foot (30-m) lot width gives a length of 1,000 feet (300 m), and is typical of low. density development. A high -density cluster development may involve several apartment build- ings with hundreds of total dwelling units. Use of only a single roadway to provide access to such sites should be allowed only after a careful considera- tion of alternative treatments, and with full regard for the potential problems. As the number of persons exclusively served by a given roadway increases, the potential hazard of temporary roadway blockage also increases. Blockages can result from numerous causes such as vehicular accident, utility break, falling tree or pole, and pavement repairs. While such occurrences are exceptional, they must still be regarded In terms of their effect on access to the develop- ment by emergency police, fire, or am• bulance equipment, in addition to this problem, it is even possible to run into capacity limitations. As an extreme example, consider a 1,000-unit de- velopment. Daily weekday trips would likely range from 6 to 10 per unit, if only 5 percent of this traffic would be ex- pected to exit during the peak hour, the flow would reach 300 to 500 vehicles per hour. Depending on characteristics of the boundary roadway, signal control warrants might be reached. In this case, consolidation of exit traffic at a single point would be a desirable design fea. ture. Joint consideration of the factors of both emergency access and capacity suggest alternative layouts for access to a high -density development, as follows: a. Provide at least two separate roadways, fully connected to the Internal system of roadways or parking access drives, or b. Provide a divided -type entrance roadway, with median of sufficient LI r - 4) 2.00 DESIGN Et mENTs FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS 9 width to largely ensure freedom of continued emergency access by lanes on one side, Depending on location and height of nearby poles or trees, the required me• dian width would range between 10 and 30 feet (3 to 9 m). 2. 03,11. Minimum Cul-de-Sac Radius. The recommended minimum right- of-way radius for circular cul-de-sac de- sign Is 50 feet (15 m). The desirable out- side turning radius for older passenger cars is 30 feet (9 m). For the smaller truck, and a small piece of fire ap- paratus, a 40-foot (12-m) curb radius is desirable. Within cul-de-sacs, sidewalks may be placed slightly closer to the curb, with attendant reduction in bor- der area dimensions. Similarly, curb parking Is often prohibited by the com- munity, or is artificially inhibited by the pie -shaped lot construction and small distances between adjacent driveways. On very large lots, frontage space may exist for curb parking. When this oc- curs, the design may call for a larger radius cul-de-sac right-of-way and curb, in order to accommodate parking plus the necessary movement of service trucks and fire equipment. Curb radii of 40 feet (12 m) or greater create large expanses of pavement which may be unsightly. The use of cen- ter islands may be considered, but care must be given to keeping adequate ma- neuver space around the island. A minimum road width Is 25 feet (8 m) around the island, Under certain conditions, a "ham- merhead" or "tee" -type of turnaround may be considered. This Is most appli- cable where blocks are very short and the number of dwelling units to be served Is very small, Furthermore, lots are usually not platted at the cap or ends of the turnaround. 2.03,12. Alley Policy and Width. in modern subdivision design, there Is a strong trend to eliminate alleys, In lower density areas of 4.0 and lesser dwelling units per acre (2 per hectare), lot widths are ample to provide building width plus side drives to open pads, car- ports, or garages. As density increases, such construction becomes progres- sively more difficult, At a density of be- tween 5.5 and 6 dwelling units per acre (2 to 2.4 per hectare), with 10 percent sideyards, buildable width is reduced to 30 to 34 feet (9 to 10 m). A mandatory Provision for front driveways therefore would impose severe architectural liml- tations. Common driveways and off - center home construction on lots may not be particularly desirable solutions, The use of alleys may be a preferable alternative, and the local agency should establish a policy consistent with its zoning densities. In higher density and conventional apartment developments, alleys may provide access to rear lot parking spaces, becoming, in effect, a common driveway, The alley also affords secon- dary access for fire equipment, service trucks, and maintenance access to rear line overhead utilities. A local policy should be established. The modern alley may be an asset If provided with proper width of 20 foot (6 m) minimum, adequate radii at street intersections of 15 to 20 feet (5 to 6 m), an all weather (paved) surface, and pro- tected by building and parking bay set- back limits. The typical alley in today's cities is unfortunately often a narrow canyon of filth. Such design errors in the past should not, however, blind the engineer and planner to potential bene- fits of alleys. Alleys designed to modern standards are worthy of consideration in providing required service to conventional sub- divisions, However, certain disadvan- tages, such as additional pavement to be constructed and maintained, the area removed from the tax rolls, the added length of police patrol, and street light- ing needs all suggest alternative so- lutions to current design problems. The trend toward clustered designs, the In- tegration of various housing types in a single development, the increased use of underground electric utilities, the pres- sure for more open space, and the in. creasing usage of common greens, plus an attempt at pedestrian-vehlcular sep- aration in residential areas, all suggest that even well -constructed and main- tained alleys may play only a limited role in future residential construction. 2.03.13, Design Speed. Because of the practical limitations and the economics of construction, lower design speeds must be considered as progressively more difficult terrain is encountered. The values shown in Table 1 of 30 MPH (50 KPH) for level, 25 MPH (40 KPH) for rolling, and 20 MPH (30 KPH) for hilly terrain illustrate such a compromise. 2.03.14. Minimum Centerline Radius of Curves. The recommended values shown are based on a superelevation rate not to exceed 0.08 feet per foot (1;13). This allows use of superelevatlon without danger of side sliding under Icy pave• ment conditions. A side friction factor ranging from 0.16 at 30 MPH (50 KPH) to 0,17 at 20 MPH (30 KPH) is recom- mended in the formula; V' R 15(f= 1) Where V - speed In MPH e — superelevation in foot per foot f - side friction factor R - radius in feet (1 ft - 0.3 m; 1 MPH - 1.6 KPH) The centerline values relate to midblock curves and not to Intersection radii. When a street makes a right- angle -type turn, much shorter radii will apply. See point "A" on Figure 1, If the curves are not superelevated (and they seldom are on local streets), then the appropriate radii for the ad• verse crown are 430 feet (130 m) for 30 MPH (50 KPH), 280 feet (84 m) for 25 MPH (40 KPH), and 180 feet (54 m) for 20 MPH (30 KPH), When topography or other con• straints cause minimum radii to be em- ployed and superelevation Is not used, an off -center crown may be considered. Thus, on a 30-foot-wide (9-m) street, the crown line might be at 10 foot (3 m), rather than at the normal 15-toot (4.5-m) centerline position. This can re- duce the effective amount of negative superelevation on the adverse crown side of the curve or right-angle turn. 2.03.15, Ninimum TJrgonl 13etuwn Reverse Curves. A minimum tangent of 50 feet (15 m) is needed between reverse curves to facilitate steering and control. 2.03.16. Off -Street Parking. The recommended minimum width of 27 feet (d m) for a curbed roadway in a low -density area is predicated upon two 10 RECOMMENDED CUiDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS off-street parking spaces being provided per dwelling unit, If only one space is provided, then a minimum width of 32 to 34 feet (about 10 m) should be used, In the high -density developments, parking demand per dwelling unit will vary with locale, size of dwelling unit, and convenience of public transporta- tion. Typical needs for off-street parking are: a. 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for duplexes and apartments having less than two bedrooms. b. 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit for larger apartments and single- family homes. Car ownership per dwelling Is a func- tion of several variables including In- come and availability of good local tran• sit. It is recommended that independent studies be made for local conditions and that proper adjustments be made in re- quired off-street parking, based upon current demands, plus reasonable allow• ance for future trends in automobile ownership. Studies have shown curb parking to be a primary factor in accidents on all types of streets. 1S, 14 The number of chil- dren killed and Injured each year as a result of entering the street from behind parked cars is particularly tragic. For these reasons, every attempt should be made to require sufficient off-street parking to minimize curb parking, Angle parking along the curbs of local streets should never be allowed. Acci• dents tend to be much higher than with parallel parking, when the through traf• f1c lanes are used for parking and un- parking maneuvers. Therefore, all such bays and lots allowing any parking other than parallel, should be physically sepa- rated from the roadway and confined by barrier curbing beyond the house side of the sidewalks. ' A factor in off-street parking amenity concerns garage door width. The minimum desirable width for a one -car door is 9 feet (2.7 m). For a two -car door It Is 17 or 18 feet (about 5 m), Instead of the widespread "standard" of only 16 feet (4.8 m). A serious restriction of off-street parking use will occur unless access to each stall Is unobstructed. Thus, a re- quirement of two spaces is met only by a two -car garage or parking pad 20 feet (6 m) or more wide, if serving a single• family home. 2.03.17. Street Lighting. Modern street lighting should be re- quired at every intersection, in medium- and high -density areas, midblock street lighting also is desirable in accordance with the latest recom- mendations of the Illuminating En- gineering Society. These are published from time to time as an American Na- tional Standard Practice. The 1977 edi- tion of this Practice" provides for 0.4 horizontal footcandle (4 lux) main• tained average, with a maximum uni• formity ratio of one to six, Design guides for such illumination values may be found in the referenced text. A simple specification for a given number of lights of a given size is Inadequate. The effectiveness of Illumination is a direct product of the distribution type selected for the luminaire, coupled with mount- ing height, bracket length, and luminaire orientation with respect to the geometrics of the roadway. In all cases, a competent illuminating en- gineer should review the street lighting design standards, As a general rule, the use of under- ground wiring Installed by the sub• divider during construction of the sub- division Is the preferred method of providing energy to the lights. 2.03.18, Driveways. Because they are deceptively simple In appearance, driveways often do not receive the design consideration that they merit. Common deficiencies in- clude; a. Inadequate radii at street. b. Excessive grades and grade differ- ences (breakover angles), c. Inadequate width. The typical residential driveway should be designed for passenger -car operation only. For a 90-degree turn, an Inside radius of 18 feet (5 m) and an outside swept path of a 30-foot (9-m) radius will comfortably accommodate most drivers in all passenger cars. A minimum width of to feet (3 m) is recommended for single -lane drive. ways; At the narrowest street width of 22 feet (6.6 m) such a driveway wil; require 12-foot (3.6-m) radii to avoid lane en- croachment. At a 34-foot (10-m) street width, the radius required to avoid lane encroachment drops to only 4 feet (1,2 m). Temporary encroachment on the wrong side of a minorrstreet while entering or leaving a private driveway is generally considered allowable. This suggests a design value of about 5 feet (1.5 m) for the driveway radius. At higher volume driveways of school or apartment parking lots, increased widths, plus radii requirements of 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4.5 m) are recommended. The common design fault of excessive breakover angle (see Figure 3) and rear bumper dragging at the putter line can be avoided by proper grading of right• of -way cross section. As a general rule, the driveway grade should not exceed 8 percent within the right-of-way area. Of greater importance is the change in grade, which should not exceed 12 per- cent within any 10 feet (3 m) of dis- tance. Car "bottoming" on the crest can be avoided by use of 8 percent maximum change per 10 feet (3 m). 2.0.19. Private Streets, in apartment developments, drive• ways connecting to buildings and park• ing areas are usually privately owned and maintained. Similar concepts in cluster housing have led to extensive networks of private streets for single- family homes, townhouses, or con- dominiums. The reason a developer utilizes pri- vate streets is to minimize his right-of- way or geometric design requirements. Both of those reductions can cause problems for the public agency that may eventually have to take over the private street system. The takeovers of mainte- nance are generated by property owner complaints on poor maintenance, or their objections to paying a mainte• nance fee plus property taxes. Many cities are refusing to allow pri- vate streets in their subdivisions, or are requiring that the streets be designed to standard subdivision specifications, in- cluding building clearances (hut not necessarily front yard zoning setbacks) to allow future right-of-way dedication as a public street If needed. E U 2.04 Collector Street Design it Collector street dimensions will nary from those of local streets. Collector 2.00 DESICN ELEMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS I I E 0 streets are intended to serve traffic mov ing between connecting minor streets and peripheral major streets, Therefore, traffic volumes and slightly higher speeds are to be expected. Data in Table 2 are predicated upon these variations where they exist. 2.04.01. Terrain ClamiRcation. Definitions of terrain classification are given In Section 2,03,01. 2.04.02. Development Density. Figures for density classification are given in Section 2.03.02. 2.04.03. Right -of -Way Width. A minimum collector street right -of. way width of 70 feet (21 m) is recom. mended. This provides for a wider pavement and greater distance from sidewalk to curb. The 70 feet (21 m) is a rounded value, since actual tabulation of the various cross-section elements shows a requirement of 68 to 72 feet (20.5 to 22 m). These variations are in. significant, and It would be In the best Interests of the community to use a single figure. 2.04.04. Pavement Width. A minimum pavement width of 36 feet 01 m) is recommended for all types of terrain and for low and medium den. sitles. Under high -density conditions, 40 feet (12 m) is recommended. When the centerline radius is less than about 600 feet (180 m), consideration should be given a 40-foot (12-m) width unless curb parking is prohibited. The collector street provides space for one Pane of moving traffic in each direc- tion plus accommodation for curb park• ing and, by prohibiting curb parking, the provision of an added turn lane at points where required. Examples of such points include approaches to Inter- sections along major traffic routes and sections between adjacent offset inter- sections, so that through traffic would not be impeded by left turning vehicles, 2, 04. 05, Type of Curb. A vertical curb approximately 6 inches (15 m) high is recommended for all collector routes. This recom- mendation is based upon the difference in traffic characteristics between collec- tors and local streets. Positive drainage control Is also particularly necessary. 5' FLARE (ILLUSTRATED) OR R[OULAR a' RADIUS I I � I 1 R,o.W. LINE 1�ARP WALK NOT TO EXCEED I PER FT. WITH NARROW BORDER I AREA (UNDER e FT.)� I2x121� (ANOL! Of 0[111A11TUR!) r � VAMIES lo'---t•-- lo' SAG CURVE IN DRIVE I USE e" CURB ON EACH BIDE OF-i--�8% (+REAKOVER ANGIJ) DRIVE AND PROVIDE STEP-DOWN AT WALK LOT DRAOE ~ To BASEMENT CREST CURVE IN DRIVE I '� aARApE FIGURE 3. Residential DrtvwwsW Details 2,04.06. Sidewalk Width. A mandatory requirement for provi- sion of a sidewalk along all collector streets is recommended. These form natural walking routes to pedestrian generators such as schools and neigh- borhood shopping. 2.04.07. Sidewalk Distance from Curb Face. A minimum border area of 10 feet (3 m) between curb and sidewalk edge is recommended as a practical method of retaining setback of residential prop- erty from the street. Another factor in cold climates Includes area for plowed snow storage, Plowing is more frequent on collector routes, and the quantity of snow is increased by the added pave- ment width. 2.04.08. Minimum Sight Distance. Stopping sight distance Is recom- mended to conform with the design speeds shown in Table 2. The rounded K factors for 35 MPH (55 KPH) are 40 for crest and 45 for sag curves (27 for lag if good street fighting is available). 2.04.09. Marimum Grade. The only recommended change In grade is in hilly terrain. A 15 percent maximum grade on collector streets is not desirable. 2.04.10. Minimum Spacing Along MgJor 7)vfflc Route. (See Figure 4.) Collector streets frequently generate traffic volumes requiring signalizahon at intersections with major streets. Such points of slgnallzatlon should be RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS Table 9 Collector Street Design Guidelines arence Number 1.01. Terrain Classification Level Rolling Hilly 1,02. Development Density ►mow Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High 1.03. Right -of -Way Width (feet) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 1.04. Pavement Width (feet) 36 36 40 36 36 40 36 36 40 1,05. Type of Curb ,- Vertical Face !.06. Sidewalk Width (feet) -4 to 6 .,07. Sidewalk Distance from Curb Face (feet) 10 ,08. Minimum Sight Distance (feet)----250 14----200-s* .09. Maximum Grade .4 4% ,10, Minimum Spacing Along Major Traffic Route (feet) ,11. Design Speed (MPH) do 35^- . .12. Minimum Centerline Radius (feet)" .+---- 350�►� .13. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves (feet) �------150 ----�� +t--12% --+�- 1,300 -0--- 30 6. .4 25-e•- '�---- 250 -+► .e----175 -� 100 ,14. Street Lighting r See Discussion ote, 1 ft d 0.3 m; 1 MPH - 1.6 KPH. usumes superelevation—see Discussion, blished in terms of providing pro. 931ve traffic flow. A 1,300-foot ?-m) spacing will provide progres- flow at a design speed of approxi• ely 30 MPH (50 KPH). If higher ad• nt major route speeds are desired, minimum Intersection spacing uld be Increased, In the larger scale developments, when tracts on both sides of major streets are concurrently planned, col- lector street volumes can be held below signal requirements by providing more Intersections. Such Intersections can be channellaed for high efficiency entry and exit. They can also be made discon• ;'/CURE 4. Major Street Access thing Non -Signalized Variable -Spaced Minor and Collector Street C000ecdonf tinuous by a barrier median on the ar. tery. Figure 4 illustrates this concept, 2.04.11. Design Speed. An Increase of 5 MPH (8 KPH) above local street design speeds for each type of terrain Is recommended, This design will more nearly reflect desires on the part of drivers for improved movement. Higher speed posting will encourage use of the collectors for access to and from the adjacent major traffic routes, 2, 04,12. Minimum Centerline Radius. Increases shown In the minimum curvature are predicated upon the In- creased design speed recommendation. If superelevation is not used, the 35 MPH (55 KPH) radius should be 58U feet (174 m). 2.04.13. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves. :Minimum should be 100 feet (30 m) regardless of terrain ur deveiopment density. 2.00 DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR SU9bIVISION STREETS 13 2.04.14. Street Lighting. Because of the higher traffic volumes on the collector, adequate street light- ing is desirable, The 1977 edition of the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting$ recommends 0.6 maintained horizontal footcandles (6 lux), and a uniformity not to exceed one in three (low point not less than one- third average). 2.06 Intersection Design Recommended design standards are shown in Table 3. 2.05.01. Terrain Classification. Definitions of terrain classification are given in Section 2.03,01. 2,05.02. Development Density. There is no sufficient variation within the different densities of a given terrain classification to warrant such a sub. grouping. Reference Number 2, 05.03. Approach Speed. An approach design speed of 25 MPH (40 KPH) Is desirable for all intersec- tions. However, this requirement would be severely binding with respect to eco• nomics of design in hilly terrain. There- fore, a reduction to 20 MPH (30 KPH) for such intersection design may be considered as shown in Table 3, The safe approach speed involves safe stopping distance on vertical and horizontal curves, beginning about 100 feet (30 m) from the intersection, plus clear sight distance. 2.05.04. Clear Sight Distance. The intersection of two local streets should be designed to operate without any control device whenever possible. The best way to achieve this is to design and maintain proper sight distance. This usually can be attained at intersec- tions by restrictions on height of lot embankment, location of building and any screening shrubbery, fences, or low -growing trees. Table 3 Intersection Design Guidelines The ordinance of one city states that: there shall be provided an un- obstructed view across the triangle formed by Joining points measured 30 feet (9 m) distant along the property line from the Intersection of two streets and of 15 feet (4.5 m) along both the street and alley line from the Intersection of a street and an alley. Within the area of the triangle there shall be no sight -obscuring or partly obscuring wail, fence, sign or foliage higher than 24 inches (60 cm) above curb grade or in case of trees, foliage lower than 6 feet (2 m). Vertical mea- surement shall be made at the top of the curb on the street or alley adja- cent to the nearest street of the triangle or if no curb exists, from the edge of the nearest traveled way." In addition to an ordinance relating to private property, the local jurisdic- tion should have a policy of prohibiting any trees or other plantings except grass, In the public right-of-way within 50 feet (15 m) of the intersecting curb lines. 2.05.01. Terrain Classification Level Rolling Hilly 2,05,02. Development Density - All Densities _ 11 2.05.03. Approach Speed (MPH) 25 25 20 2,05.04. Clear Sight Distance (length along each approach leg) (feet)" 90 90 70 2.05.05. Vertical Alinement Within Intersection Area flat 2% 4% 2,05,06, Minimum Angle of intersection 75" (W preferred) 2.05.07. Minimum Curb Radius (feet): a, Local -local 0 20 b, Local -collector - -- - — 25 c. Collector -major 4 - :30 -r 2.03.08, Minimum Centerline Offset of Adjacent Intersection (feet): a. Local -local 10 125 - ---� b. Local -collector ISO c. Collector -collector - 200 - ---� 2,05.09, Minimum Tangent Length Approaching Intersection (each leg) s0 30 20 2.05.10, Drainage Structures See Discussion Note, 1 fl - 0.3 m; 1 MPH - 1.6 KPH. °At an alley intersection with a street (or with another alley) a )$-foot minimum clear sight distance leg is recommended along each intersecting property line. 14 RECOMMENDED CUIDELINES FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS The 90 feet (27 m), or 70 feet (21 m) for hilly terrain, specified in Table 3 is Intended to be measured along the cen. terline of the curb lanes of each ap- proach, back from the intersecting curb line as shown on Figure 5. The private property triangle thus Included mea- sures approximately 45 feet (13 m) along each leg. This corresponds to building setback lines of 20 to 25 feet (6 to 8 m) which are within the typical ranges currently in practice. The suggested 50-foot (15-m) tree spacing would allow one tree within the sight triangle, assuming spacings of at least 25 feet (8 m) between trees. The sight distance clearances basi- cally relate to the Intersections of two local streets. Where a local street inter• sects a collector, it Is customary to as. sign right-of-way to the collector. This is typically done by posting "Yield" signs facing the local streets, If sight distance does not allow a safe approach speed of at least 20 MPH (30 KPH), it is good practice to use "Stop" sign control for the local street. 1.4 2.05.05. Vertical Alinement Within Intersection Area. Intersection areas should be designed with a flat grade. In the more difficult terrains, this becomes economically impractical, An allowance 'of 2 percent maximum Intersection grade in rolling and 4 percent In hilly Is recommended in Table 3. In addition, approach grades within 50 feet (15 m) of the Intersection should be considered, with 2 to 3 percent repre- senting desirable maximums for level and rolling terrains. 2.05, 06. Minimum Angie of Intersection. It is desirable for all intersections to meet at approximately a 90-degree angle. Skewed intersections should be avoided, and in no case should the angle be less than 75 degrees, Studies have shown that skewed Intersections have generally higher accident rates than those intersecting at 90 degrees. s� � FIGURES. Example of Clear Sight Distance Local -local Intersection 2.05.07. Minimum Curb Radius. As curb radius Is Increased, paving costs and Intersection area required for a pedestrian to traverse are increased, and higher turning speeds are encour- aged, Substandard radii result in unnecessary lane encroachment and increased traffic conflict and accident potential. Reasonable design values of 20 feet (6 m) are recommended for in- tersection radii of two local streets, based on curb clearance of 3 feet (1 m), and without lane encroachment for a typical width street, using the AASHO design passenger vehicle. This design will also accommodate garbage trucks and moving vans, with wide swings. An increased radius of 25 feet (8 m) for the local -collector or collector -collector in- tersection is predicated upon a desire to slightly Improve the driving speed of a vehicle in entering or leaving the collet. tor. A collector intersection with a major street should have a 30-foot (9-m) radius.I 2. 05, 08. Minimum Centerline Offset of Adjacent Intersection. Several studies of intersection design types have shown T•type intersections to be far safer than cross -type. Extensive use of T intersections in residential sub. divisions is strongly recommended. One disadvantage, however, Is "corner - cutting" when Inadequate offset exists between adjacent intersections, To re- duce this hazardous practice, offsets of at least 125 feet (40 m) between cen- terlines are desirable. In the case of two collector -street Intersections, this offset should be increased In order to allow for left -turn storage between Intersections. Offset intersections have disadvan- tages when one or both such streets Is a collector Intersecting a major street, if volumes will be such to warrant traffic signals. Operations at such locations are more complicated than those for nor- mal cross -type intersections. Therefore, other design solutions should be sought If slgnallzatlon might otherwise be re- quired. When offset Intersections are used at a major street, they should be located to avoid conflicting left turns (this Is especially Important where 2-way left -turn lanes are to be provided, or where left -turn slots are used In a fairly narrow median), Such ;eft -turn conflicts exist when an intersection 4 11 1 2.p0 D�31CN ELEMENTS P'oA SUBbM5I0N 9TREET3 1 � offsets to the right rather than to the left. Multi -leg intersections (over four) are undesirable from the control and safety standpoint. 2.05, 09. Minimum rangent LAngth Approaching intersection. It Is desirable to provide a tangent n section of roadway approaching inter- sections, when the street leg has a minimum or near -minimum radius curve. The guideline values in Table 3 would not apply to a collector, for exam• ple, with a 1,000-foot (300-m) radius that is Intersected by a local street, it would apply to an Intersecting local street with a 200-foot (60-rn) radius leg. 2.03,10. Drainagt Structures, Inlets or catch basins should not be located within the corner radius or within 6 feet (2 m) of either end, Clear• ance is needed to keep the area relatively dry and to allow space for streetlights, name signs, utility poles, etc. Crate de- sign should provide for safety of bicycle traffic. Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of John Belter 0.1. State your name and address. A.1. My name is John Belter and I live with my wife, Joyce, and three children Todd, Jennifer, and Sarah, at 2 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. Q.2. What is your occupation? A.2. I am a dairy farmer. I own and manage Ethan Allen Farms in South Burlington. I am also a developer of a 42 lot industrial subdivision which is located on a portion of our 345 acre parcel of land in South Burlington. Q.3. Are you and Joyce Belter the appellants in this proceeding before the Environmental Board? A.3. Yes, we are. Q.4. What is your educational background? A.A. I studied agriculture when I was in high school in Connecticut and I attended the University of Connecticut from 1967 to 1969 where I majored in dairy husbandry. Q.5. How long have you been a dairy farmer? A.5. A grew up on my father's dairy farm and worked for a year for my father after college. I then rented a farm in Lakeville, Connecticut for 3 years and moved to South Burlington in 1974. At that time, I entered into a lease -purchase agreement with Rene Berard and started operation of the Ethan Allen Farms. I have been in the dairy business on this farm since then. Rene transferred title to me in 1978. Q.6. As a dairy farmer, have you received any awards from the agricultural community? A.6. Yes, I have. In 1971, I was named "Outstanding Young Farmer" in the State of Connecticut by the American Farm Bureau Association. I was named "Outstanding Young Farmer" in the State of Vermont in 1979 by that same Association. These awards recognize excellence in the field of agriculture, particularly in the area of soil protection and management, erosion control, and crop yield. In 1982, I received an award from National Corn Grower's Association for achieving the highest corn yield production in the State of Vermont. I was able to produce 35 tons of corn silage per acre. The Chittenden County average, at that time, was 14 tons per acre. In 1983, I received from the Vermont U.S. Jaycees their "Outstanding Young Farmer" award for crop production, and in 1984 I received the "Farm Management Award" from the Dairy Herd Management Association, for milk production. In 1984, I was recognized by the U.S. Jaycees as one of the four "Outstanding Young Farmers" in the United States. I was the first New Englander and Vermonter to win that award. -2- Q.7. Briefly describe your dairy operation at Ethan Allen Farms. A.7. We have 550 head of cattle, and provide employment and housing for seven full-time and two part-time employees. Our production is 4 million pounds of milk per year, one of the largest producers in the State of Vermont. Ethan Allen Farms is one of the five or six largest dairy farms in the State in size. We are one of the last four dairy farms in the City of South Burlington. Of our 345 acres, approximately 238 acres is in agriculture. In addition to the Ethan Allen Farms' acreage, we also farm approximately 1000 acres in Chittenden County. These acres include land owned by the City of Burlington Parks and Recreation Department, and land owned by the City of Burlington Electric Department. We also farm land owned by St. Michael's College and the Ethan Allen Homestead. In South Burlington we farm the 100 acre Nowland Farm on Spear St.; the 200 acre Ramsey Farm on Dorset Street; and the 300 acre Economeau Farm, also on Dorset Street. In addition, we farm approximately 70 acres of the Digital property. Many of these acres had been out of agriculture production for many years. We pay rent to farm these lands but they are essential to our operation, and as a bonus, we think these off -site agriculture operations also make a -3- significant contribution to open space and natural beauty in the Chittenden County area. A portion of the land we rent is used by Burlington, South Burlington, and Colchester to dispose of sewage treatment sludge. Q.8. One of your neighbors on Country Club Drive, Marc Roy, in his prefiled testimony, said that you refused to consider using alternative accesses to your proposed residential subdivision because of adverse impacts such access may have on your farm operation, and yet you, in his words "destroyed" agricultural land to create an industrial park and topsoil stripping operation, and "destroyed" mature timber to create a gravel pit. Please respond to Mr. Roy's charges. A.8. It would be impossible for us to stay in farming without devoting a portion of our farm to development. Without the industrial park, the topsoil production operation, and the residential subdivision, there would be no Ethan Allen Farms. I did not inherit Ethan Allen Farms. I paid over one million dollars for the land and farm operation, most of which is financed. The debt cannot be paid by the money we earn selling milk. Several years ago, Joyce and I prepared a plan to manage our property. The plan is simple. We will preserve the agricultural complex (the barn and other buildings), and the highly productive river bottom land. The river bottom land is two to three times as productive as the rest of the acreage. The residential area, which is being reviewed by the Board, is the -4- site of a gravel pit started by Rene Berard, the owner prior to 1974. The area hasn't been in agricultural production for at least thirty (30) years. As for the topsoil, we are not, as Mr. Roy claims "stripping" or "mining" topsoil. In fact, we produce topsoil. There is more topsoil in the areas where we produce it than before. We add 50 to 60 tons of manure and crop residue to an area and blend it with soil. Crop production in these areas is fantastic, and it was in this area of topsoil production that I achieved the award for top corn production in the State back in 1983. We sell topsoil to nurseries, UVM, St. Michaels, and municipalities such as South Burlington, Colchester, and Winooski. The area we designated for the industrial park was an area of low crop production compared to the river bottom land. It was our judgment that in preparing the overall plan, we needed to use this area and the old gravel pit for industrial and residential development in order to financially sustain the dairy farm, which is our principal interest. Q.9. Mr. Roy also says that "Mr. Belter wants to have us [the residents of Country Club Estates] to bear the burden of additional costs and increased danger for our children by using our neighborhood streets to access the proposed development." How do you respond to that charge? - 5 - A.9. My wife, family, and I, live in Country Club Estates. We live at 2 Country Club Drive, which is at the corner of Country Club Drive and Poor Farm Road. All of the traffic to our subdivision which will use Country Club Drive, and all of the existing traffic on Country Club Drive pass our house, coming and going. The Belters don't avoid traffic from their proposed subdivision by directing traffic away from the farm. We also discourage our three children from playing in the City streets. I would also like to remind Mr. Roy that we did not lay out access to the land beyond Country Club Estates over Country Club Drive. That access was included in Rene Berard's plan for the development of Country Club Estates back in 1971. The City of South Burlington engineer insisted on it. The City wanted access to the land over a sixty (60) foot right-of-way between land which is now owned by the Hongs and Myettes. That was a condition of the City approval of the Berards' Country Club Estate subdivision. Q.10. A number of neighbors complain about destruction of trees on your property to conduct your topsoil production project and your recent grading along the Winooski River. Please explain what was done and why. A.10. I have cut trees in the course of sixteen (16) years that I have been farming this site. As I recall, eight to ten large trees and a number of smaller trees were cut in the area behind the barn to remove fill that was M sold to the City of Burlington to cover their City's landfill. The larger trees were later used as firewood by farm employees. This past spring, I also cut a large oak tree when I graded and seeded the eroded area along the Winooski River. The tree was sitting on top of a column of soil and had to be removed in order to reclaim and restore the river bank. Q.11. A number of neighbors express concern about construction -type traffic using Country Club Drive. Explain how construction traffic will be routed. A.11. All of the larger site preparation vehicles, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and loaders, will travel across cornfields and around the farmyard. Such vehicles will not use Country Club Drive, Mountainview Boulevard, or the nearby Haul Road. As for smaller vehicles, such as concrete and lumber trucks, and carpenter's personal vehicles, they will use either Country Club Drive or Mountain View Boulevard, depending on their direction of travel, the same as when all of the houses in Country Club Estates were constructed. Over City streets used for public purposes. 0.12. Anne Cramer Hong describes Country Club Estates as "a very quiet neighborhood. The occasional take -off of an Air National Guard F-16 is the only source of significant noise". Do you agree with that statement? -7- A.12. I live in Country Club Estates and I can tell you that Country Club Estates is definitely not a quiet neighborhood. Although I'm not an expert on the subject, this may be one of the noisiest neighborhoods in the State, with all of the activity at the Burlington International Airport. The City of Burlington was a party to our application when it was before the District Environmental Commission. The City requested that we include in our protective covenants and warranty deeds the following language to put future lot owners on notice of the noise problem. I agreed. The language the City suggested is as follows: "Article III Airport Section 3.1: Record Notification: Impacts. A purchase of a lot is hereby notified that the subdivision is in the immediate vicinity of the Burlington International Airport, an airport which not only serves private and commercial airline carriers, but is the home of the Vermont Air National Guard. Each lot may be subject to noise and other impacts arising from the operation of the Burlington International Airport and the activities of the Air National Guard, and declarants, for themselves and for the successor owners of each lot in the subdivision, hereby waive any right to complain about the impacts arising from the normal operation of the Airport for the above -stated purposed, including changes in impacts as Airport service is upgraded and/or expanded in the future." A copy of the protective covenants is attached as Appellants' Exhibit A. There are over 150,000 landings and takeoffs at the Airport each year, and this doesn't include the Air National Guard F-16 workouts. Country Club Estates is definitely not a quiet neighborhood. Q.13. Patricia Myette and Anne Cramer Hong also complain about dust created by heavy equipment working on your land. What type of equipment is she referring to? A.13. I can't be certain as to what equipment she is speaking of. However, you can't farm without raising dust, especially when it is dry. Trailers and tractors used for hauling crops, manure, topsoil, and performing other agricultural activities cause dust. At times our trucks have to travel over a mile on dirt to get from the field to the barns and storage areas and back to the fields. Dust is difficult to avoid. But then the farm was there long before Country Club Estates; as a matter of fact, Country Club Estates at one time was a part of the farm and Rene Berard used the area as pasture. Q.14. Patricia Myette is concerned about the close proximity of the blasting and danger to curious children which may wander into the area. How do you respond to this concern? A.14. There is a fence between the farm and the area that will be blasted and Country Club Estates, except where the fence has been cut by our neighbors to dump their yard cuttings and Christmas trees. The purpose of the fence is to keep people off the fields. If our neighbors respect the fence and control their children, the children won't be in any danger. Q.15. Does that conclude your testimony? A.15. Yes, it does. [belter.b061 -10- WHITE ROCK POINT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT PROTECTIVE COVENANTS This Declaration of Protective Covenants, dated and made as of the _ day of December, 1988, by JOHN H. BELTER, JR. and JOYCE N. BELTER, of South Burlington, Vermont (the "Declarants"). RECITALS Declarants own and are developing a 36 lot residential subdivision known as White Rock Point in the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the "Subdivision"). Reference is made to a plan entitled "White Rock Point: Plat of Subdivision of Land of Joyce N. and John H. Belter," dated October, 1988 and recorded in Volume 252 at Pages 96-97 of the South Burlington City Land Records, which land and the lots depicted therein are incor- porated herein by reference. E S T A B L I S H M E N T In order to create certain values and amenities, to establish covenants, conditions and easements, to provide purchasers of the residential lots with notice of certain requirements and impacts, to prevent nuisances or the impairment of the attractiveness of the Subdivision, and to secure each residential lot owner with the full benefit and enjoyment of his property with no greater restriction on the free and undisturbed use of the residential lot than is necessary to ensure the same advantages for the other residential lot owners, Declarants hereby: Do declare the land comprising the Subdivision as shown on said aforementioned plan to be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, leased, occupied and used subject to and with the benefit of all of the terms and conditions of this Declaration, said terms and conditions to run with the land and be binding on all parties and their heirs, successors and assigns holding any right, title or interest in the land or any part thereof. 2. Do declare that the name of the Subdivision shall be White Rock Point. ARTICLE I General Covenants and Restrictions Section LL Residential Use. Each lot is to be for permanent, single family residential purposes only. This covenant in no way restricts an owner's right to rent a lot as a single family residence except that all such rentals shall be evidenced by a written lease which must be for a minimum term of thirty (30) days. No building or structure intended for or adopted to business, commercial or industrial purposes, and no apartment house, double or duplex house, lodging house, rooming house or other multiple family dwelling shall be erected, placed, permitted or maintained on a lot or any part thereof. This paragraph shall not prohibit customary home occupations, except that no wholesale or retail sale of any products of a home occupation shall be conducted on any lot. No improvements or structures whatsoever, other than a private dwelling house, patio, walls and fences, swimming pool, tennis court, customary outbuildings, and garage or car port may be erected, placed or maintained on any lot. Each lot shall have no more than one (1) outbuilding exclusive of a garage or car port. Section 1.2. Limitation on Habitation. No outbuilding, garage, shed, tent, trailer, mobile home or temporary building of any kind shall be erected, constructed, permitted or maintained prior to commencement of construction of the residence and no outbuilding, garage, shed, tent, trailer, mobile home, basement or temporary building shall be used for permanent or temporary residence purposes. This covenant shall not prohibit the use of a construction trailer on a lot during construction of the residence. Section 1.3. Occupancy. No permitted private, single family dwelling house erected on any lot shall be occupied during the course of construction nor at any time prior to its being fully completed as herein required; nor shall any residence when completed be in any manner occupied unless in complete compliance with all covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein. All construction shall be completed within six (6) months from the start thereof, except in the instance where construction cannot be completed within said time frame due to strikes or delays occasioned by Declarants, material shortages, casualties or acts of God. This paragraph shall not require that all interior finishing must be completed within the aforementioned six (6) months time period, but all exterior work, including but not limited to, shell, chimney, roof, porches, steps, decks, windows, doors, garages, siding and landscaping must be completed within such period. If the application of said time frame to landscaping is inappropriate because of weather con- ditions, then the landscaping shall be completed as soon as practicable during the sub- sequent spring season. Section 1.4. Tanks. Etc. No elevated tanks of any kind shall be erected, placed or permitted on any part of any lot. Any tanks for use in connection with any residence constructed on a lot, including tanks for the storage of fuels, must be buried or screened sufficiently to conceal them from the view of neighboring lots, roads or streets. Section 1.5. Garbage and Rubbish. All garbage and rubbish shall be kept in sanitary containers and there shall be no dumping on any part of a lot and no incineration. Sanitary containers shall be stored inside, or if outside, screened sufficiently to conceal them from the view of neighboring lots, roads or streets. Section 1.6. Landscaping. Grading, seeding and planting on each lot shall conform with landscaping plans approved as part of Land Use Permit 4C0643-6 and the municipal planning approval of the City of South Burlington and shall be extended to the rear line and sidelines of such lot and in the front to the traveled way or curb of the street or road. All lots shall be mowed and kept in a neat, trimmed manner regardless of whether the lot is vacant or has a house constructed upon it. Section 1.7. Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except that dogs, cats and other household pets may be kept provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes and do not become a nuisance, annoyance or danger to any lot owner. Lot owners shall be respon- sible for promptly cleaning up after their pets at all times. Section 1.8. Utility Lines. All electrical, telephone, cable t.v. and other utility or transmission lines shall be placed underground. Section 1.9. Nuisances. No lot shall be used in whole or in part for the storage of rubbish, trash or scrap of any character whatsoever; nor shall any substance, item or - 2 - material be kept upon any lot which will emit foul or noxious odors or cause any noise that will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort or serenity of the occupants or its surrounding lots. This paragraph shall not prohibit the storage of one (1) pleasure vehicle (such as a vacation trailer or boat) outside a dwelling, outbuilding or garage. Section 1.10. Vehicles. Not more than one (1) unregistered vehicle shall be kept on a lot at any one time unless said vehicles are continuously stored in a garage. No commercial vehicles, or construction or other like equipment of any kind shall be per- mitted on any lot unless kept in a garage completely enclosed. Section 1.11. Signs. No billboards or advertising signs of any character shall be erected, placed, permitted or maintained on any lot or on the residence or other structures located thereon, except an owner of a lot or his agent may erect or display one (1) sign of not more than six (6) square feet advertising the lot and/or residence for sale. Section 1.12. Clotheslines. Clotheslines shall be located so they will not be visible from the street or road serving the lot and shall be located to the rear of the residence. Section 1.13. Swimming Pools. Any swimming pool constructed on a lot shall be completely enclosed by a minimum four (4) foot high chain link fence with lock gate. Swimming pools shall be located no closer to the front lot line than the front wall of the residence on said lot. Section 1.14. Lighting. All roadway and outdoor lighting within the Subdivision and on any lot shall be low intensity with shielded luminaries. All outdoor lighting shall be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector sur- faces from view beyond the perimeters of the area to be illuminated. Recreational improvements on any lot (such as a tennis court, swimming pool, etc.) shall not be lighted for use at or after dusk. Section 1.15. Receivers. Any satellite dishes or antenna placed on any lot shall be suitably screened from view of neighboring lots, roads or streets. ARTICLE II Environmental Requirements, Covenants and Restrictions Section 2.1. Resubdivision. No lot shall be further subdivided in any fashion or manner. Section 2.2. Easements. Rights -of -Way, Buffer Areas. Each lot shall be subject to all utility, sewer and water easements and other easements, rights -of -way and buffer zones as depicted on plans of the Subdivision approved as part of Land Use Permit 4CO643-6 and the municipal planning approval of the City of South Burlington. Specifically noted is a one hundred (100) foot wide buffer zone to be kept undisturbed on all lots which have frontage on the Winooski River. Construction of improvements of any kind and conducting of activities which may cause soil erosion, including but not limited to, the operation of motorized vehicles are prohibited within the buffer zone. Section 2.3. Energy Requirements. All heated structures erected on lots shall be constructed with insulation of an R-value of at least R-19 in the exterior walls, at least R-38 in the roof or cap, and at least R-10 around the foundation or slab; together with thermally sealed foundations and insulated and weatherstripped doors. All windows will - 3 - l be tripled glazed and exterior walls will use two by six inch (2" x 6") studding. The installation of electric resistance space heating systems is prohibited. Section 2.4. Water Conservation. In all residences, water conserving plumbing fixtures shall be installed and maintained. Said water conserving fixtures shall include but not be limited to, low -flush toilets, low -flow shower heads and aerator -type or flow - restricted faucets. Section 2.5. Lot Development Review and Approval. Before development of any lot, the lot owner shall submit to Declarants for their review and approval, plans for construction of residences and accessory buildings, landscaping and erosion control during construction. Plans shall comply with these covenants and restrictions and terms and conditions of state and municipal permits and approvals for the Subdivision. Declarants shall approve or deny the plans within thirty (30) days of receipt. Construction shall not begin until Declarants have approved the plans. Purpose of this review and approval is to ensure that lots are developed in strict conformance with these covenants and restrictions and the terms and conditions of state and municipal permits and approvals for the Subdivision. ARTICLE III AIRPORT SECTION 3.1. RECORD NOTIFICATION: IMPACTS. A PURCHASER OF A LOT IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AN AIRPORT WHICH SERVES NOT ONLY PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL AIRLINE CARRIERS, BUT IS THE HOME OF THE VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD. EACH LOT MAY BE SUBJECT TO NOISE AND OTHER IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND DECLARANTS, FOR THEMSELVES, AND FOR THE SUCCESSOR OWNERS OF EACH LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION, HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT FOR THE ABOVE -STATED PURPOSES, INCLUDING CHANGES IN IMPACTS AS AIRPORT SERVICE IS UPGRADED AND/OR EXPANDED IN THE FUTURE. ARTICLE IV Enforcement Section 4.1. Violations. Should Declarants or any lot owner employ counsel in order to validity enforce any of the foregoing covenants, conditions or restrictions, all costs incurred in such enforcement, including a reasonable fee for counsel, shall be paid by the owner of such lot or lots found to be in violation by a court of competent juris- diction. No delay or omission on the part of Declarants in exercising any right, power or remedy herein provided for in the event of any breach of the covenants, conditions or restrictions herein contained shall be construed as a waiver thereof or acquiescence therein. No right of action shall accrue, nor shall any action be brought or maintained by any lot owner against Declarants for or on account of their failure to bring an action on account of any breach of these covenants and conditions, nor for imposing covenants, conditions or restrictions which may be found or determined to be unenforceable at law. - 4 - ARTICLE V Amendment to or Termination of the Declaration Section 5.1. Amendments. This Declaration shall run with the land and be binding upon the Declarants and all subsequent lot owners. Except for Section 3.1, this Declaration may be amended upon the vote or agreement of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the lot owners, which amendment must receive the approval of District Environmental Commission #IV or its successors or assigns. Upon receiving the required approvals of the lot owners and Commission, said amendment shall become effective upon recordation in the South Burlington City Land Records. Section 5.2. Extension or Extinction. This Declaration and the covenants and conditions set forth herein shall continue and remain in full force and effect at all times for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recordation or upon the termination of Land Use Permit 4C0643-6, whichever sooner occurs. ARTICLE VI Nullity Section 6.1. Continuing Validity. In the event any one or more of the terns and conditions of this Declaration shall be declared to be null and void for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment or decree shall not in any manner whatsoever affect, modify, change, aggregate or nullify any of the terms and conditions of this Declaration not so declared to be void, but all of the remaining terms and conditions of this Declaration not so expressly held to be void shall continue unimpaired and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarants have executed this Declaration as of the date first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: DECLARANTS Witness As To JHB,JR. and JNB John H. Belter, Jr. Witness As To JHB,JR. and JNB STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. Joyce N. Belter At South Burlington, in said County and State, this _ day of December, 1988, personally appeared JOHN II. BELTER, JR. and JOYCE N. BELTER, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them signed and sealed, to be their free act and deed. M. - 5 - Notary Public Bank of Vermont does hereby execute this Declaration for the sole purpose of sub- ordinating two certain mortgage deeds given by John H. Belter, Jr. and Joyce N. Belter to Bank of Vermont, the first dated May 15, 1987 and recorded in Mortgage Volume 245 at Page 150, and the second dated August 10, 1987 and recorded in Mortgage Volume 249 at Page 247 of the South Burlington City Land Records to this Declaration. IN PRESENCE OF: BANK OF VERMONT IN Witness Witness STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. Its Duly Authorized Agent At Burlington, in said County and State, this _ day of December, 1988, personally appeared , duly authorized agent of BANK OF VERMONT, and _ acknowledged this instrument, by _ signed and sealed, to be _ free act and deed and the free act and deed of BANK OF VERMONT. WM [belterwr.rI I Notary Public - 6 - Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I, John R. Ponsetto, Attorney for Appellants John and Joyce Belter, sent a copy of the foregoing LETTER AND PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JOHN BELTER AND ROGER DICKINSON, P.E., by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 9th day of July, 1990 to the following: John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Estates South Burlington, VT 05403 President, City Council City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Ann & Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette Richard Ahearn, Louise and Philip Laroque, Marc Roy by David Conard, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 For Information Only Louis Borie, Coordinator District #IV Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, this 9th day of July, 1990. John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants [certify.b061 STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF KEN KALISKI (CRITERIA 1, 5 AND 8) Q. Please identify yourself for the Environmental Board. A. My name is Kenneth Kaliski. Q. Where do you reside? A. West Canaan, New Hampshire Q. What is your profession? A. I am a senior associate with the transportation and environmental consulting firm, Resource System Group. Q. Would you please provide us with your educational background and experience. A. I have prepared a detailed resume, which is attached as Exhibit Al-14. Q. Have you ever been to the Country Club Estates area? A. Yes, I have conducted two site visits to the area. Q. What are your general impressions of the subdivision and its access? A. Country Club Estates is a 72-lot rural -residential subdivision in south Burlington Vermont. The subdivision is accessed via Country Club Drive and Mountain View Drive, both of which access Air National Guard Roadl. The neighborhood is characterized by low traffic volumes and a quiet atmosphere, despite occasional aircraft noise from the nearby Burlington Airport. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP 1 Portions of Air National Guard Road are also called Poor Farm Road nearer to the subdivision, and Shamrock Road nearer to Airport Parkway. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Q. Please identify yourself for the Environmental Board. A. My name is Kenneth Kaliski. Q. Where do you reside? A. West Canaan, New Hampshire Q. What is your profession? A. I am a senior associate with the transportation and environmental consulting firm, Resource System Group. Q. Would you please provide us with your educational background and experience. A. I have prepared a detailed resume, which is attached as Exhibit 9-14. Q. Have you ever been to the Country Club Estates area? A. Yes, I have conducted two site visits to the area. Q. What are your general impressions of the subdivision and its access? A. Country Club Estates is a 72-lot rural -residential subdivision in south Burlington Vermont. The subdivision is accessed via Country Club Drive and Mountain View Drive, both of which access Air National Guard Roadl. The neighborhood is characterized by low traffic volumes and a quiet atmosphere, despite occasional aircraft noise from the nearby Burlington Airport. 1 Portions of Air National Guard Road are also called Poor Farm Road nearer to the subdivision, and Shamrock Road nearer to Airport Parkway. Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 2 Q. Are you familiar with the Belter land and the proposal for a 36-lot subdivision accessing the intersection of Mountain View Road and Country Club Drive? A. Yes, I am. Specifically, I have reviewed the following documents in preparing this testimony: • White Rock Point Residential Subdivision Criteria Responses (September 1988). • Traffic Impact Evaluation - White Rock Point (March 15, 1988). • District Environmental Commission Findings of Fact (February 3, 1989). • Traffic Impact - White Rock Point Subdivision, May 4, 1989. • Motion for Reconsideration: Criteria 5 and 9K - White Rock Point Subdivision, June 13,1989. • District Environmental Commission Memorandum of Decision, Motion to Reconsider, May 5,1990. • Prefiled testimony of Craig Leiner, June 7, 1990, including JHK 12/15/89 report, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Assistance Project: Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road. • Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong. • Prefiled testimony of Marc A. Roy • Prefiled testimony of Richard C. Ahern. • Traffic Accident data from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. • Prefiled testimony of Lance Llewellyn. • Prefiled testimony of Larry Myott. RESOURCE • Prefiled testimony of Charles Hafter. SYSTEMS • Prefiled testimony of Roger J. Dickinson. GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 3 • Prefiled testimony of Gregory D. Wight Additional documents and information referenced in preparing this testimony include: • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1984. • Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, 1985. • High Accident Locations, 1983-1987 Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation. • Traffic counts performed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission at the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road intersection in May, 1989. • Site visit and geometric measurements performed by Resource Systems Group staff. CRITERION 5 Q. Based on these documents, what do you feel are the major traffic -related issues in the Belter appeal? As stated in the original District 4 Environmental Commission denial on February 3, 1989, there are three major issues which have been inadequately addressed by the applicant. These are: 1) Country Club Estates is relatively quiet. There are no sidewalks, and the "residents of the neighborhood, especially children, use the streets for walking, riding bicycles, and other forms of recreation." Additional vehicles generated by the development would therefore increase hazards to pedestrians. In addition, Country Club Drive has Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 4 inadequate sub -base, causing extensive frost -heaves during the winter months. 2) The intersection of Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Road/Airport Parkway will operate at a level -of -service "F" during the 1992 Build scenario, and needs to be upgraded. 3) Air National Guard Road, has sub -standard pavement conditions, no shoulders, and is of "inadequate design". While the City of South Burlington has made a commitment to improving the intersection of Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road and improving Air National Guard Road, there is no guarantee that these improvements would be in place by the time the development is built. Since the District Commission denial of February 3, 1989, the applicant has offered to pay for a portion of the improvements to Air National Guard Road and the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Rd intersection. Despite these changes, on reconsideration, the District Environmental Commission concluded that without sidewalks, and due to the tight "S" curves within Country Club Estates, the additional traffic from the subdivision still poses a threat to the safety of pedestrians and passing vehicles. An alternative or second access would contribute to alleviating this condition. Q. Did you conduct additional analyses to investigate these issues? A. Yes, I did. This analysis confined itself to the issues expressed above. Two site visits were undertaken in June, 1990 by Resource Systems Group staff. During these site visits, roadway conditions and geometry were determined, roadway stopping sight distances, grades, and curvature were measured. Q. What were the results of your analysis of the traffic and road conditions RESOURCE on Country Club Drive? SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 5 A. There has been testimony given by neighbors that two vehicles, especially school buses and trucks, can not pass simultaneously through the either of the two "S" curves along Country Club Drive. The inside curve radii measure 13 feet. This is below the minimum American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard of 23'2" for a design bus and below the 28'4" standard for design single unit trucks. The AASHTO minimum road width required for the turn is 25' for buses and 18' for small trucks. Given these minimum dimensions, buses and small trucks would indeed require the entire 30' roadway width to accomplish a turn through the curves. During the site visit, we also noticed that sight distance is limited around the eastern "S" curve. This presents a serious hazard when vehicles come around the curve while a pedestrian or bicyclist is hidden around the corner. Stopping sight distance was measure along the eastern "S" curve to be 140 feet for northbound vehicles, and only 75 feet for southbound vehicles. The line of sight for vehicle traveling in either direction is obstructed by a hillside along the inside of the curve. AASHTO standards indicate a minimum stopping sight distance of 125 feet for 20 mph and 150 feet for 25 mph. Given the absence of sidewalks in this area, this presents a serious hazard not only to vehicles, but also to people on bicycles and on foot. Additional residential units added to this roadway would increase both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, thereby increasing the likelihood that an accident would result from this unsafe condition. There has also been some concern expressed that the addition of the subdivision road will extend the straight-away on Country Club Drive, thereby encouraging speed along that neighborhood road. Our observations indicate that this could be a potential problem, and recommend turning the intersection of Mountain View Boulevard/Country RESOURCE Club Drive into a three-way stop controlled intersection. SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 6 Q. What did you find during your investigation of the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive intersection? A. There has been considerable testimony submitted concerning the condition of this intersection, and all parties agree that it is substandard and needs improvement. As Craig Leiner states, the intersection is unsafe, "caused by a horizontal curve on a grade which intersects with two streets: poor pavement markings, poor illumination, and poor sign location." During our site visit, we noticed that the pavement striping was contradictory, with double -yellow lines painted on either side of the left turn lane on Airport Parkway. What other markings existed were substantially faded. We also noticed that the intersection geometry is extremely confusing. There is a confusing stop sign for right turning vehicles from Airport Parkway, and the low angle left turn from Airport Parkway encourages "failure to yield right-of-way" type accidents. Our analysis, using accident data presented in Anne Cramer Hong's prefiled testimony, indicate 12 accidents occurring at or near the intersection during the one and one half years since January 1,1989. Using Agency of Transportation formulas, we calculate an average accident rate to be 3.8 accidents per million vehicles. This is greater than the "critical rate" of 1.6 accidents per million vehicles for this type of road, labeling this intersection as a "high accident location". Table 1 shows a breakdown of each accident in terms of date, what the vehicle hit, pavement conditions, time of day, weather, and location. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 7 TABLE 1: BREAKDOWN OF ACCIDENTS AT OR NEAR AIRPORT PARKWAY/SHAMROCK ROAD/ETHAN ALLEN DRIVE INTERSECTION BETWEEN 1/1/89 AND 6/1/90. Date Object Hit Weather Location 1/8/89 Tree Rain National Guard Ave 2/21/89 Oth Veh. Rain Intsxn 3/6/89 Oth Veh. VS-now kTDia Clear Intsxn 4/15/89 Curb Clear Intsxn 6/8/89 Pole Cloud Intsxn 7/3/89 Oth Veh. Cloud Intsxn 10/17/89 Fixed Ob'. Rain Intsxn 12/6/89 Pole Snow Intsxn 12/8/89 Oth Veh. Wet Day Cloudy Intsxn 1/13/90 Oth Veh. Snow Dark Snow Intsxn 2/15/90 Oth Veh. Snow Day Snow Intsxn 4/16/90 Oth Veh. 1 D ay Clear Intsxn 5/29/90 Oth Veh. I Wet Day Rain Intsxn Of the 13 accidents listed above, none involved personal injuries, and all but one were likely to involve damages over $500. Four accidents were due to snow and ice conditions, where vehicles were unable to remain on the curved roadway. Eight accidents involved other vehicles, and were due to such causes as trucks blocking sight distance along Shamrock Road, southbound vehicles along Lime Kiln Road taking the turn too wide, and left turning vehicles from Lime Kiln Road blocking the through movements. We agree with JHK and the applicant, that with the build -out of the remaining 23 lots in Ethan Allen Park, the level -of -service for the left - turn out of Ethan Allen Drive onto Airport Parkway will be "E" to "F". This lack of available capacity will cause vehicles to queue up along Ethan Allen Drive past its intersection with Shamrock Road, potentially Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 8 blocking access onto Airport Parkway, and encouraging Shamrock Road vehicles to perform unsafe maneuvers to access the major cross -street. Q. What modifications to the roadway need to be implemented to improve the existing conditions. A. With 27 accidents occurring between 1983 and 1988, and 12 occurring over the last 1.5 years, this intersection should be considered very dangerous. Geometric deficiencies should be immediately addressed. We agree with JHK, as presented in Craig Leiner's testimony, that substantial striping, signage, lighting, signalization, and curvature improvements needs to be made at the earliest possible date. JHK reports, ...Potential physical improvements to the curve include a flattening of the curve, improved warning signs and the provision of some superelevation .... The existing "reverse" superelevation for northbound traffic has resulted in a number of run -off -the -road accidents.... Additional warning signs will not significantly affect this characteristic. Therefore, the provision of superelevation is required to better accommodate travel speeds. Also recommended is the eventual installation of a traffic signal when Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrants are met. If current trends continue, these warrants may be met by 1995. In addition, if striping, signage, and curvature improvements do not reduce the number of accidents at this intersection, a traffic signal based solely on accident history is warranted. Q. What would be the effects of additional development in the area? A. Because only approximately 35% of the industrial commercial lots on Ethan Allen Drive have been developed, traffic volumes and the potential for accidents are likely to increase over the next few years. RESOURCE Without addressing the intersection deficiencies described above, SYSTEMS additional development will only exacerbate the situation. GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 9 We would recommend implementing the entire $200,000-$275,000 JHK immediate and short-term improvement plan before any additional development is approved for the area. Q. What are your observations of the conditions on Air National Guard Road? A. Stopping sight distance along Air National Guard Road, where it changes into Shamrock Road, was measured at 155 feet for northbound vehicles. These vehicles also ascend a 7% grade along this curve. For southbound vehicles moving downhill, the sight distance is 250 feet. AASHTO standards for stopping sight distance indicate a minimum stopping sight distance of 150 to 250 feet for speeds of 25 mph and 35 mph, respectively. While that section of road is not posted, it appears that most vehicles travel in excess of 35 mph. At these speeds, the northbound and potentially southbound stopping sight distance is inadequate. Our observations also indicate that Air National Guard Road is, indeed, substandard for new roads, with a width of 20 feet and absent of shoulders. Given these measurements and observations, we agree with the Commission and the applicant that it would be desirable for the road to be improved by adding shoulders and pavement, and by flattening and/or straightening its curves to improve sight distance. We also recommend that the road be posted at 25 mph in the absence of any curvature improvements. Q. Do you feel that the additional traffic generated by this development will cause unsafe conditions with respect to the use of local highways. A. Yes. with respect to Country Club Drive, Air National Guard Road, and the intersection of Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road, traffic from this Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 10 development is likely to result in unsafe conditions with respect to highways: 1) With increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the new subdivision, the potential for conflicts around the tight and blind "S" curves along Country Club Road will be exacerbated, resulting in an unsafe condition for vehicles and pedestrians. 2) Because Air National Guard Road's speed is unposted, combined with poor sight distance at its convergence with Shamrock Road and poor pavement conditions, the potential for unsafe conditions exist. Improvements proposed by the applicant will satisfactorily address these problems. 3) The intersection of Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road is currently a high -accident -location, making it, in my opinion, unsafe, and will likely get worse with the anticipated expansion of the existing Ethan Allen Park. Indeed, the addition of any traffic, whether from this proposed development or elsewhere, will exacerbate the existing unsafe condition. No additional development should be approved without first implementing improvements which address the serious safety issues the intersection presents. CRITERION 1 AND 8 Q. Did you review the testimony submitted to the Environmental Board related to the noise impacts of the proposed development? A. Yes, I did. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 11 Q. Before, I ask you your opinion on that testimony, it would be useful for you to give us some background on the procedures involved in noise analysis. First, what is noise? A. Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sounds from passing vehicles, an air conditioning system, and a construction site are sounds we can do without. However, these sounds, or noises are a part of everyday life, and can be measured, modeled, and controlled. Q. How is noise measured? A. Sound is caused by variations in air pressure at a range of frequencies. Noise levels that are detectable by human hearing are defined in the decibel scale, with 0 dB being the threshold of human hearing, and 135 dB causing pain and permanent damage to the ear. The decibel scale is logarithmic, which tends to weight more infrequent loud noises heavier than frequent softer noises. Therefore, it approximates the human perception of relative loudness very well. For example, in a quiet environment, the noise of a single car passing by would be very noticeable and cause a substantial increase in dB, while on a busy street, a single additional car is barely noticeable. In addition, the dB scale can be weighted to emphasize human perceptions of annoying frequencies. The most common of these weighting scales is the "A" weighting, expressed as dBA, and is used commonly in environmental noise analysis. To account for changes in noise over time, an average noise level, or the Leq is often measured. Leq averages total noise pressure, and therefore weights higher decibel levels. Leq is also often used in environmental noise analysis. The noise pollution level, or LNp, is also commonly used to Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 12 measure noise levels which fluctuate. LNP is defined as the Leq plus its standard deviation multiplied by 2.56. Q. How is noise modeled? A. The decibel noise level is on a logarithmic scale. One manifestation of this is that sound pressure doubles for every 20 dB increase. For a point source of noise, sound level diminishes or attenuates by 6 dB for every doubling of distance. For example, if an idling truck is measured at 50 feet as 66 dBA, at 100 feet it will be heard as 60 dBA, and at 200 feet, 54 dBA. In a similar way, if we add two noise sources which generate the same amount of noise, the resulting noise level will be 3 dB higher. For example, if one truck registers 86 dBA at 50 feet, two trucks would register 3 dB more, or 89 dBA. In a similar manner, four trucks, all operating at the same place and time, would register 92 dBA and eight trucks would register 95 dBA. If two sources of noise differ by 2 to 4 dB, an increase of 2 dB will occur, and a difference of 5 dB to 9 dB will increase sound pressure by 1 dB. If two sources of noise differ by more than 9 dB, the resulting decibel level will equal the louder of the two sources. Q. What is an acceptable level of noise? A. Noise acceptability is subjective. One noise level may be acceptable to one person, while that same noise level would be irritating to another person. Therefore, acceptable noise levels are determined by the historic frequency of complaints that are generated by different levels of background noise. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established Noise RESOURCE Abatement Criteria for highway noise. For residential areas, noise SYSTEMS abatement is recommended when the Leq exceeds 67 dBA (outside), and for GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 13 commercial areas, the Leq should not exceed 72 dBA. Furthermore, any project which would increase noise levels by 10 dBA requires noise abatement measures. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has also set guideline criteria based on the cumulative impact of background construction noise. For a noise level occurring 10 hours per day, such as the drilling operations of Maine Drilling and Blasting, outdoor noise levels should not exceed 62 dBA Leq (equivalent to 74 dB(NP)). Some towns have set specific noise standards in their zoning ordinances. The Town of Colchester's zoning ordinance requires that noise levels, including impulse noises, not exceed 70 dBA in residential areas and 75 dBA on "developed lands". We should note that each of these standards is based on outdoor noise levels, generally measured in an area of frequent human use, such as a porch or garden. Q. What noise levels are expected from the drilling and blasting? A. According to testimony from Gregory Wight and Lee Tillotson, the noise levels 325 feet away from the blasting would range from 76 to 81 dBA, and the noise from drilling would be between 64 and 73 dBA. My own calculation indicates that the noise from drilling will be approximately 70 dBA at 325 feet. Given that the drilling will be fairly constant, the average sound levels will rise from the existing 45 to 50 dBA to 70 dBA during the day. Q. How do these noise levels compare to standards? A. Given that the average noise levels will rise by over 20 dBA, this represents a doubling of the noise that residents experience today. This increase exceeds the FHWA standards for significant impact. The average Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 14 noise levels that residents will experience will also exceed HUD guidelines for construction noise. The sound levels of blasting would exceed the Town of Colchester's zoning ordinance standards. Q. In your opinion, would the sound levels from drilling, blasting, and other construction activities expose nearby resident of Country Club Estates to unacceptable noise levels? A. Yes. It is clear that unless nearby residents close themselves in their houses, shut their windows, and turn on their air conditioners during the workday for the ten weeks of drilling and blasting, they will constantly be exposed to noise levels which exceed FHWA, HUD, and Colchester guidelines and standards. Noise guidelines are based on outdoor noise levels to allow residents the freedom to enjoy their property without intrusion. A doubling of the noise levels heard in Country Club Estates five days/week, ten hours per day, over a ten -week period is, by most measures, extremely objectionable. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Kaliski Prefiled, July 6, 1990 Page 15 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP P R O J E C T S P E C I A L I S T KENNETH H. KALISKI Education A.B. Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies Dartmouth College Continuing education in: Air Pollution Analysis, Transportation Planning, and Noise Measurement and Modeling Experience Mr. Kaliski has been with Resource Systems Group since its founding and manages projects related to transportation planning, air pollution modeling, noise impacts, and energy statistics. He has prepared studies and served as an expert witness on traffic, air quality and noise impacts for numerous local and Act 250 proceedings. He developed the firm's air pollution and noise programs, and has authored the RoadRunner Highway Capacity Manual implementation series, distributed nationally through the MacTrans Center for Microcomputers in Transportation. Recent Project Management Experience (Partial List) Local/Regional Traffic Studies C&S Wholesale Grocers Trafjic Impact Study —designed and conducted study to evaluate traffic impacts of a 400,000 square foot warehouse in Brattleboro, Vermont. Study counted turning movements and calculated levels -of -service for 17 area intersections. Also, conducted study of the traffic impacts of an expansion of the existing warehouse on Old Ferry Road. Southeast Correctional Center Traffic Impact Study —designed counts, surveys, and site work, to determine the traffic impacts of the relocation of the Woodstock Correctional Center to Windsor, Vermont, under contract to the Vermont Department of State Buildings. State Street Extension Traffic Flow Study —forecasted changes in traffic flow due to the addition of a new road connecting State Street and Woodstock Avenue in Rutland, Vermont. Traffic Review of Rutland Iligh School Relocation —reviewed consultant's traffic impact study of the proposed relocation of the Rutland Regional High School to Stratton Road in the City of Rutland. Count Program for Southern Connector Project —managed the collection of turning movement and tube counts used to calibrate Burlington sub- area transportation model for the Southern Connector project. Chittenden County Regional Transportation Demand Model— coordinated the development of the Chittenden County Regional Transportation Demand Computer Model. Compiled traffic count database, digitized road network, prepared and calibrated the model using the Willumsen's method. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP • NORWICH, VERMONT 05055 • 802/649-1999 EXHIBIT N-14 KENNETH H. KALISKI Cbittenden County Travel Demand Model Land-bse✓Trtp Generation Model Development —conducted computer analysis of travel diaries of Chittenden County Residents to calculate county -specific trip generation rates for use in its travel demand model. Cbittenden County Travel Demand Model Training —conducted training sessions for local and regional officials in the use of the Regional Transportation Model. A&W Car Wash Traffic Impact Study —prepared a traffic impact study of a new car wash along Route 12A in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Study included design of computerized gap analysis software. Milowsky Office Building Traffic Impact Study —directed the analysis of the traffic and safety impacts of a new office building along Route 120 in Hanover and Lebanon, New Hampshire. Rockwell Park Traffic Impact Study —analyzed traffic impacts on 12 regional intersections of the 350,000 square foot Rockwell Park Office/Industrial Park. Davenport Residential Subdivision Traffic Impact Study —collected data and analyzed traffic impacts of a residential development in Rutland, Vermont. Cbittenden County Regional Landfill Location Study —analyzed proposed regional landfill site for suitability based on transportation parameters. Such parameters included average haul distance, capacity of adjacent roads, pedestrian, traffic, and aviation safety. Route 12A Corridor Study —analyzed changes in capacity due to alternative road improvements along the Route 12A corridor. Such improvements included a new connector road, improved signalization, and a new loop ramp to Interstate 89. St. Albans Car Wash Traffic Impact Study --conducted an analysis of the traffic impacts due to a proposed car wash in St.Albans, Vermont. Water Tower Hill Traffic Impact Study —collected data, developed specialized models, and analyzed traffic impacts of the 1,000,000 square foot Water Tower Hill Office Park in Colchester, Vermont. Developed seven -signal phasing and timing plans for use in submittal to State transportation agency. Critique of Maple Tree Place Traffic Impact Study —analyzed trip generation rates of New Hampshire and Vermont shopping malls for comparison with those proposed by the applicant. Analyzed implications of an increase in trip generation. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP • NORWICH, VERMONT 05055 • 802/649-1999 KENNETH H. KALISKI Rutland Church Impact Study —analyzed the traffic impacts of a proposed church sited in a residential area, for the Town of Mendon. IBM Credit Union Traffic Impact Study —collected turning movement and specialized gap data for use in a study of the relocation of the IBM Credit Union and other office uses. Golf & Ski Warehouse Traffic Impact Study —analyzed traffic impacts of a proposed retail use along Route 12A in Lebanon, New Hampshire Canaan Residential Subdivision —analyzed traffic impacts of a proposed residential subdivision on West Farms Road in Canaan, New Hampshire. Prepared written and oral testimony for local planning board. Critique of the Woodstock Deli Project —prepared a critique of the proposed Woodstock Deli expansion for the Town of Woodstock, Vermont. Sherburne Trip Generation Study —managed data collection effort to determine specialized ski -area trip generation rates. Approximately 250 counts were performed at 40 sites, covering 12 different land -uses. Shelburne Business Park Traffic Impact Study —conducted analysis of the traffic impacts of the retail, office, and industrial uses associated with the proposed Shelburne Business Park. Also, prepared signal timing and phasing plans for submittal to the State. Critique of the Buffalo, New York Pyramid Mall --conducted a critique of the Buffalo, New York Pyramid Mall for a local citizen's group. Managed extensive count and analysis program. Critique of the Rutland Mall Traffic Impact Study —managed count and analysis program for a critique of the proposed Rutland Mall expansion. Tuck/Thayer School Expansion Traffic Impact Study —developed licence plate matching software to determine through -traffic along Tuck Drive at Dartmouth College. Used this information and other traffic counts to prepare a traffic impact study for the Town on Hanover. Astro-Bowl Traffic Impact Study —managed data collection and analysis program for the relocation of the Astro-Bowl complex to White River Junction, Vermont. Stow Mills Traffic Impact Study —prepared traffic impact study for the relocation of the Stow Mill Warehouse and construction of additional industrial uses in Chesterfield, New Hampshire. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP • NORWICH, VERMONT 05055 • 80Z✓649-1999 KENNETH H. KALISKI Critique of the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway Project —for the City of Burlington, critiqued the transportation model used to develop the Circumferential Highway FEIS. Critique of the Woodstock Day Care Center —prepared written and oral testimony critiquing the traffic impacts of a proposed day care center. National Transportation Projects Traffic Review of a Burger King Restaurant in Portland, Oregon — reviewed traffic analysis of a proposed Burger King restaurant in Portland, Oregon for a local citizen's group. Wrote testimony submitted to planning commission. Pinellas County Transit Travel Demand Mode -compiled survey data and developed direct utility assessment software for the analysis of transit alternatives in Pinellas County. City of Tampa Mode -Choice Model assisted in the preparation and implementation of a focus -group survey on regional transit mode choice. Programmed and implemented direct utility assessment software for analysis of survey results. E470 Toll -Road Demand Forecasting —assisted in the implementation and analysis of a direct utility assessment survey to determine price elasticity for potential E470 toll -road users. Noise Assessment Experience (Partial Listing) Hookset Truck Depot Noise Assessment —conducted speed and noise measurements, and conducted noise modeling to forecast impacts of additional truck noise in Hookset, New Hampshire. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Bennington Bypass —conducted noise measurement and modeling to compare with FHWA guidelines for impact of new highways on residential neighborhoods. Noise Impacts of a Hot -Mix Asphalt Facility —created software and conducted noise modeling to determine the effects of berms and other noise barriers in reducing noise impacts on surrounding residences. Memberships/Affiliations Member, Air and Waste Management Association Council, Symposium Coordinator, Dartmouth Environmental Network RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP • NORWICH, VERMONT 05055 • 802/649-1999 GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 Sr. PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEWART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-1456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-0369 CLARKE A. GRAVEL CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY LUGYT. BROWN' December 20, 1990 'ADMITTED ONLY IN WZMNSIN Vermont Environmental Board Attention: Pearl Houghton 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Re: Appeal of John and Joyce Belter Application No. 4C0634-6R-EB Dear Pearl: 0 Enclosed is the original and ten (10) copies of Appellants' Proposed Findinbs of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Special Conditions of Permit. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto JRP:wbb Enclosures cc: Parties of Record GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. SHEA 76 ST, PAUL STREET AREA CODE 802 STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON TELEPHONE 658-0220 STEwART H. MCCONAUGHY POST OFFICE BOX 369 FAX 658-I456 ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR. BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-0369 CLARKE A. GRAVEL CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. KNAPP COUNSEL JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O*NEILL MARGAREf L. MONTGOMERY Lucy T. BROWN• 'ADNI] D ONLY IN WLSOONSIN December 20, 1990 Vermont Environmental Board Attention: Stephanie Kaplan, Esq. 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Re: Appeal of John and Joyce Belter Application No. 4C0643-6R-EB: Special Conditions of Permit Members of the Board: John and Joyce Belter, the Appellants in the above -referenced appeal, agree to the following special conditions of permit for their 36 lot residential subdivision in South Burlington (the 'Project"). 1. The Appellants will continue to allow public access, by permission, to the area of their property which lies between the Project and the Winooski River. This is referred to in the testimony as the "buffer" area. 2. If the Board finds that ten weeks of construction noise caused by drilling, blasting, and earthmoving associated with general site preparation, will cause an unacceptable level of noise to the Neighbors who were admitted as parties under the relevant criteria (1 (air pollution) and 8 (aesthetics)), the Appellants are willing to limit drilling, blasting, and such earthmoving to the period of time between October 15 and May 1. This condition would not apply to construction of streets, installation of utilities, and of individual houses. 3. To further reduce noise levels, the Appellants will direct their blasting and drilling contractor to begin drilling and blasting at the rear of the blast area and move forward so that the unblasted section will serve as a sound barrier between the blast area and Country Club Estates. 4. To comply with the City of Burlington Airport Commissioners' request, the Appellants will provide notice to future lot owners in the Project of noise generated by GRAVEL AND SHEA Vermont Environmental Board December 20, 1990 Page 2 the activities at the Burlington International Airport. This notice will be included in the Project's Protective Covenants. 5. With regard to the Air National Guard Road, the Appellants agree to construct the improvements specified in the Road Agreement (Appellants' Exhibit A-19 and A-23), before occupancy of any of the houses in the Project. 6. With regard to the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive, Airport Parkway, and Shamrock Road, the Appellants agree that there shall be no occupancy of any houses in the Project until completion by South Burlington of the JHK & Associates short and intermediate -term improvements, including a full traffic signal. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA John R. Ponsetto JRP:wbb cc: Parties of Record Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I, John R. Ponsetto, Attorney for Appellants sent a copy of the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Letter regarding Special Conditions, by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on this 20th day of December, 1990, to the following: President, City Counsel City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Ann and Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, Marc Roy by David Conard, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Kurt Janson, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners by William F. Ellis, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05402 Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 20th day of December, 1990. John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants [beltcert.b 12] VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Re: John and Joyce Belter By John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P. O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402 I. Introduction. Application #4C0643-6R-EB Appellants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law This decision pertains to the appeal and cross -appeal of a denial by District Environmental Commission IV of an application filed by John and Joyce Belter ("Appellants") for an amendment to the Appellants' Land Use Permit No. 4C0643, as amended, for a 36 lot residential subdivision located on a 14.6 acre portion of the Appellants' 345 acre farm in South Burlington, Vermont ("Project") The involved parcel of land is owned by the Appellants in fee simple and is subject of the warranty deed to John Belter, Jr. recorded in Volume 148 at Page 225 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. IL Summary of Proceedings. On March 5, 1990, District Environmental Commission IV issued a Memorandum of Decision (No. 4C0643-6R) denying Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration of the District Environmental Commission's denial of an application for a 36 lot residential subdivision. On March 25, 1990, Appellants, through their attorney, John R. Ponsetto, Esq. appealed the Memorandum of Decision. The appeal requested a de novo hearing on Criterion 1 (air pollution: impact of noise from drilling and blasting), Criterion 1(F) (shorelines: impact of subdivision on Winooski River shoreline); Criterion 4 (erosion control); Criterion 5 (traffic safety and congestion: impact on the streets of Country Club Estates); Criterion 8 (aesthetics); and Criterion 9(K) (impact on public investments). On April 17, 1990, Environmental Board Chairman Stephen Reynes convened a prehearing conference in South Burlington. At the prehearing conference, William Bright pro se, and Sally Guerette, Ruth Paul, Ann and Andrew Cramer -Hong, David and Patricia Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Larocque, and Marc Roy ('Neighbors"), represented by David Conard, Esq., filed a cross -appeal. That cross - appeal raised additional issues under Criterion 5 (traffic safety and congestion: impact on the streets of Country Club Estates, Air National Guard Road and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road), and Criterion 1 (air pollution: impact of construction noise in addition to drilling and blasting). Hearings were held in South Burlington City Hall on August 23, 1990 and in the office of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. III. Issues in the Appeal. 1. Whether the Project is located on a shoreline of the Winooski River and, if so, whether the Project will have an unacceptable impact on the shoreline, Criterion 1(F) 2. Whether the Project will create unreasonable soil erosion, Criterion 4. 3. Whether construction activity associated with the Project (blasting, drilling, earth -moving, and other construction activities), will create unacceptable levels of noise -2- (Criterion 1 (air pollution)), or an undue adverse impact on aesthetics of the area (Criterion 8). 4. Whether traffic generated by the Project will cause unsafe conditions and unreasonable congestion or unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the public investment with regard to the streets of Country Club Estates, Air National Guard Road, and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road. (Criteria 5 and 9(K)). 5. Whether the Project will have an undue adverse impact on aesthetics, Criterion 8. IV. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. The Project. 1. John and Joyce Belter own a 345 acre parcel of land in South Burlington, Vermont. The land is located in the northeast area of the City, between the Burlington International Airport and the Winooski River, and is adjacent to and an extension of Country Club Estates, an existing 72 lot residential subdivision. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 3). 2. The Appellants' property is the site of the Appellants' Ethan Allen Farms, one of the largest remaining dairy farms in Chittenden County and the Appellants' 42 lot industrial/commercial subdivision. The industrial/commercial subdivision is the subject of Land Use Permit 4CO643 and several amendments. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 3). -3- 3. A master plan for the development of Appellants' property was filed with District Environmental Commission IV on August 19, 1985. According to the master plan, approximately 107 acres of the Appellants' property will be the site of residential and industrial/commercial development. The balance of the property, or approximately 238 acres, will remain in agricultural use. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A- 1, page 3). 4. The present application is for a 36 lot residential subdivision on a 14.6 acre portion of Appellants' land which is the site of a former gravel pit. Each lot is 9,500 square feet (minimum) and will be the future site of a single-family residence. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 4). 5. The Project is located within the Residential 4 district of the South Burlington zoning regulations. This district allows four single-family residences per acre. Accordingly, the zoning regulations could allow as many as 64 single-family residences on the site of the Project. The South Burlington Planning Commission approved the Project on July 26, 1988. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 4; Test., Llewellyn, August 23, 1990). B. Section 6086(a)(1)(F) - Shoreline of the Winooski River: (1). Alternative One. The Board concludes that the Project is not located on the shoreline of the Winooski River. 1. The property lines of those lots of the Project closest to the Winooski River are separated from the River by a buffer zone. The buffer zone ranges from 75 -4- feet to 100 feet wide and extends from lot 11 to and including lot 19. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, page 3; Site Plan "White Rock Point", Appellants' Exhibit A-11, Sheet 3). 2. The mean low water elevation of the Winooski River at the site of the Project is 188.5' and the ordinary (mean) high water elevation is 193'. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, page 3). 3. The lowest elevation of any lot line of the Project is 206'. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, pages 3-4; Site Plan "White Rock Point", Appellants' Exhibit A- 11, Sheet 3.). 4. "Shoreline" is defined as "the land adjacent to the waters of lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and rivers. Shorelines shall include the land between the mean high watermark and mean low watermark of such surface waters." (10 V.S.A. §6001(17) ). 5. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Project is not located on the shoreline of the Winooski River, and therefore, 10 V.S.A. §86(a)(1)(F) does not apply to the Project. (2). Alternative Two. (If the Board finds that the Project is located on the shoreline of the Winooski River). The Board concludes that the Project must of necessity be located on a shoreline and will, insofar as possible and reasonable in light of its purpose: a. retain the shoreline and the waters in their natural condition, b. allow continued access to the waters and the recreational opportunities provided by the waters, -5- c. retain and provide vegetation which will screen the development or subdivision from the waters, and d. stabilize the bank from erosion, as necessary with vegetation cover. 1. The Project is an element of the Appellants' master plan for their Ethan Allen Farms property. The Appellants' plan is to preserve the agricultural complex (barn and other farm buildings) and the highly productive river bottom land. The residential area, where the Project is to be located, is the site of a gravel pit. The area has not been in agricultural production for at least thirty (30) years. The Project was sited at this particular location in order to avoid intrusion into prime agricultural soils. (Test., Belter, Appellants' Exhibit A-14, pages 4-5). 2. The area between the Winooski River and the Project (lots 11-19) consists of a steep river bank, a flatter plateau area, and the grade to the top of the exposed rock within the Project. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, page 1; Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, pages 3-4). 3. The river bank extending from the waters' edge, (approximately elevation 190.5' to elevation 208') is undisturbed. The river bank adjacent to lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 is heavily wooded with mature red oak, sugar and red maple, white ash, paper birch, hemlock, and white pine trees. The bank behind lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is covered with blackberries, wild rose, honeysuckle, wild shrubs, grapevines, young alder, poplar, willow, and box elder trees. In addition, there are five large trees near the top of the bank. The river bank will remain undisturbed. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A- 3, page 3; Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, pages 1-2). 4. The flatter plateau area was a part of the former gravel pit. To improve site conditions and eliminate potential erosion runoff, in May 1990 this area was graded, harrowed, and seeded with a forage mixture seed containing alfalfa, timothy, and rye grass. This area was harvested as a part of the Appellants' agricultural operation. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, page 2; Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 7). 5. Appellants will continue to allow, by permission, access by the general public to the area between the Winooski River and the lots. This area will continue to be owned and managed by the Appellants. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, page 8; Letter of Appellants' Attorney, dated December 20, 1990). 6. The length of the Winooski River shoreline adjacent to the Appellants' 345 acre parcel of land is approximately three and one-half miles long. The length of shoreline potentially impacted by the Project is approximately 500' in length. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3; page 4). 7. Appellants propose to landscape the area between the Winooski River and the Project to (1) reinforce the existing visual screen between the river and new homes; (2) tie existing bank shade trees together from north to south; (3) establish vegetation cover and prevent soil erosion. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 4; Site Plan, "White Rock Conservation Plan, Planting Along Winooski River" and "Section", Appellants' Exhibit 8-9; "Landscape Specifications", Appellants' Exhibit A-24). 8. Appellants' landscape plan includes, along the top of the river bank, a total of 40 deciduous trees planted at 2" to 2-1/2" caliber 12' to 14' feet high. The tree -7- varieties, red maple, paper birch, and white ash are the same as on the adjacent land. These trees will reinforce the backbone of existing trees and over time will become one with the existing vegetation along the river bank. These will be reinforced with groupings of white pine and hemlock, (also indigenous to the immediate area, a total of 35 planted: 11 at 3-4 feet high, 12 at 4-5 feet high, and 12 at 6-7 feet high). (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 6). 9. Trees are specified to be planted near the top of the bank thus raising sight lines and screening new homes from further out on the river. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). 10. Disturbed areas are to be topsoiled and seeded with sheep's fescue, a quick -growing, deeply -rooted grass and a mix of wild flowers to add beauty and variety to the river meadow. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). 11. View of houses in the Project from the river will be interrupted by the existing tree islands, the emerging plant material, and new plantings. As time passes, and trees grow, view of homes from the river will diminish further. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). C. Section 6086(a)(4) - Erosion Control. The Board concludes that the Project will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. 1. Appellants' consultants have prepared an erosion control plan in conjunction with the anticipated site work. The plan, if implemented as prepared, will minimize erosion and prevent water -borne sediment from leaving the site. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-5, pages 5-8; Site Plan, Appellants' Exhibit A-12, Sheet 12). D. Section 6086(a)(8) - Aesthetics Scenic Beauty Historic Sites and Natural Areas. The Board concludes that the Project will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic and natural beauty of the area, historic sites, or rare, irreplaceable natural areas. 1. The primary concern from an aesthetic viewpoint is the impact of the Project as seen from the Winooski River. For a canoeist moving downstream and approaching the Project site from the southeast, the Winooski River is set down between 15 and 20 feet below the level of the surrounding land and views are enclosed and limited to the trees along the shoreline with longer vistas along the river axis. The River twists and turns so even these views are somewhat limited. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 5). 2. Approaching the Project site, one Country Club Estate's home is visible due to what appears to be a conscious clearing of vegetation uphill from the river bank. The river turns sharply to the right and runs past the site of the Project. As one canoes near the western side of the river, the steeply sloping bank cuts views off from the land beyond. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 5). 3. While moving upstream, the river here is also well below the banks and views are limited to the thick vegetation and the next bend. A short portion of the river KIM aligns with the Project site for a distance of about 300'. This is about 2,000' from the closest proposed homesite and looks along 2,000' of mature, overhanging river bank trees and is further interrupted by a small (3/4 acre) island. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 5). 4. The view from the river at the site of the Project is primarily rural with a strong suburban influence. Perspectives from the river are primarily treed river banks. However, the river occasionally opens to a view of the populated valley edge, or nearby suburban homes and development, such as the industrial park on Berard Drive near the airport runway; St. Michael's College; Fanny Allen Hospital, and the red and white checkered air force water tower, all of which are visible from the river. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, pages 6-7). 5. The length of the Winooski River shoreline adjacent to the Appellants' land is approximately three and one-half miles long. The length of shoreline potentially impacted by the Project is approximately 500' in length. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3; page 4). 6. Appellants propose to landscape the area between the Winooski River and the Project to (1) reinforce the existing visual screen between the river and new homes; (2) tie existing bank shade trees together from north to south; (3) establish vegetative cover and prevent potential soil erosion. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 4; Site Plan, "White Rock Conservation Plan, Planting Along Winooski River" and "Section", Appellants' Exhibit 8-9; Landscape Specifications, Appellants' Exhibit A-24). -10- 7. Appellants' landscape plan includes, along the top of the river bank, a total of 40 deciduous trees planted at 2" to 2-1/2" caliber 12' to 14' high. The tree varieties, red maple, paper birch, and white ash are the same as on the adjacent land. These trees will reinforce the backbone of existing trees and over time will become one with the existing vegetation along the river bank. These will be reinforced with groupings of white pine and hemlock, (also indigenous to the immediate area, a total of 35 planted: 11 at 3-4 feet high, 12 at 4-5 feet high, and 12 at 6-7 feet high). (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 6). 8. Trees are specified to be planted near the top of the bank thus raising sight lines and further screening new homes from views from the river. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). 9. Disturbed areas are to be topsoiled and seeded with sheep's fescue, a quick -growing, deeply -rooted grass and a mix of wild flowers to add beauty and variety to the river meadow. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). 10. View of houses in the Project from the river will be screened by the existing tree islands, the emerging plant material, and new plantings. As time passes, and trees grow, view of homes from the river will diminish. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 7). 11. The Project is in harmony with its surroundings. The Project is an extension of a suburban neighborhood and is in character with the development in this area and with what is visible from the Winooski River. The amount of involved acreage is small (14.6 acres) compared to the balance of the Appellants' agricultural operation - 11 - and is insignificant when one considers the literally thousands of acres in the general area which are not developed because they are wetlands or because they are in the flood plain. The Project also conforms with the City of South Burlington's plan for development in this part of the City. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, pages 6- 8). 12. The Project fits well into the existing rural -subdivision scene. There is nothing "offensive or shocking" about the Project. The Project reclaims a gravel pit. The Project is not out of character with its surroundings and with landscaping in place will not diminish the area's existing scenic qualities. (Test., Lawrence, Appellants' Exhibit A- 3, page 8). E. Section 6086(a)(1) - Air Pollution: Section 6086(8) - Aesthetics. The Board concludes that blasting, drilling, and other noise generated during construction of the Project will not create undue air pollution and will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics of the area. a. Drilling and Blasting. 1. Preparation of the site of the Project for construction of streets, utilities, and houses will involve blasting a portion of a limestone deposit which is covered with varying depths of sandy soil. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 2). 2. The area which will be blasted covers approximately 130,000 square feet with an average cut in mass rock of 8' to a maximum of 18', and average cuts and trench areas of 7'. Approximately 38,500 cubic yards of mass rock and 550 cubic yards of -12- trench rock will be blasted. All of the blasted rock will be redistributed onsite to fill low areas. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 3). 3. The distance between the area to be blasted and the nearest Neighbors' residence (Paul and Guerette) is approximately 325'. Distances from the blast area to other Neighbors who were admitted to these proceedings under Criteria 1 and 8 are as follows: Hongs - 380'; Myettes - 520'; and Larocques - 1,080'. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 3; Appellants' Exhibit A-35, appendix B). 4. Drilling operations are scheduled between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Blasting will occur between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Typically, there are three blasts per day. The length of time of each blast is measured in milliseconds. Drilling and blasting will occur Monday through Friday. The Project will take approximately ten weeks. There will be no work on weekends and holidays. Before any blasting, nearby residents are warned by an audible warning horn. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 4). 5. Appellants propose to control vibration by limiting the amount of explosives used for each blast. Vibrations will be continuously monitored by a seismograph located on the Appellants' property line. Through constant monitoring adjustments can be made to keep vibration levels below the industry standard of 2 inches per second which is designed to protect structures from damage. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, pages 4-5). 6. Dust caused by drilling will be controlled by hydraulic drills equipped with dust collection systems which will capture dust at the top of the drill hole. Insignificant -13- amounts of dust occur during blasting. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 6). 7. There will be no dust beyond the immediate area of the blast site. Vibrations will be controlled well below the level that may cause structural damage to nearby buildings. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, page 7). b. Noise. 8. Hydraulic drills are rated to create 106 decibels at a distance of 6' from the drill hole. The normal range of noise associated with blasting is 85 - 90 decibels at 100' from the blast. (Test., Tillotson, Appellants' Exhibit A-8, pages 6 -7). 9. Appellants' noise consultant measured noise levels from blasting and other construction activities at a drilling and blasting site in Charlotte, Vermont. Noise levels from drilling ranged from 109' dBA measured at 5' from the drill to 65 dBA measured at 280' from the drill. Noise level from blasting measured 82 dBA at 280' from the site of the explosion. The back-up beeper of a bulldozer measured 90 dBA 10' from the bulldozer. The blast warning horn measured 62 dBA 50' from the horn. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-6, page 2). 10. Appellants' noise consultant also measured sound levels currently experienced in the vicinity of Country Club Estates and Appellants' property. Background sound with little activity measured in the 45-50 dBA range. Sound generated by a low -flying small private plane as it was landing at the Burlington International Airport measured 60 dBA. A garbage truck at 10' measured 82 dBA. A -14- commercial jet plane taking off measured 80 dBA. An F-16 jet fighter flying over measured 78 dBA. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-6, page 2). 11. The noise levels from aircraft measured by Appellants' consultant are consistent with those reported in the Reynolds, Smith, and Hills 1988 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Study. (Neighbors' Exhibit N-_). 12. Both Appellants' and the Neighbors' noise consultants calculated the 24 hour average existing noise level (expressed as Leq (24)) for Country Club Estates, and depending upon the length of time assigned to airplane activity (12.5 minutes assumed by the Neighbors' consultant and 2 hours assumed by the Appellants' consultant), the average existing noise level in Country Club Estates ranges from 58.5 dBA to 64 dBA. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, appendix A; Test., Kalisky, Surrebuttal Testimony, pages 1-2). 13. Both consultants also calculated the predicted average noise level at the maximum noise level from construction activity at the closest residence of the Neighbors (Paul and Guerette). The predicted average noise levels were 71 dBA (Appellants' consultant) and 72 dBA (Neighbors' consultant). (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A- 35, appendix A; Test., Kaliski, Surrebuttal Testimony). 14. Because of the lack of definitive evidence on the length of time of noise associated with airplane activity, the Board will assume that during the ten week period of construction activity that there will be an increase in average noise levels (Leq (24)) which will range from 7 dBA to 13.5 dBA at the Paul-Guerette residence. - 15 - 15. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established noise abatement criteria for highway noise. While the FHWA standards are not intended to regulate short-term noises caused by temporary construction activities, they do illustrate what other sources consider reasonable levels of noise. For residential areas, noise abatement is recommended when Leq exceeds 67 dBA (outside), and for commercial areas Leq should not exceed 72 dBA. Furthermore, any project which would increase noise levels by 10 dBA requires abatement measures. (Test., Kalisky, Neighbors' Exhibit N- , pp. 12-13; Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 4; Test., Kalisky, Surrebuttal Testimony, Neighbors' Exhibit N- , page 3). 16. Appellants' consultant predicted sound levels under several different blasting and drilling scenarios assuming use of 1, 2, and 4 drills in operation and earthmoving equipment operating at the same time between the blasting site and various residences in Country Club Estates. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 3 and Appendix B). 17. The predicted sound levels at the maximum sound level (4 drills, etc.) during drilling will range from 75 dBA at the Paul-Guerette residence at 320' to 63 dBA at the Roy residence (at 1380'). During blasting alone, when other construction would stop, sound range will be from 81 dBA to 68 dBA at the same distances. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, pages 3-4). 18. The Neighbors who were admitted as parties under Criteria 1 (air pollution) and 8 (aesthetics) as those Criteria may be affected by noise from the -16- Project's construction activities are the Hongs, Guerette, Paul, the Myettes, and the Larocques. (Prehearing Conference Report and Order). 19. Ann Cramer -Hong is an attorney who works in Burlington and her work hours are from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to as late as midnight, Monday through Friday. Andrew Hong resides in Montreal. (Test., Hong, November 14, 1990). 20. Ruth Paul is a telemarketing salesperson who leaves her residence on Country Club Drive at 7:00 a.m. and returns home at 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 21. Sally Guerette is an assistant athletic director at UVM. Ms. Guerette leaves Country Club Estates for work at 6:00 a.m. and returns home anytime between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., five to seven days each week. (Test., Paul, November 14, 1990). 22. Patricia Myette is a Vice -President at the Merchants Bank. Ms. Myette leaves Country Club Estates for work between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and returns at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. David Myette no longer lives in Country Club Estates. (Test., Myette, November 14, 1990). 23. Both of the Larocques are also employed. Louise Larocque works as a secretary for the South Burlington Community Library; Philip Larocque is a process engineer. (Test., Larocques, Neighbors' Exhibit N- , page 1). 24. The Neighbors who have been admitted as parties under Criteria 1 (air pollution) and 8 (aesthetics) will rarely, if at all, be present in Country Club Estates when the drilling, blasting, and other construction activities will occur. -17- 25. The Appellants propose to limit drilling and blasting and site preparation earth -moving activities to October 15 to May 1, a period when weekday outdoor activity is light and most people would have their windows closed. (Letter from Appellants' Attorney, December 20, 1990). 26. Sound levels indoors with the windows closed will drop 27 dBA. The range of predicted outdoor noise levels from drilling therefore drops from 75 dBA (81 dBA blasting) to 48 dBA (54 dBA blasting), and 63 dBA (68 dBA blasting) to 36 dBA (41 dBA blasting) indoors. EPA protective indoor noise level goal is 45 dBA. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 4; EPA Noise Levels, Exhibit A-34; Test., Kalisky, Surrebuttal testimony, page 3). 27. Range of typical common indoor sounds are: a refrigerator, 46 dBA to 68 dBA; a vacuum cleaner, 60 dBA to 85 dBA; a clothes dryer, 50 dBA to 72 dBA; and an air conditioner, 60 dBA to 72 dBA (Appellants' Exhibit A-27, page 7). 28. The Appellants propose to blast and drill moving from the backside of the construction site forward. This procedure will further reduce decibel levels from drilling and blasting by 6 dBA. (Test., Wight, November 14, 1990; Letter of Appellants' Attorney, December 20, 1990). 29. The FHWA and Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD) have established noise level standards. The purpose of the FHWA standard is to determine when that Agency will take action to mitigate noise impacts caused by federal highway projects. The purpose of the HUD standards is to determine when that Agency will financially support housing projects which are subject to permanent sources of noise. The FHWA and HUD noise abatement and control standards are not intended to either regulate, or serve as a basis for government action, for short term noise caused by temporary construction activity. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 6). 30. EPA has also adopted noise level guidelines. As with the FHWA and HUD standards, the EPA guidelines are intended to be used to assess the impact of continuous permanent sources of noise over long periods of time. In addition, the EPA guidelines , by their own terms, are not intended to be used as regulatory goals. (Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 7; Appellants' Exhibit A-34, page 24). 31. Noise acceptability is subjective. One noise level may be acceptable to one person, while that same noise level would be irritating to another person. Therefore, acceptable noise levels are determined by the historic frequency of complaints that are generated by different levels of background noise. (Test., Kalisky, Neighbors' Exhibit N- page 12; Test., Wight, Appellants' Exhibit A-35, page 8). 32. Residents of Country Club Estates, upon first moving into the neighborhood, notice and are sensitive to the aircraft noise from the Burlington International Airport. However, within a short period of time they no longer notice it. (Test., Jones, November 14, 1990). 33. The Appellants agreed, at the request of the Burlington Airport Commissioners, to provide notice to future Project lot owners of the noise levels emanating from the airport, through a provision of the Project's Protective Covenants. By the terms of the Protective Covenants, future lot owners will waive any right to complaints about noise impacts. (Appellants Exhibit A-30, page 4, section 3.1). -19- 34. Alternative One. Given the high average noise level which the Neighbors who are admitted under the relevant criteria related to noise impacts are now subject because of airport activity, and the fact that these Neighbors, (Paul, Guerette, the Longs, the Larocques, and the Myettes) are likely to be absent when drilling, blasting, and other construction will occur, the temporary increase in average noise level during a ten week construction period will not create undue air pollution (noise) or an unacceptable impact on the aesthetics and natural beauty of the area of Country Club Estates. or 34. Alternative Two. Appellants have agreed to limit drilling and blasting to October 15 to May 1. Limiting drilling and blasting to October 15 to May 1 reduces the impact of noise levels on the Neighbors admitted under the relevant criteria related to noise impacts to insignificant levels for a short period of time. Accordingly, if so conditioned, the Project will not cause unreasonable air pollution or an unacceptable impact on aesthetics and the natural beauty of the area of Country Club Estates. F. Sections 6086(a)(5), Transportation and 6086(a)(9)(K), Development Affecting Public Investments. The Board concludes that the Project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the streets of Country Club Estates, the Air National Guard Road, and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive, and Shamrock Road (the "Intersection"), and will not unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the public investment in these highway facilities. -20- 1. Access to the Project will be over existing South Burlington streets within Country Club Estates (Country Club Drive and Mountainview Boulevard), and a 60' right-of-way owned by the Appellants. The right-of-way is located between parcels of land owned by the Hongs and the Myettes, parties to this appeal. The Hongs and Myettes were aware of the location of the right-of-way when they purchased their residences. The right-of-way is located at the northerly end of the intersection of Mountainview Boulevard and Country Club Drive. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 8; Test., Hong and Myette, November 14, 1990). 2. The Appellants' right-of-way is delineated on a survey prepared C.H. Willis entitled "Country Club Estates, South Burlington, Vermont, Section 3, Revision 5", dated April, 1971 which is recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 8; Appellants' Exhibit A-21). 3. Reservation of the right-of-way to provide access to future development on land adjacent to Country Club Estates was done pursuant to the terms of the approval of the Country Club Estates' subdivision by the South Burlington Planning Commission, as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes, dated April 29, 1971. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 9; Appellants' Exhibit A-20). 4. Traffic generated by the Project will also travel over Poor Farm Road, Shamrock Road, the Air National Guard Road, and through the Intersection. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 9). a. The Streets of Country Club Estates. -21- 5. The South Burlington Planning Commission, in its approval of the Project, approved access over the 60' right-of-way. The Planning Commission rejected a proposal to provide access to the Project over a right-of-way extending from a cul-de-sac at the end of Country Club Drive East because that right-of-way was made too narrow by construction on adjacent lots. (Test., Dickinson and Llewellyn, August 23, 1990; Appellants' Exhibit A-22). 6. The Project will generate 362 vehicle trips per day, 36 vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. Approximately 95% of those trips will use Country Club Drive, with 5% using Mountainview Boulevard. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, pages 2-3; Appellants' Exhibit A-22). 7. The streets of Country Club Estates are adequate in structure and design to accommodate the Project's volume of additional traffic. The recommended design capacity of residential streets such as Country Club Drive and Mountainview Boulevard to handle traffic is 1,500 vehicles per day. The present daily traffic volume on Country Club Drive is estimated to be 400 vehicles per day. Actual traffic count during a p.m. peak hour (3:45-4:45 p.m.) was 20 vehicles. If 100% of the Project's traffic used Country Club Drive, the total volume of traffic will increase to 762 vehicles per day, well within the recommended volumes for this type of residential street. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 3; Appellants' Exhibit A-22; Appellants' Exhibit A-29). 8. The existing physical condition of Country Club Drive and Mountainview Boulevard is adequate to safely accommodate both existing and future traffic volumes from the Project. While portions of these two streets have experienced some physical -22- deterioration of pavement surface, those conditions are not atypical of streets in Vermont's climate. (Appellants' Exhibit A-22, page 9; Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-13, page 2). 9. The small incremental increase in light residential traffic from the Project will have no material impact on either existing or future conditions of the streets and roads in the area. 10. South Burlington plans to completely reconstruct, with new base and pavement, all of the streets of Country Club Estates at the same time that sewer lines are installed to serve the residents of Country Club Estates. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, page 4). 11. A major component of the future sewerage system for Country Club Estates is a pumping station which will be constructed by the Appellants to serve the Project. Appellants have agreed to construct the pumping station and then dedicate it to South Burlington. The City will also use the pumping station to serve the residents of Country Club Estates. The present plan to upgrade Country Club Estates' streets depends upon the approval and construction of the Project. However, Country Club Estates will eventually be sewered, in any event, because of existing public health and environmental problems caused by inadequate septic systems. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, pages 4-5). 12. The width of Country Club Drive and Mountainview Boulevard is 30', which complies with the AASHTO standard for geometric design of highways and streets of 10' to 12' for each lane. (Appellants' Exhibits A-22 and A-38). - 23 - b. The S-Curve. 13. There is an S-curve with a centerline radii of 30' on Country Club Drive which do not conform to current South Burlington subdivision standards with respect to centerline radii for new streets. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 3). 14. This design standard is frequently waived by the City of South Burlington in order to slow traffic in a residential neighborhood such as Country Club Estates. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 3). 15. The South Burlington centerline radii for minor streets such as County Club Drive is outdated. The ITE standard allows right angle curves such as the S-curve for such residential streets. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 3). 16. There are adequate sight distances as a driver travels northbound or downhill towards the east corner of the S-curve. At a distance of 50' from the curve, a driver can see an object 3.5' high, 121 feet distant, as measured along the centerline of the street. As a driver travels eastbound towards the east corner of the curve at a distance of 50' from the curve, the driver can see that same object (3.5' high), 128 feet distant. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 4 and Appendix B). 17. At the west corner of the S-curve, as a driver travels south or uphill at a distance of 100' from the S-curve, a driver can see that 3.5' high object 150 feet beyond the curve. The sight distance is approximately the same travelling westbound, or downhill, toward the west S-curve. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 4 and Appendix B). -24- 18. An object 3.5' high represents the height of a child, bicyclist, and the minimum high height of an automobile driver. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A- 36, page 4 and Testimony, November 14, 1990). 19. The reasonably safe speed for negotiating the S-curve is 15 m.p.h. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 5). 20. Based on the AASHTO formula, the safe stopping distance for a speed of 15 m.p.h. is 75 feet, a distance well within the sight distances at the S-curve. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 5). 21. The inside curve radii at the S-curve is 15 feet. This inside curve radii allows an automobile to pass through the curve in its own lane. However, the radii is not large enough to allow a truck or bus to do so. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A- 36, page 2). 22. AASHTO standards do not require that residential streets, where the majority of traffic is automobiles and volumes are low, be designed with inside curve radii large enough to allow busses and trucks to negotiate the curve without going into the other lane. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 2). 23. The probability that a bus or truck will meet another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction at the S-curve is extremely low. During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the likelihood of such an event occurring with or without the Project in place is less than 1%. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 3; Test., Kalisky, Surrebuttal Testimony, Appendix). -25- 24. The remote possibility that a truck or bus and another vehicle moving in opposite directions will arrive at either of the S-curve at the same time does not create unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of Country Club Drive. Given the low speeds required to negotiate the turn and the ample sight distances, collisions are easily avoidable. (Test., Dickinson, November 14, 1990). 25. There have been no reported accidents on the S-curve. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 6; Test., November 14, 1990). 26. S-curves are generally accepted and commonly used in residential neighborhoods because they slow traffic. (Test., Dickinson, November 14, 1990). C. Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road. 27. There is sufficient width throughout the entire length of Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road to handle two-way traffic and pedestrians. Both roads comply with AASHTO standards for road width. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-13, page 1, as amended; Test., Dickinson, August 23, 1990). 28. 95% of the traffic travelling on Country Club Drive turns right onto Poor Farm Road. Sight distance at the corner of Poor Farm Road and Country Club Drive to the right is 340'. Sight distance to the left, the relevant direction from which a possible conflict between vehicles could occur, is 615'. Vermont Transportation Agency sight distance standard for 30 m.p.h. is 330'. 29. Poor Farm Road was widened and repaved in the summer of 1990. Shamrock Road is scheduled for widening and repaving in the summer of 1991. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-3, page 1). -26- 30. The intersection of Poor Farm Road and Country Club Drive and Poor Farm Road and Mountainview Boulevard will operate at a level of Service A with the Project in place at full buildout. (Appellants' Exhibit A-22, page 6). d. The Air National Guard Road. 31. The Air National Guard Road is a length of road approximately 2,600 feet long, which lies between Poor Farm Road and Shamrock Road. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 9). 32. Although the road is a private road located within South Burlington, it is owned by the Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners. The Commissioners are concerned about continued and increased use by the public of this private right-of-way. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 9). 33. The Commissioners and South Burlington agreed that it is in the long -tern best interest of both Cities that the road be owned and maintained by South Burlington. South Burlington has agreed to assume ownership of the road on the condition that certain improvements to the structure of the road are constructed. Although the road in its present condition is adequate to accommodate existing traffic and the Appellants' subdivision (which will contribute only 11% of the total traffic using the road in the future), the Appellants have agreed to contribute a majority of the costs of the improvements. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, page 10). 34. The Airport Commissioners and the Appellants entered into an agreement with South Burlington whereby the three parties will participate financially in upgrading the road to meet South Burlington's requirements. Fulfilling the terms of this agreement -27- depends upon the Appellants obtaining a permit and actual construction of the Appellants' Project. Upon upgrading the road, the Airport Commissioners will convey the road to South Burlington for future ownership and maintenance. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, Page 10). 35. The cost of upgrading the road to meet South Burlington specifications is estimated to be $45,000. The Cities will each contribute 25% or $6,000, whichever is less. The Appellants will arrange to have the work done and will pay the balance of the cost of upgrading. According to the agreement, the improvements must be completed before any homes in the Project are occupied. (Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A- 1, page 10). 36. The required Air National Guard Road improvements are described in Exhibit B of the Road Agreement. (Appellants' Exhibits A-19 and A-22). 37. South Burlington has taken the position that with the upgrading, the Air National Guard Road will adequately and safely handle traffic from both existing and future development and, on that basis, the City is willing and able to take over ownership of the road and assume responsibility for future maintenance and improvements. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, page 4). 38. With the proposed upgrading in place, the Air National Guard Road will adequately and safely handle traffic from both existing and future development, including traffic generated from the Project. SEE e. The Intersection. 39. The present level of service for left turns from Ethan Allen Drive onto Airport Parkway during the average day peak hour is C. During the design peak hour (the thirtiest highest volume hour of the year) the level of service is F for that one turning movement. The other turning movements at that intersection (Ethan Allen Drive/ Airport Parkway) operate at a level of service A with and without the Project. The turning movements at Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road will operate at level of service A with the Project. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 4; Appellants' Exhibit A-22, page 6). 40. At buildout in 1995, the Project will contribute 2% of the total volume of traffic in the Intersection at that time. Background traffic will increase 15% over that same period of time. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 4; Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, page 7). 41. The South Burlington Planning Commission required the Appellants, as a condition of its approval of the Appellants' industrial/commercial subdivision and the Project to contribute land and money to upgrade the Intersection to mitigate the impact of Appellants' traffic. These improvements include (1) construction of northbound and southbound turnlanes; (2) dedication of a one-half acre triangular parcel of land between Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road; (3) dedication of a 5.25 foot strip of land on Ethan Allen Drive for future street widening; and (4) payment of impact fees totalling $28,480 for improvements to Ethan Allen Drive and future long-term improvements of -29- Airport Parkway and the Lime Kiln Bridge. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, page 2; Test., Llewellyn, Appellants' Exhibit A-1, pages 4-5). 42. South Burlington commissioned the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission to conduct a study to develop recommendations for further upgrading the Intersection. (Test., Leiner, CCRPC Exhibit 1, page 2; JHK & Associates Report). 43. The study was conducted as a joint venture between the staff of the Planning Commission and JHK & Associates, a transportation consulting firm. (Test., Leiner, CCRPC Exhibit 1, page 2). 44. Significant improvements can be made to existing safety and congestion problems at the Intersection by immediate actions to eliminate confusing pavement markings, better lighting, and by short to intermediate -term actions as referred to by JHK & Associates. The immediate actions have been completed. (Test., Leiner, CCRPC Exhibit 1, page 4; JHK & Associates Report; Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, page 2). 45. The short to intermediate term improvements include: 1. Direction of all traffic turning onto either Ethan Allen Drive or Shamrock Road at a single location, namely the existing intersection of Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Road. 2. Relocation of an existing stop sign to Shamrock Road. 3. Installation of traffic signals in conformance with the manual on uniform traffic control devices. -30- 4. Flattening of the curve, and provision of superelevation on the northbound lanes of Airport Parkway; and 5. Improved warning signs. The recommended actions are depicted on a scaled aerial plan sheet marked CCRPC Exhibit 2. (Test., Leiner, CCRPC, Exhibit 1). 46. With these short to intermediate -term improvements in place, the intersection will operate an overall level of service B and safety conditions will be improved substantially. Any impacts on safety and congestion created by traffic generated by the Project will be effectively mitigated by these improvements. (Test., Leiner, CCRPC Exhibit 1, pages 4-5; Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 4; Appellants' Exhibit A-22, page 8 and page 10). 47. South Burlington considers upgrade of the intersection to be a high priority project. The City intends to implement the recommendations of the JHK & Associates study and report. The present plan is to review the recommendations as part of the 1991-1992 budget, with the opportunity to fund the short to intermediate -term recommendations in 1992-1993. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, page 3, as amended). 48. The Appellants have agreed to a condition of the Land Use Permit that there shall be no occupancy of any houses in the Project until the JHK & Associates short to intermediate -term improvements and a full traffic signal are in place. (Letter of Appellants' Attorney, December 20, 1990). -31- 49. With the JHK & Associates short to intermediate term improvements and full traffic signal in place, the Project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions at the intersection. f. Alternative Accesses to Project. 50. In response to the Neighbors' suggestions, the Appellants investigated alternative accesses to the Project site. The alternatives considered were (1) extension of Country Club Drive East; (2) the Haul Road; (3) extension of Ethan Allen Drive through the Appellants' Ethan Allen Farms agricultural complex; and (4) extension of an unnamed street in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park. 51. The suggested alternative accesses are not feasible. The South Burlington Planning Commission rejected access by extending Country Club Drive East because a previously designated right-of-way has been infringed upon by existing houses and is too narrow to accommodate a public street; reconstruction of the Haul Road would adversely affect significant wetlands and a stream, and would involve substantial earth movement; extension of Ethan Allen Drive through the agricultural complex would adversely affect Appellants' agriculture operation; and extension of the unnamed Ethan Allen Industrial Park street would also intrude into significant wetlands and would also adversely affect the Appellants' agricultural operations. (Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-2, page 2; Appellants' Exhibit A-22, pages 1-3; Test., Dickinson, Appellants' Exhibit A-36, pages 7-8; Test., Myott, Appellants' Exhibit A-7). -32- GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T SHEA STEPHEN R CRAMPTON CORPORATE PLAZA STEWARTH. MCCONAUGHY ROBERT B HEMLEY 76 ST. PAUL STREET WILLIAM G. POST. JR CRAIG WEATHERLY POST OFFICE BOX 1049 JAMES E KNAPP BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 JOHN R PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERTF L SUSAN WSWEETSER April 16, 1990 MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY� 'NOT ADMITTED IN VERMONT AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 658-0220 FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAVEL COUNSEL Stephanie Kaplan, Esq. Vermont Environmental Board State Office Building State Street Montpelier VT 05602 Re: John and Joyce Belter Application # 4C0643-6R-ER 0 Dear Stephanie: Enclosed is original and ten (10) copies of Appellants' Prehearing Conference Statement in the above -referenced matter. Very truly yours, G vE EA John R. Ponsetto i. N� JRP:wba Enclosures cc: Parties of Record Vermont Environmental Board 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Re: John and Joyce Belter by John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea P. O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 Application No. 4C0643-6R-EB Appellants' Prehearing Conference Statement John and Joyce Belter ("Appellants"), by and through their attorneys, John R. Ponsetto and Charles T. Shea, make the following statement relevant to the matters to be discussed at the Prehearing Conference on the above -referenced application. I. Issues in Controversy. 1. Impact of blasting, criterion 2 (air pollution) and criterion 8 (aesthetics). 2. Impacts on Winooski River shoreline, criterion 1(f) (shoreline) and criterion 4 (erosion control). 3. Traffic congestion, safety, and impact on public investments, criterion 5 and criterion 9(k). II. Appellants' Witnesses. 1. Blasting. * Lee Tillotson, Maine Drilling and Blasting * Expert on noise 2. Winooski River Shoreline. * Michael Lawrence, landscape architect, Lawrence Associates * Lance Llewellyn, P.E., Fitzpatrick & Llewellyn * Charles Van Winkle, P.E., Fitzpatrick & Llewellyn * Representative of Winooski Park District * Representative of Department of Environmental Conservation, Agency of Natural Resources 3. Traffic. * Roger Dickinson, P.E., Fitzpatrick & Llewellyn * Representative of City of South Burlington, Street Division. 4. General. * John Belter, appellant. III. Documents. 1. Report on Drilling and Blasting. 2. Winooski River shoreline erosion control, reclamation and landscape plans. 3. Report on impact of traffic on South Burlington City Streets. Dated at Burlington this &day of April, 1990. I: [preconf.b04] JOHN and JOYCE BELTER Charles T. Shea Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, John R. Ponsetto, attorney for John and Joyce Belter, sent a copy of the foregoing A1%ay lants' Prehearing Conference Statement by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this of April, 1990, to the following: Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul 33 Mountainview Blvd South Burlington, VT 05403 Ann and Andrew Hong C/o David Conard, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 Dave and Pat Myette 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Richard Ahern 17 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Philip Laroque 13 Mountainview Blvd South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners c/o William Ellis, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05401 Lance Llewellyn Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Marc Roy 16 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, this [cert2.b04] day of April, 1990. John R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Attorneys for Appellants STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RE: Application of ) John and Joyce Belter ) No. 4C0643-6R NOTICE OF CROSS -APPEAL Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Anne and Andrew Hong, David and Pat Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, and Marc Roy hereby cross -appeal findings of the District Commission with respect to the criterion 5 impacts of the proposed project on Air National Guard Road, and the intersection of Airport Parkway, Ethan Allen Drive and Shamrock Road. The Hongs and Myettes also cross - appeal the failure of the Commission to make findings concerning the other construction noise impacts, other than blasting, under criterion 1 (air). Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 17th day of April, 1990. MILLE=Davidvw. ROS BERG, LTD. By: (cr�'�J na 150 SouthChamplain Stree P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 (802) 864-0880 Attorneys for Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Anne and Andrew Hong, David and Pat Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, and Marc Roy g. Public Investments. 52. It is the position of South Burlington that with the improvements planned for the Air National Guard Road and the Intersection, the streets and highways of the City are capable of serving the additional traffic from Appellants' project and that the contributions, financial and land dedication related to the Intersection, adequately compensate the City for all the impacts caused by Appellants' traffic. (Test., Hafter, Appellants' Exhibit A-4, pages 5-6). 53. Given the low volumes of traffic which will be generated by the Project, the planned improvements for the streets and intersection which will be used by that traffic, and the significant contributions made by the Appellants toward those improvements to mitigate the impact of Project traffic, the Project will not unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the public's investment in those highway facilities. [belterFF.b 12] - 33 - JOSEPH C. McNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E. McNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN WILLIAM F. ELLIS SUSAN H. COMPTON' SUSAN GILFILLAN ('ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y) LAW OFFICES Mc NE11L & MURRAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 2, 1991 Stephanie J. Kaplan, Executive Officer Vermont Environmental Board 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 RE: John and Joyce Belter Application No. 4CO643-6R-EB Dear Ms. Kaplan: 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-4531 TELECOPIER (802) 863-1743 Enclosed for filing with the Board please find the original and ten copies of the City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioner's Response to Proposed Decision. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Nancy G. Sheahan NGS/tmr Enclosure cc: Statutory Parties John Ponsetto, Esq. COR148.AIR CASE NUMBER: 4C0643-6R-EB APPLICANT: John and Joyce Belter CITY OF BURLINGTON'S BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONER'S RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DECISION The City of Burlington's Board of Airport Commissioners, by and through its attorneys, McNeil & Murray, respectfully request that the proposed decision of the Administrative Hearing Panel be modified to include the following: 1. CRITERION 1 - Noise The City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners and the Applicants have previously stipulated and agreed before the District Environmental Commission that the Applicant would provide notice to Project lot owners of noise impacts associated with the Burlington International Airport. Notice would be accomplished through appropriate language to be contained in any deed of conveyance and the Project's protective covenants as follows: SECTION 3.1 RECORD NOTIFICATION: IMPACTS - A PURCHASER OF A LOT IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AN AIRPORT WHICH SERVES NOT ONLY PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL AIRLINE CARRIERS, BUT IS THE HOME OF THE VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD. EACH LOT MAY BE SUBJECT TO NOISE AND OTHER IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND DECLARANTS, FOR THEMSELVES, AND FOR THE SUCCESSOR OWNERS OF EACH LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION, HEREBYWAIVE ANY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT FOR THE ABOVE -STATED PURPOSES, INCLUDING CHANGES IN IMPACTS AS AIRPORT SERVICE IS UPGRADED AND/OR EXPANDED IN THE FUTURE. N-11v:NE11' �r 1 1VT 1' IR JR A `�' BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 It was specifically agreed that the Commission could include the foregoing language in any permit which was issued. Consistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement, the City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners requests that the Administrative Hearing Panel include the terms of the Agreement in its order. 2. CRITERIA 5 AND 9 (K) (traffic and public investment) Air National Guard The proposed Findings of Fact of the Administrative Hearing Panel correctly note the negotiation of an agreement between the City of South Burlington, the Board of Airport Commissioners and the Applicant relative to improvements to the Air National Guard Road and transfer of title thereto. The Land Use Permit, as proposed, however, is devoid of any condition that the Applicant complete construction of the improvements to the National Guard Road prior to either construction or occupancy of houses in the subdivision. The City of Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners request that the Administrative Hearing Panel include such a condition in the final permit. DATED: 2 0rZ (l cc: Statutory Parties John Ponsetto, Esq. FOR022.AIR n'f l-T IR Ri A Y BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 CITY OF BURLINGTON BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS BY: Q Esq Nand G. Sheahan, . McNei� & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Nancy G. Sheahan, Esq., Attorney for Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners, sent a copy of the foregoing City of Burlington's Board of Airport Commissioner's Response to Proposed Decision by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 2nd day of May, 1991, to the following: Chittenden County Regional William Bright Planning Commission 45 Country Club Drive P.O. Box 108 South Burlington, VT 05403 Essex Junction, VT 05452 John and Joyce Belter C/o John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel & Shea P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Kurt Janson, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 David W.M. Conard, Esq. for Guerette, Paul, Hong, Myette, Ahern, Laroque and Roy P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Ms. Lee Hemingway, Pres. Country Club Estates 23 Mountain View Boulevard South Burlington, VT 05403 Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 2nd day of May, 1991. NGS/tmr FOR023.AIR M tU I R A Y BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 BURLINGTON BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS BY: \ Nancy G. S'heahan, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 State of Vermont LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO: 4C0643-6R-1 APPLICANT: City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 and John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 LAWSZREGULATIONS INVOLVED 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151 (Act 250) District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues Land Use Permit (Amendment) #4C0643-6R-1, pursuant to the authority vested in it by 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in the land records of the City of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to John and Joyce Belter, the "Permittees" as "Grantees". This permit specifically authorizes the Permittees to construct a temporary sewer collection line, approximately 568 feet in length, across the property owned by John and Joyce Belter in South Burlington, known as White Rock Estates, to serve the adjacent Country Club Estates development. The Permittees, and its assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to complete, operate and maintain the project as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Land Use Permit #4CO643 and amendments are in full force and effect except as amended herein. 2. The project shall be completed, operated and maintained as set forth in accordance with the plans and exhibits stamped "Approved" and on file with the District Environmental Commission, and in accordance with the conditions of this permit. No changes shall be made in the project without the written approval of the District Environmental Commission. Land Use Permit #4CO643-6R-1 Page 2 3. The District Environmental Commission maintains continuing jurisdiction during the lifetime of the permit and may periodically require that the permit holder file an affidavit certifying that the project is being completed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms of the permit. 4. By acceptance of this permit, the Permittees agree to allow representatives of the State of Vermont access to the property covered by the permit, at reasonable times, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with Vermont environmental and health statutes and regulations and with this permit. 5. By acceptance of the conditions of this permit without appeal; the Permittees confirm and agree for themselves and all assigns and successors in interest that the conditions of this permit shall run with the land and the land uses herein permitted, and will be binding upon and enforceable against the Permittees and all assigns and successors in interest. 6. The Permittees shall apply and maintain calcium chloride and/or water on all roadways or disturbed areas within the project during construction and until pavement and/or vegetation is fully established to control dust. 7. Construction that will generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 8. The Permittees shall comply with Exhibits # 3 and 8 for erosion control. Hay bale dams and silt fences shall be installed as depicted on the plans prior to any soil disturbance. The Permittees shall prevent the transport of any sediment beyond that area necessary for construction approved herein. From October 1 to April 15 of any calendar year, all disturbed areas of the construction site shall be mulched until final vegetative cover is established. All erosion control devices shall be periodically cleaned, replaced and maintained until vegetation is permanently established on all slopes and disturbed areas. The Commission reserves the right to schedule hearings and site inspections to review erosion control and to evaluate and impose additional conditions with respect to erosion control as it deems necessary. Land Use Permit #4CO643-6R-1 Page 3 9. In addition to conformance with the requirements of condition #8, the Permittees shall not cause, permit, or allow the discharge of waste materials into any surface waters. Compliance with the requirements of this condition does not absolve the Permittees from compliance with 10 V.S.A., Chapter 47, Vermont's Water Pollution Control Law. 10. All construction on this project must be completed by November 15, 1993. 11. This permit shall expire on October 15, 2022 unless extended by the District Commission. Notwithstanding the latter date, this permit shall expire two years from the date of issuance if substantial construction has not occurred, unless construction is delayed by litigation to secure other permits. 12. Failure to comply with all of the above conditions may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Section 6090(b). Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 1_J*-*day of October, 1992. By t� JOU C ins, Chairperson GDistri #4 Commission Commission members Faith Inguls ud participating in this District Coordinator decision: John C. Drake Susan Wheeler EXHIBIT LIST FOR APPLICATION #4C0643-6R-1 (1) E D R E A=APPLICANT X A E N T=TOWN H T C T TPC=TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION I E E E RPC=REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION B I R AEC=AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION I V E AOT=AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION T E D DPS=DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE D ANR=AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES N B VDH=VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 0. Y NATURE OF EXHIBIT DATE ENTERED 1 9/l/92 A Land Use Permit Application (8/31/92) 2 if A Schedule A -fee information 3 if A Schedule B-Act 250 10 criteria narrative 4 it A Schedule E-adjoiner information 5 If A Schedule F-certification of service (9/1/92) 6 if A Plan: site plan, sheet l of 6 (8/92) 7 IfA Plan: sanitary sewer profile, sheet 2 of 6 (8/92) 8 if A Plan: typical details, sheet 3 of 6 (8/92) 9 10/02/92 ANR ,Document: Entry of Appearance and Pre -Hearing Comments (10/01/92) requiring no stormwater permits CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Marsha Cota, District Office Clerk of the Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing LAND USE PERMIT #4C0643-6R-1 by U.S. Mail, postage paid on this 15TH day of OCTOBER, 1992 for the following: PARTIES City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Joyce Belter White Rocks Estates Two Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Steven Stitzel Stitzel & Page, P.C. 171 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05401 Margaret Picard, City Clerk Chair, Board. of Selectmen Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P. O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Kurt Janson, Land Use Attorney Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street, 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR YOUR INFORMATION District #4 Environmental Commission John Collins Susan Wheeler Jack Drake 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Essex Junction, VT this 15TH day of OCTOBER, 1992. By: `'1'Y10L1i 44'-A-.. C TA-, Marsha Cota 4C6436R1/#2 1 STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 5 Joyce Belter 6 7 8 PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ANNE CRAMER HONG 9 (CRITERIA 1(f) AND 81 10 11 12 Q. Please identify yourself. 13 A. My name is Anne Cramer Hong and I reside at 41 Mountain 14 View Boulevard. 15 Q. What is the nature of your rebuttal testimony? 16 A. Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul have requested that I 17 testify with regard to the photographs, shown in Exhibits N-11 18 and N-12, which I took on June 12, 1990, of the site of the 19 proposed development as seen from the opposite side of the 20 Winooski River (the eastern shore). 21 Q. Please point out on Exhibit N-13 (an aerial photograph 22 of this section of the river), the location from which the 23 photographs were taken. 24 Q. Please describe this location. 25 A. The pictures were taken from a path which runs along 26 the river bank on the edge of a large farm outside of Essex 27 Junction, which is operated by Onan and Mary Whitcomb. The path 28 is used for access to the river and for fishing. 29 Q. Do the photographs contained in Exhibits N-11 and N-12 30 fairly and accurately depict the condition of the site of the 31 proposed development as you observed it on June 12, 1990 from the 32 opposite river bank? 33 A. Yes. No Text • to 2 rT .I' � ��' •. ,, , stfit+ ' \ sae r « _ STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter LIST OF REBUTTAL WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS FOR ADJOINING AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS Witnesses Sally Guerette, Ruth Paul, Anne Cramer Hong, Andrew Hong, David Myette, Pat Myette, Richard C. Ahern, Louise P. Larocque, Philip A. Larocque and Marc Roy (hereinafter "the Neighbors") will call the following individuals as rebuttal witnesses in the above -captioned proceedings: Anne Cramer Hong (Criteria 1(f) and 8) Ken Kaliski (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) Exhibit List The Neighbors' Rebuttal Exhibit List is attached. Unless oversized, copies of each exhibit are attached to the Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of each witness. The originals of the exhibits listed may be reviewed at the offices of Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg with the exception of those exhibits previously entered in the record at the District Commission. Dated at Burlington, Vermont this day of July, 1990. MILLER, EGGLESTON & ROSENBERG, LTD. By: kat,� 'A David W. M. Conard 150 South Champlain Street P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 (802) 864-0880 Attorneys for Neighbors REBUTTAL EXHIBIT LIST OF NEIGHBORS N-11 and N-12 - Photographs of site of Proposed Development from east bank of Winooski River (June 12, 1990_ - Anne Cramer Hong. N-13 - Aerial Photograph of site of Proposed Development - Vermont Base Map, Essex Junction, Sheet No. 100220, Series 5000 1988 (marked Exhibit 32 at District Commission). N14 - Resume of Kenneth H. Kaliski. STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, David W. M. Conard, sent copies of the Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong and Ken Kaliski, and copies of the List of Rebuttal Witnesses and Rebuttal Exhibits for Adjoining and Neighboring Property Owners by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of July, 1990, to each of the following: John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 (For John and Joyce Belter) Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 zceLt� David W. M. Conard — �`� ZIA- wKz� F � VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 ACT 250 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND i PREHEARING CONFERENCE RE: John and Joyce Belter by Application #4C0643-6R-EB John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 On March 26, 1990, an appeal was filed with the Environmental Board by John and Joyce Belter through their attorney, John R. Ponsetto, from the Memorandum of Decision denying the Applicants' Motion to Reconsider the denial of Land Use Permit Application #4C0643-6, issued by District #4 Environmental Commission on March 5, 1990. The Applicants are seeking approval to subdivide a 15-acre parcel on their 345-acre property into 36 residential lots, with municipal water and sewer services, associated roadways, and utilities, located off Country Club Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. The Applicants believe the Commission erred in its findings and conclusions under Criteria 1 (air pollution), 1(F) (shorelines), 4 (erosion control), 5 (traffic safety and congestion), 8 (aesthetics), and 9(K) (impact on public investment). In addition to participating in the appeal, any person or entity that participated in District Commission proceedings in this matter may file a cross -appeal pursuant to Board Rule 40(D) within 14 days of the issuance of this notice. The Chairman of the Board, or its duly authorized member, will meet with the parties or their representatives at a prehearing conference on Tuesday April 17, at 11:00 a.m. at the South Burlington City Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Those persons seeking to participate as parties (including "statutory" parties) in the hearing should attend the prehearing conference and should be prepared to identify issues, proposed witnesses and exhibits to be presented. Those seeking party status who are not able to attend the prehearing conference should notify the Board in writing by Monday, April 16, 1990, of their intention to appear, the issues they intend to address, and the witnesses and exhibits they intend to present. Pursuant to its jurisdiction and authority under 10 V.S.A. § 6089, the Board will convene a preliminary hearing { in this matter on Wednesday, April 18, 1990, at 9:30 a.m. at the Montpelier City Hall, Memorial Room, Montpelier, j Vermont. No one who attended the prehearing conference need 4 appear at this hearing. A hearing on the merits of the appeal will be scheduled at a later date at which time all interested parties should be present. i Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 3rd day of April, 1990. Stephanie J. Kaplan, Executive Officer, Environmental Board, Montpelier, Vermont, Vermont 05602 - 828-3309. a:4C06436R.NOT i i 1� t� 11 4� ! I , f ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Rule 16. Prehearing Conferences (A) Purposes. The board or a commission acting through a duly authorized delegate may conduct such prehearing conferences, upon due notice, as may be useful in expediting its proceedings and hearings. The purposes of such prehearing conferences shall be to: (1) Clarify the issues in controversy; (2) Identify documents, witnesses and other offers of proof to be presented at a hearing by any party; and (3) Obtain such stipulations of parties as to issues, offers of proof and other matters as may be appropriate. (B) Preliminary Rulings. The convening officer, if a member of the board or district commission, may make such preliminary rulings as to matters of notice, scheduling, party status, and other procedural matters, including interpretation of these rules, as are necessary to expedite and facilitate the hearing process. However, any such ruling may be objected to by any interested party, in which case the ruling shall be reviewed and the matter resolved by the board or district commission. (C) Prehearing Order. The convening officer may prepare a prehearing order stating the results of the prehearing conference. Any such order shall be binding upon all parties to the proceeding who have received notice of the prehearing conference if it is forwarded to the parties at least five days prior to the hearing. However, the time requirement may be waived upon agreement of all parties to the proceeding; and the board or a district commission may waive a requirement of a prehearing order upon a showing of cause, filing a timely objection, or if fairness so requires (Amended, effective March 11, 1982). I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Stephanie J. Kaplan, Executive Officer, Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing Act 250 Notice of Public Hearing and Prehearing Conference and Rule 16 by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 3rd day of April, 1990, to the following: John and Joyce Belter by John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 So. Main St. Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul 33 Mountainview Blvd. South Burlington, VT 05403 Ann & Andrew Hong c/o David Conard, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 Dave and Pat Myette 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Richard Ahern 17 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Philip Laroque 13 Mountainview Blvd. I; South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners c/o William Ellis, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union St. Burligton, VT 05403 Lance Llewellyn Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Marc Roy s' 16 Country Club Drive ( South Burlington, VT 05403 Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West St. Essex Jct., VT 05452 Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 3rd day of April, 1990. Wi..r k I a Stephanie J. Ka lan Executive Officer A:4C06436R.CS (P3) MILLER, EGGLESTON & ROSENBERG, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 150 SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREET P.O. BOX 1489 BUR.LINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1489 MARTIN K. MILLER JON R. EGGLESTON MICHAEL B. ROSENBERG ANNE CRAMER HONG DAVID W. M. CONARD JOHN B. KASSEL MARK A. SAUNDERS VICTORIA J. BROWN Counsel: PATRICIA L. RICKARD Hand Delivered Ms. Pearl Houghton Administrative Secretary Environmental Board 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 June 8, 1990 Re: Application of John and Joyce Belter Application #4C0643-6R-EB Dear Ms. Houghton: TELEPHONE (802) 864-0880 TELECOPIER (802) 864-0328 Enclosed for filing please find an original and ten (10) copies of the Prefiled Testimony of Sally Guerette, Ruth Paul, Anne Cramer Hong, David and Patricia Myette, Richard C. Ahern, Philip and Louise Larocque, Marc Roy and Ron Jones, and an original and ten (10) copies of the List of Witnesses and Exhibits for Adjoining and Neighboring Property Owners, and a Certificate of Service for same. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Davi W. M. Conard For the Firm DWMC/lgp Enclosures cc: Service List 1 STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 5 Joyce Belter 6 7 8 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF SALLY GUERETTE 9 AND RUTH PAUL 10 11 12 Q. State your name and address. 13 A. Our names are Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul. We are co- 14 owners of 33 Mountain View Boulevard in the Country Club Estates 15 development in South Burlington. 16 Q. How long have you lived in Country Club Estates? 17 A. We have lived here approximately five years. 18 Q. Describe the location of your home. 19 A. Our property adjoins the site of the proposed development. 20 Lots 21 and 22 of the proposed development will adjoin our 21 eastern property line. From our house we can see across the 22 proposed development site and down to the river shoreline area. 23 Q. Describe your occupations. 24 A. Sally Guerette: I am employed as an assistant athletic 25 director at the University of Vermont. 26 Ruth Paul: I am employed as a telemarketing salesperson. 27 Q. What concerns do you have with regard to the proposed 28 development and its impact on the shoreline of the Winooski 29 River? (Criteria 1(f) and 8) 30 A. We would like it understood we are not against development. 31 We are, however, concerned about reasonable consideration for 32 wildlife and the environment. We moved to Country Club Estates 33 because we liked the way the development was situated and the Prefiled Testimony of Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 4 1 proximity of our property to the river, etc. In the years we 2 have lived here we have seen much destruction of trees, shrubs, 3 swallow nests, etc., with the digging that has been done in the 4 area of the proposed development to sell topsoil. In addition, 5 more recently, we watched while a tractor proceeded to knock down 6 several more trees and destroy swallow nests on this site. The 7 river is necessary to the wildlife in the area_ anr3 thic 8 development, as proposed, appears to be destined to destroy more 9 of the beauty and nature in that area. 10 Q. What are your concerns with regard to the impact of the 11 proposed project on traffic safety in the Country Club Estates 12 area? (Criterion 5) 13 A. The proposed access to this development poses a concern to 14 us. To add the number of requested dwellings means a tremendous 15 increase in traffic. This traffic can only add to the present 16 deterioration of the roads in our area. At present, Poor Farm 17 Road and Shamrock Road are impassable at several points if two 18 cars meet each other at the same spot at the same time. The 19 potholes are very large and having to drive to avoid them makes 20 it extremely dangerous. Increased traffic will only lead to 21 further deterioration and added safety problems. Also, Mountain 22 View Boulevard (the road many people feel would be used by the 23 majority of cars in the new development) becomes worse each 24 winter with frost heaves of considerable size. Again, added Prefiled Testimony of Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 4 1 traffic can only make things worse. If the traffic does use 2 Country Club Drive however, this road will also become a safety 3 problem especially in the winter because of the extremely sharp 4 curve. 5 It should also be noted that we seem to be the last people 6 plowed out in the winter. When we go into work between 6:00 AM 7 and 6:30 AM- it it4 Alnnct Alwavc rlifficnit- naccarro aft -or A ct-nrm 8 Also when returning to the Estates, the Road is extremely 9 dangerous at both curves, and we pray we will not meet another 10 vehicle going in the opposite direction. Several times this 11 winter we had to call the Air Guard to indicate to them the area 12 needed to be sanded, etc. The city is not keeping that road 13 passable in the winter. Under these conditions, adding more 14 traffic will create more of a problem. 15 Without sidewalks in the Country Club area, we also feel the 16 added traffic could cause problems for the youngsters in the 17 neighborhood. 18 The blasting, truck traffic, etc., during construction 19 should also be considered. It appears to us another entrance to 20 the development needs to be considered which could alleviate much 21 of the concern of the neighborhood. There are other options but 22 the developers are unwilling to spend money to get money. 23 We do not begrudge an individual his or her right to make 24 money from his or her land. But to do so with no concern for Prefiled Testimony of Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul June 8, 1990 Page 4 of 4 1 neighbors, safety, wildlife, and the environment is 2 incomprehensible. ! I STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 5 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 6 Joyce Belter 7 8 9 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ANNE CRAMER HONG 10 11 12 Q. Please identify yourself for the Environmental Board. 13 A. My name is Anne Cramer Hong and I reside at 41 Mountain View 14 Boulevard. My husband and I have owned this property and resided 15 in Country Club Estates since June of 1986. 16 Q. Describe the location of your house relative to the Belter's 17 proposed development. 18 A. Our property adjoins the site of the proposed development 19 and, if approved as designed, our property would border the 20 project on two sides. Street A would connect with Country Club 21 Drive next to the side of our house. The proposed right of way 22 of the street begins less than thirty feet from our bedroom wall. 23 Proposed lots 27 and 28 are directly behind our backyard. From 24 the deck of our house, one has nearly a complete view of the 25 project site as illustrated by the photographs shown in Exhibit 26 N-4. 27 Q. What are your concerns with regard to the impact of this 28 project on the quality of air? (Criteria 1 and 8) 29 A. The project as proposed will cause air pollution in the form 30 of noise and dust. The site preparation for the proposed 31 development will be comparable to the operations of a gravel pit 32 or rock quarry. At the District Commission hearings, the 33 Applicant's witnesses described a process of development which Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 9 1 would include drilling and blasting on the site for an eight to 2 ten week period, (six days each week), followed by a period of 3 filling and compacting the site in order that it is raised to a 4 higher elevation above sea level which would be above a flood 5 level. After this construction, more typical site preparation 6 involving the building of roads and placing of utility lines will 7 proceed. Eventually, houses will be constructed. This entire 8 process, but especially the drilling and blasting, will be very 9 disruptive and will add high levels of noise to the adjoining 10 neighborhood. The constant travel of large trucks and earth 11 moving machinery will also be a source of irritating, disruptive 12 noise. 13 Country Club Estates is a very quiet neighborhood. The 14 occasional take off of an Air National Guard F-16 is the only 15 source of significant noise. Otherwise, there is very little 16 background noise. Few trucks travel in the neighborhood 17 regularly - mainly weekly garbage pickup. Given the placid 18 setting, any truck traffic is very noticeable and can be heard 19 within my house, even in winter. 20 The plans for this project make no effort to screen houses 21 adjoining the site from the noise which will be generated by the 22 drilling, blasting, earth moving, trucks and construction traffic 23 which this proposed development will entail. There is nothing to 24 Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 9 1 buffer or block the noise created by the project as there are few 2 trees between the project and the adjoining backyards. 3 The intrusion of daily drilling, blasting and heavy truck 4 traffic will substantially and unreasonably interfere with the 5 use and enjoyment of adjoining homes and the quality of living in 6 the neighborhood, especially for adjoining landowners. 7 Q. Although you believe that the air pollution will be 8 unreasonable and unacceptable, what conditions might mitigate the 9 impact of this project? 10 A. Construction hours should be limited to 5 days a week from 11 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to minimize the interference. Mature and 12 thick vegetation screening such as northern white cedar 13 (arborvitae) should be planted along the land of adjacent home 14 owners in order to reduce the noise impact of the drilling and 15 blasting operations. All construction vehicles should be routed 16 directly from the project site to Ethan Allan Drive in order to 17 minimize truck traffic noise in Country Club Estates. 18 Q. What other concerns involving air quality do you have? 19 A. I am also concerned about the amount of dust this project 20 will create. In the past, when there has been heavy equipment 21 working on Mr. Belter's land, extensive dust clouds have been 22 observed trailing the vehicles. In one instance, so much dust 23 was created by heavy vehicles traveling on the haul road adjacent 24 to Country Club Estates, that from Country Club Drive it looked Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 4 of 9 1 like there was a fire behind the house next to the Myette's house 2 on Country Club Drive. The cloud was dust and not smoke, 3 however. Because the project proposes to unearth over 14 acres 4 of land, requirements for strict dust control must be imposed and 5 earthwork should be restricted while the ground and air 6 temperature is below freezing. 7 Q. Describe how one accesses the streets in Country Club 8 Estates. 9 A. Country Club Estates is primarily accessed by traveling 10 through the intersection of Airport Parkway, Shamrock Road and 11 Ethan Allen Drive, then "veering" left on to Air National Guard 12 Road and entering the neighborhood by turning left on one of two 13 streets, either Mountain View Boulevard or Country Club Drive. 14 It is also possible to access the neighborhood by a narrow dirt 15 road which connects with River Cove Drive and intersects with 16 Route 2A in Williston. 17 Q. What observations have you made regarding traffic safety 18 within Country Club Estates? (Criterion 5) 19 A. There are no sidewalks in Country Club Estates so the 20 streets must accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Children 21 are often found tossing a football or a frisbee in the streets. 22 Family members run, jog and walk around the neighborhood during 23 the day and evening. In the summer, adults and children use the 24 streets to travel to the neighborhood pool and tennis courts. Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 5 of 9 1 Increased traffic will threaten the safety of pedestrian traffic 2 in the neighborhood. With such extensive pedestrian travel, 3 there is no safe route for construction vehicles to travel 4 through Country Club Estates. 5 Additionally, proposed Street A will connect directly with 6 Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive contains two 90° turns 7 which dogleg up a hill. These curves have extremely small 8 turning radii and have only a 31' wide lane. Cars traveling from 9 opposite directions cannot negotiate these corners at the same 10 time without slowing to a stop. The more southeast of the two 11 doglegs includes a steep hill on the south side of its approach 12 which creates a blind curve. Traffic entering the curve from 13 either direction is unable to see whether there is any oncoming 14 traffic before entering the curve. In the winter, this hill 15 becomes very slippery if there is any freezing precipitation. 16 Snow removal and de-icing efforts by city road crews is generally 17 incomplete in these corners and they tend to be icy all winter 18 long. The addition of more traffic on Country Club Drive will 19 further jeopardize traffic and pedestrian safety. 20 Q. What observations have you made about the pavement in 21 Country Club Estates? 22 A. Each winter, the streets buckle with severe frost heaves 23 which force cars to change lanes or to travel at very low speeds 24 to avoid vehicle damage. Exhibits N-7 and N-8 illustrate the Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 6 of 9 1 size of some of the pavement dislocations observed in January 2 1990. Severe frost heave conditions on both Mountain View 3 Boulevard and Country Club Road have been observed during every 4 winter I have lived in Country Club Estates. Increased traffic, 5 particularly truck traffic, in Country Club estates may further 6 the deterioration of the pavement. 7 Q. What concerns do you have about increased traffic on 8 Shamrock and National Guard Road? 9 A. Shamrock Road and Air National Guard Road are both extremely 10 narrow, about 20' or less in some areas. The pavement of 11 Shamrock Road is quite potholed and there is heavy vegetation on 12 the east side of the road. Air National Guard Road joins 13 Shamrock Road on a blind corner. The tilt of the pavement or 14 super elevation on this corner makes it difficult for vehicles to 15 remain in the proper lane rather than taking the "middle of the 16 road" approach in order to keep one's vehicle from skidding off 17 the road. In the winter, it is not uncommon to see a car in the 18 ditch on the south side of this corner. 19 There is no room for pedestrian travel on Air National Guard 20 Road as the shoulders are very narrow. 21 Traveling east on the road as one approaches a former 22 National Guard entrance on the right and before reaching the left 23 turns for Country Club Estates, one travels up a hill and around 24 a second narrow blind curve into a wooded area. The sight Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 7 of 9 1 distance is very limited traveling around this curve, yet the 2 tilt and narrowness of the road are such that cars often travel 3 in the center of the road around the curve. 4 Q. What impact will the proposed improvements described in the 5 proposed Road Agreement between the City of Burlington, the City 6 of South Burlington and the Applicants, have on your concerns for 7 the safety of Air National Guard Road? 8 A. The Agreement indicates that the roadway will be widened by 9 only two feet and there still will be an insufficient shoulder to 10 accommodate pedestrian or bicycle traffic. This also may not be 11 enough to make the curves less dangerous. Although the Agreement 12 includes a correction to the super elevation on the curve by the 13 former Air National Guard entrance, the proposal does not include 14 any efforts to improve the sight distance around that curve or 15 the curve where Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road. 16 Further, there is no proposal to improve the super elevation 17 problems on the curve where Air Guard Road meets Shamrock Road. 18 Q. What are your observations of traffic conditions at the 19 intersection of Airport parkway with Ethan Allen Drive and 20 Shamrock Road? 21 A. The majority of traffic leaving Country Club Estates turns 22 left at this intersection to travel south on Airport Parkway. 23 Vehicles making left hand turns from Shamrock Road to travel 24 south on Airport Parkway often have great difficulty making this Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 8 of 9 1 turn for several reasons. Traffic on Airport Parkway travels 2 rapidly and is quite heavy during commuting hours. The 3 industrial development on Ethan Allen Drive generates a 4 considerable amount of traffic, particularly trucks which may be 5 entering from either lane of Airport Parkway. Traffic turning 6 into Ethan Allen Drive from the northbound lane of Airport 7 Parkway often fails to stop at the stop sign before crossing 8 Shamrock Road. Further, large trucks do not have enough room to 9 stop at the stop sign without blocking at least the turning lane, 10 if not the through traffic lane of Airport Parkway as well. I 11 have observed that the radius of the turn is such that an 18 12 wheeler will straddle both lanes when turning right from the 13 northbound lane of Airport Parkway, thereby preventing any other 14 vehicle's safe movement. Traffic entering Ethan Allen Drive from 15 the southbound lane of Airport Parkway must make two quick left 16 turns. Therefore, once the first left turning movement is 17 completed, it is unclear to an oncoming vehicle in the northbound 18 lane of Shamrock Road whether the vehicle will then proceed 19 straight on Shamrock Road or whether it will turn left again on 20 Ethan Allen Drive. Vehicles often stop suddenly out of confusion 21 in this area. 22 Between Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road, there is only 23 enough space for two cars to stand and wait to turn left on 24 Airport Parkway. Therefore, traffic often backs up on both Ethan Prefiled Testimony of Anne Cramer Hong June 8, 1990 Page 9 of 9 1 Allen Drive and Shamrock Road while other vehicles wait to make 2 the turn. This again creates confusion. Further, there is not 3 enough room for an 18 wheel truck to wait in that lane to turn 4 left to travel south on Airport Parkway, so the truck is forced 5 to block traffic on Shamrock Road when waiting to make this turn. 6 With so many possible turning movements, it is difficult to 7 determine the course of travel which traffic will take. The 1989 8 and 1990 accident reports contained in Exhibits N-9 and N-10 9 illustrate these circumstances and the inherent problems at the 10 intersection. EXHIBIT N-9 In the matter of: ) Application 14CO643-6 ) John and Joyce Belter ) White Rocks Point Subdivision ) AFFIDAVIT I, Karen B. McCrea, first being duly sworn upon oath, states the following: 1. That on January 30, 1990, I reviewed the records of the South Burlington Police Department pertaining to reported automobile accidents during the year 1989. 2. That the attached nine (9) documents are true and correct copies of the police reports I reviewed and that these copies were obtained from the South Burlin Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of February, 1990. C- L - Q�-a-, Notary Public t p THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. Rot TE COD( I 1 ' STATE OF*IVERNIONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATIONJXL DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A POLICE NO.. 1 10414-89-00278 L A toLNTr Tom Ncont IX+(T LOCATION NO OI AIH NO nl O(f. 1 A.O.T. NO. I - rNIOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN E I.T,uTIEs PtRAoNhly. E. L TIMI OF AC( (DENT DAY OI MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOIAN COUNTY MILE MARKER 0 0840 Sunday 01 08 1989 South Burlington Chittenden T HI(.HIA AY OR STRI IT (PRIMARY ROCTE. IF AT AN IN71 RSLCTION) Air Guard Road INTI RSFCTING HIGHWAT. STREET. ROAD. ETC. I AREA TYPE IL U Ic iReAN I It A(CIDI.%T IS NOT AT AN INTI RSICTION. HOW I AR IS 1T TO THE NEAREST HIGHIA AY. STREET. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. N, 200 IF OR MILIS E. S. W. (If' Closed Main Gate OPI RATOR LAST NAME I IRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LH LNSEI CITY OR TOW STATk P_.t• MU .Jrr. InJ.n o r.en. rtr. 4 M 5 2 5 E Wheeler Thomas 129 Buttles OPI R+TOR S LICENSE, NO. STATE 144435945 CT Rd Granbr ICT P IIron. Y L ♦RS DRI%ING LIP. IRS. Mn. 1EAR OF DRICER FD. LICENSE. RESTRICTIONS 19 81 Non p S S ) .Ithl OF (ONO CODE TI PL OF TEST (ODE P(T. CONTENTS E A 1 0 -- N 4fr E ON R 41 OR'S SOC I AL SELL RIT) NO. OPERATOR'SDATI. Of BIRTH -- 02-15-64 E O OW ♦f R'S N+NI: Same Is R t I OW ♦I R'S ADDRESS Same (I CIF (J. -- APPARENT PARTS S FHICLE DAMAGED A CIRCLE N0. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED LH. RI PAIR COST oderate OPERATOR'S LSTIMATED SPEED 30 11 2 F 1 I A I A I f X 1 L 1 __ VLH.1 D _ HOOD ( 1 NO. iGNCT18RM0111310 PLAT f.NO. 375EEJ STATE CT U ROOF TRL. RLPAIR COST -- DIRECTION OF IRA\EL INE.s.W L.I S IA TRLNK 1 1 10 " ' . 1 \IH 1R. 1y 87 \)H. MAKE ChevyS-10 MUML TYPE -Utility11 ih LNDI.R. CARRIAGE TOT Al. COST t 4..r NEH. MAKE 11 TOTAL TRL. 1 R. TR41I1 R SInKF. TR ntLLR MODEL TRAIL! R PI ATt NO. \F'HICLE REMOS'LD BY: 19 -- -- -- -- Lucia's block bl-1, COMMf: RCA. cf1""r)'T' PI FATUR i AST N nMI EIRST MIUDI. f. SUDRESS ION LK I ♦SEI CITY OR TOWN STATL P •2, 1 wk .,-, I.J. 1 op OPkR+TUR'A ll( % STATE 2 Pr.. E A N I ARS OR I\ INU LIP. 1 RS. \((I• 1 F AR (I! \ t R 1 D. LH LNSL RLSTRIC THINS c 19 S 3 from .Ithl OP. Tt PE Of TLST CODE: -T CONTLNTS E A 41. 1 nPI RATUR'S SO( IAL Sf CCRITY ♦O. DPI RATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH L E E OM ♦1 R'S NAME R b nti;I Ow ♦1 R'S AnURFSS ( )CLI CC. ♦PPARENT PARTS SEHICLE MAGED CIRCLF. NU. 6 BOX FOR EACH AREA MAGED AEH. REPAIR COS OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 1 1 1 1 2 1 A 1 S 1 Il HOOD 5 .1. ♦O. PLATE. NO. STATE 1+ ROOF TR PAIR COST DIRECTION OF IS TRUNK 1 -- A'EH. 2 D - 12 ; It i 10 ♦ '1 t 1 7 1 TR A\'EL IN E.S W-.U.I \ 1 H. 1 R. 19 \ I H. MAKE: MODEL Tl PE 1t LNDER• CARRIAGE 17 TOTAL TOTAL COST 4n. IK4 A -EH. MAKE \ 1 N (I TRL 1R, TRAILER MAKE TRAILt.R MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO _ 1'P.HICLE REMOVED BY: n1\ -' Mo,6 COMMERCIAL bi. nL MMI P E PI UI SI RIA\ NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTH DATE •t• er• rle.h rob T,.(. h,lr .wd. I.J.... .wdr w.d ,r .dr vu .ndr prl. owl. ON DAY 1R. 1NJl At (DUES I. r.W BELT CODES ♦o (0%VIT ION CODES TEST CODES (LOTH CODES MANR CODES-W HAT ►LDES. DOING II FIR(LISTIi(ODLS SE 2. Iw..p.r.pnnt .1. ♦.w In..p.r.I•Hw t A. ►o.db4 Inl•4 0. C.l we.w uE(I CODES 1. 1.., rew.p4ul7 2. N., .I..•d In .. AIr•Ir 1 /•rH.R� A L'wor..pW .. AIrM • Cwl.w.. 1. rrw.inn .vd 2. 14b .•nl.In 1. It..nrn wnl..vd J..I. Mt -1, rvd In...M. (. MI. •wd h..n.0 .. MII .nd .i. K.t 7, H..ne.. .nd •ir h.t t hH. Asrrv.I. hq ° O.M. nu.d.l It. N. n..r.IM ..II•h4 n l nlww.w I. App,n Id ns.mq l 1. Inn-"",Ilq.w A. Inn- drop I. Inn. Ilq..r t d..p t. Fwn.en.. m•dklry 1. f•.1tre .. IR A- Ph..k.l d•frrl °. O.Mr 0. Cw►rrou I. tlL.d 2. Bn•.h A. l'.Ine A. l'n►.o.w A. R.f.rd 0, J.Mr p, N.. ti... I. IT...nwn1 w runtnt . FIRM 2. 6.IAh1 T. Modena A. D..O S. L".kn 1. In rd. Ir.If4 It. /. a .wu-46. 1' • J F2. Ll .I n•.w-in.r..er. 1, On .Aldr.. ...fnr Il. IIt71wt 1. r A J. (.w ehtd,. •p1. L.f. IA. GaIMt r.en .•h S. OR rd.7..'1r.fifr It. ►r.l.bt ..hk4 t. OR rd.7. •pl. 1-1. It. W..tlr.t.w .rh44 7. 0..L&..Fk .11-1. 17• W -III.1. rw.d A. 0..Id.-III •pl. Ir.f It. •. C.e.. 4t.1 In4rr.Y. ?d. O,Ir. .w.ne.•r. 10. Crow 4td w.w.in(. °q. l'w►w..w I. Tr.w.•d W..•hk4 I. 0.. of d.l.r.y 3. FdW H )44 A A. M1r.hint DIr704 t. Drf-if...grlp. 7. \'rhk4 All ►k•r4 A, O.M. w.. w.r•n °. l'n►ns.. Form NO. TA•VA.nR In 17 AA4S K M A VEHICLE NA I VEHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD ROAD COND. TRArnc CONTROL MOTORCI'CLE INIORNIATION IMN COLLIDED WITH (D.f. Equip.( CONDITION CHARACTER (check moot oerioull (High.6) Onl)) (..k l (..I.Z ( 1-L if I.. h1.. ►•' IFlnl Action) VI V7 ..I. if . .rr Or PS O► YN 1. Prdntr{.w 1. Br.4• 1. Dp 1. Iwunn Lbw I. P.11." 1. Olfl..r h 11 % 1. MV 1. Inffk 1. Tien 1. N'.1 1. Bridle ..rr J. Froze M.." 1. 1'la Aprn.,w Nun Mimri 1. +1V.p.44 1. SI-1.2 ]. S... .1. U.A-P.0 J. Sn..drlfi ]. SI.pflphl Norr r.r u,•n pnnn J. KR tr.;■ J. F-I Bolt, J. In J. RR CronlnA J. S.fi .htdr. J. %1..p .iAn Prd.r,r4 A. R- nAM. S. M..dd) S. Drl•r.y S. C.n.1. vr. .1. C..th.n 6,f61 In1.nd Iv.d I 6. 14 lid AnIm.I 6. F.h... 1 6. SIu.h7 6. Alin 6. I1-wI.A 6. 1 Wd OKI% Inj.,rd nr. ► C7. Domntk .ni-I 7. F.21- 7, oil.. 7. R.mp off 7. Ir. rh..nk. 7, L... m.rllnA• Injured ,M•i E K. S... m..bl4 A. GI- A. L..-, A. R.mp ew A. D.bri. A. Sp.. 1.1 01.. L V. O.h.. -...bit9, OIMr V. Ilther V, O.Mr v, O.Mr j V. (Hhrc ..pe Injured 1-1. L Io. bar u rrfd In. Cnlno.w In. U.L...n 10. t'nlm..w In. V.L...■ If. N. r..mr.d Injo .d .rm ..r kA O,Arr. Non• X U. No drfnb 0. %..I .Ppli, W. 0, Nm .ppm blr u. N..I .Pplh.ht. Inj-d i...... it, - ollb( F_ 1 1 `. G-d nil �rurh ROAD TYPE IGHT CONDITION _ ROAD DESIGN _ EATHER COND.R.R. - TRAFFIC COND. O.K., in un O I 1. T- rlfuvi RM 71 DA+LLn R t Ot1t+\ 1 IJ. Pole, djn I X I. Bln ll.p I. D..■ I. UP dn.n hill 1. Cle.r 1. Orr.. \ 1fill lt S I;. Lrd`r. L,uldrr 1. Gmrl 2. DyI;AM X :. Top .d hill X 1. R.ininA 1. I I.0 n I6. Other 1. Din. imll A. D-h 1, 6.1..d hill A. Snu.inA A. C.- D 11-d .bjn'I J. C.n.rc., J. D.rk J. L-I J. J. ('n...lwrl• 17. M..prd V. O.Mr le. N,,..,rr..k 5. D.rl-Iif,h,m 0. LnL-n 5. 11.11;nA 5. i'I..h;nJ likht. T NMI. I. nln..n 0. L.L-n V. Olh., 6. Cl-d, .nl. 6. SI,.p .iron UN ♦LK'S \AVI +\U Al1IlK1 SS A. U.Ln..n ROAD ALIGN 7, Slrrlin1 1, 11.rn;nA siKn T.: RTJ Dia. frvm - - Jr PAVEMENT I POSTED 1. SIn;¢h1 4. Olhrr V. (Hhrr t. Pr --� -d c.I. ni----i 1 M I I LIMED 1. SfAM .vnr If. UnLn-A I0. \. KK .-I-IIT 1 TOTAL +YYRI t MMAlt. 1 S 1 1. Sh.rp -me fl. \,...ppli-bl, V A 1 VEH. NO. i I�wIDTH 1- K( 1'+IK I 4.l-o.n nl n _ LIST WITNESSES OTHLR THAN OCCUPANTS LAST NAME FIRST NAME r MIDDLE ADDRESS (IT) UK TUw\ "t+II - - I _ _ _ _ - - ( 1 1 1 l 1 L 1 1 S S I 1 I 1 1 I H. NO. VEH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJLRIES IUCRED TAKEN TO NHOM TAKEN BY I 1 HI A\K _ U I O l A. PRIMARY CAUSE LEAVE THIS BLOCK BL.%\K �� L IN THE OFFICtR'S OPINION MH+TF+CTORSCONTRIBU"TED ..Vehicle #1 .. ................ Driving- too fast for condition$ S 70 THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT S. OTHER CAUSES ...... ............. ......................................... ........................... ........................... E 2 Ice on Roadway T. p..,f .c.idrnl ( OL FIT ACTION YES NO LIST LAN VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. - ---- 1 rh. n.. I m.nru.rr L 1LHICLE NO.I - - t _ X rh. n. m.nru.rr (, 1 I HICLE NO. 1 Ilrl.rr ..f .-unr I j( L-- P...... d p.d. --- -- - - --- Pt DESTRIAN OR OTHER _ _ DEPARTMENT OR TROOP - - DLPT. Tl PE DEPT. CODE Of NOTI1If D Of' ACCCIDLNT III I R I R %RRIY I D 1 \( 1 ♦1 0 P.D. South Burlington 02 76 TIME MONTH DAY YEAR 0843 101 1011. %10\111 If+l I IR _ . - _ _ - _ _ 108189 901 01 08,$Q 1 I SIGNATI'RE OF THE ///'''�� INNFSTICATINGOFFICER t �r� v 1 DATE OF REPORT / / RANK 1.11. \.. Cpl. 653 C \+MIS OF ASSISTING Lr FICERS OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 1-1i ..r d f. 1 Nt lRE TAKEN !T yM......Lrw SIGNATt RE OF THE ♦PPRO%ING OFFICER I S i, DATE APPROVFDt 3. POLICE NO. 414-89-00278 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATIO.N DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A AtOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 1 SCHOOL LNTER OPLRATOR'S RESIDLNCE ADDRESS IF IT IS N AM t.S Of IN%OLA f D Pt RSONS INOT THt: SAME: AS THE OPERATOR'S LICLNSE. ADDRESS BCS TlPE II OR III IF VEHICLE %%AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOLS MATLRIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW opt RATOR NO. 1: 1 Wheeler Thomas iRR#2 Box 123 A-1 Richmond OPI R ATOR NO. 2: i 1 1 1 PI DLSTRI %N(Si (or RICI USTI I 1 1 1 R11 t R TO I A(H %I HI( U B1 NLMBt R: 'I� TYPI I CAPACITY OF' 17 OR MORE TIP.. II CAPACITI Of It. OR LLSS Air National Guard Road at the scene is a two lane north and southbound highway. The highway at the scene is on the top of a hill on a slight left hand turn. The Old Main gate to the Air Guard is approximately 200 feet to the south of this scene. The gate is now closed. The existing light condition was day light and existing weather condition was that of rain. The condition of the highway at the time of this accident was that of ice and wet D roads. E S Operator of vehicle #1(Wheeler) told me he was traveling south on Air National Guard Roa C at approximately 30 miles per hour. As Wheeler crested the hill he hit a patch of ice R and lost control of his vehicle. Wheeler then travelled to the west side of the high- way off the road and onto a grass strip approximately 30 feet. The front portion of his R vehicle came to an uncontrolled rest in the grass area facing north. This occurring L after the front portion of the Wheeler vehicle struck a small tree breaking the tree free from its trunk. T H The Wheeler vehicle a 1987 Chevrolet Blazer four wheel drive sustained moderate damage 1. to quadrents 1, 12 and 13. This included the bumper and front grill. A Investigation showed this accident occurred as operator Wheeler told me. C C In conclusion I attribute the cause of this accident on the operator of vehicle #1 (Wheeler) for driving to fast for conditions. I also contribute the secondary cause D for this accident on the icy road conditions at the time of the accident which E: inhibited safe braking. T I N D E T A 1 L No Text THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. I„ A RATE COOS I 1 ' 1 * STATE OF VERNIONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION ZrALWti DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES jua � POLICE NO.' 1 1 $ _0210 COLNTI TON%(ODE r--'- I%A(T LO(ATION1 u{ %IH No of ucc A.Q.T. NO. 1 Nil. ''�` (- POLICE REPORT OF A `1 Iq 11 OTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN AWA� 1 ATAuTtL% PLRSONIIa. L TIME OF ACCIDENT OINTIK rTu MONTH DAY %EAR CITY OR TOWN COUNTY Mllf MARhI R O c 0930 esday 02 1 21 1989 South Burlington Chitt. A T 1 HIGH%. A% OR S7911T IPRIMAB% ROLIL IF AT AN 1NTLRSLCTI04I Airport Parkway IS71 RSICTIN6 HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD. ETC. 1 AREA TI PE U 'uR : i`ne±A`I 11 AC( IDLNT IS NOT AT AN INTLR%ECTION. HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHN AT. STREET. ROAD, BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. I I t T OR MILES f N. E. S. W. ON RATOR LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LH LNSEI CITT OR TON N ST ATI P°• •t• beR •}.r In)un oP M. 3 M 1 2 5 E Sm le Bernhardt 49 Clover OPERATOR'S LK LNSE NO. STATE 20505397 VT Street So. Burl. V P I 1 t ARS DRItING LtP. 18 IRS. M(1. 1 EAR OF DRICLR ED. LI( ENSL RESTRI( TIONS 19 71 None S S 1 UP. (OND. CODE Tl PE OF TEST CODE PCT. ( 0%, LNTS E E 1 0 n/a Opt RATOR'S SOCI AL SIC LRIT% NO. OPERATOR•SDATF. O I BIRTH N t ' O1 07 54 E ON ♦F R'S NAM! R _ S b j UN NER L)RI SS %,1.%0. Vermont (Yt Lt (.(. A PPARENT PARTS % I HICLf DAM Al.1D (IRCLF NO IN BOX IOR LA( H ARI A DAM A(.1D %1H RI PAIR COST Moderate OFF RAT(1R-S I:STIM ATE D SPLED -15 i t 1 A IL S 1 t (� __ ,IH_, _ X'HOOD 1G1AP8710D16148423 PLATILO. 3D993 STATE VT U ROOF TRL. RLPAIR COST n/a DIRE( TIO\ OF 1RA%LL-N t SN It TRLNK U 1 , II to R ; %F.H. %R. Iv 83 tt H. MAhh. Chev. M0' Camaro T1Pt: 2 dr. It, lNpf R CARRIAGE „TOTAL TOTAL COST *ioderate 4..r %IM. MAKL ,,,, TRL. IR. iR AILtR MA6E TR AILI H Nft)DtL 7RAl1.tH PLATt NU. %EHICLE RlMO%'LD BY: hl. I, ,,N )q n/a n/a n/a n/a Owner bi..\ COMMF RCIAL (OMMODITI 1.._6 O P I R A T O R: I A ST NAME IIRS7 MIDDLE, AUURI. SS 10N LICl.NSLI (ITI OR TONN STATt. Pn• •te -it.,rr. in). Hackett James 20 West Canal St. #332 T%'inooski VL o, 29 M 1 21 5 UPE.RATOR'S LI(t Ul. ♦O. STATE 1 r E Q229 3 P V T •. I A R S 0RI%l Nt, t XP. 131RA %I 1I.AR 01 DRI%IR 1 D. LIC LNSE. RESTRI( TIOSN 19 73 None S 1 from „th, OP ( OND. ( ODE. 71 PF OF TE:%T ( ODE PCT. CONTt. NTS E 1 I 1 0 n/a JN t UPI RATOR S SO( IAL Sf( L R1T 1 No. OPERA rUR•S DATE 01 BIRTH Cj L E 10 1 E ON NI R'S NAME: R Hackett, James S 2 uN NF R'S ADDRESS 17 Mansfield Place Rutland, %.1.N0. (YC"LF C.C. T n/ APPARENT PARTS tEHICLE DAMAGE D CIRCLE %0. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED cEH. REPAIR COS Moderate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPttD 35 , , , I ' 1 1 ! ! A �;{ 1 ]( 1 __ ,EH. 2 D _ 1)HOOD JT4RN55R6H7010337 PLAT!♦O. 1088A STATE VT f1 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST n/a DIRECTION OF TR A%FE 0, I.S W L'.I S IS TRLNK 11 1 II 1 10 I V 1 [ i 1 1 , %f H. IR. 19 87 tF H. MAKE Toyota MODEL Truck TYPE PU Ib L'NDLR. CARRIAGE 17TOTAL TOT AL COST Moderate L..r %LH. MAKE - -- TRL. 1 R. 19 TRAILER MAKF TRAILER MODEL a TRAILER PLATE: NO n/a _ A- %Y CHICLE RLMO%ED BY: I 0 erator IAI. block bl.n\ % (OMMI RCI AL 0MM(,DjTj --"' - - P E Pt UI S1 RI♦♦ IOR SH I(LISTI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TONN STATE BIRTHDATE ON DAY 1 R. •t• clock bI\. Infu.+ .nA u.r vrl, S IN)I Ri COOLS 1. I.ul Bt LT (hUlS 1. N. ((IND1710N CODES 71.57 CODES CLOTH COOLS %IANR (ODES- N MAY Pt DLS. DOING - t. In rd.,.. L•01r 11. ly .r .nurvrrbn L.F. 7. In .d.,..g.l. 12. 1., 1. Ow •h1dr.. ..•If.r I1. PI..1nt Iw rn.d 1. I/w .hldr..[•r...•f. IA. Grnlwt ww'wR ..A S. OR rd.,.. trJflr It. ►r.hl.1 .eh44 •. OR.d.,..t.l. 1.J. 10. N'•.Aint ww •rh44 7. Ow .Id...l► . IrJ. 17. N'•r►Int Iw r..d 0. Ow qe...l► •yl. LJ IR, .•.. t. C4t.1 Inl.r.rrt. ;0. Oil_rn.nru•n 10. C.o.. kt.l nen-Inl. P0. U.\nn.w nn 81(1(LIST 11(ODI.S I. L..p..Iw1n [ !. N•..Inr •,.rlV rl^tn.I..r..d Pb 1. •.N4 In . 1. N• In).r, 1 7 0. Cn\r...w F)t(T (DUI S I. Yn, r..n,4 op 2. !. P..rl•0, A. Cw.r.gW ..h44 A l .1, . mrn:nb u.ed 2. P.I. onl• u.rd L .Ir b.t •nl, urd Inn .rM. rnl.:mq t, B.h ...d M.r..w w. B.h •nd •:r b.t 7. H.rn... .na •Fr h•t t MIL hun.n, b.t t. Orhr. mrnlwl ...II.hN 0 En\ww.w 1. A vvnnH, w..m.l ). R..n d.InNn[ !. In(Iw nrr 11tl••• A. I'll"- d.e[• t. InR. IlQuor L dnp •. InOown .w.d41n. 7. F.dtw a IR 0. Ph..h .1 drier. •. O.Mr 0. Ln►w..w 1. Hb.d 2. Bn.th 1. l'.Iwe A. L'n\wo.w R. Refuvd O. ,pMr o. Nnr tbrw I. 1'lunnw.nr wr +•n Int • h[M 2. rRrlthl 1. Mr.drn4 A. D..h 0, l'w\nw.w 1. 7u...d W. .rh:r4 1 !. F.IW r..4N 1. L•.r b•hwn t. ►..hlnt b1, L. b, Drfwll.e pulp. 7• %. h44 hh b4.r1, R. OIMr m.rvr•.r 0. t'w\..u.w Form No. TA-VA-OB 10 87 38Id KMA Y COLLIDED EHICLE NO. 1 WITH VEHICLE COND. (Drf. Equip.) SURFACE CONDITION ROAD CHARACTER ROAD COND. (rher•h moot Stational TRAFFIC CONTROL IHI`h.aa Onl)l MOTORM LE INFORMATION 11N11 St. 41 (p1,2 11-L.11'.-M..►. innlAction) VI V2 O► PS or PS 1. PrdnW.w 1. Bnln 1. Dr) 1. Inur.e.-Ih.w 1. Po1h.k. I. Offl er I. 11♦ N-oar he1me1 �( 2. MV 1. ,.tnc 2. Tian ){ 2. w.I 1. Brtda..,rr 2. 1'r..1 hen'. 2. 1'6w-o 3. MV y.rlyd a. RR inlw 3. Stnr{na I. Frv,n Sight. 3. Sno. 4. In J. Vndrrp... 6. RR C-1-1 3. Sno.drih A. Sots .hldr. 3. Slopliahl a. Slop .Ian N.rr r;r prvlr. ,l.w (. P.d.grk S. It- Sight. t. M.ddl 5. Drhr..7 S. C-1..nw X S. C.m{on Haw InJured heal s7. 6. N'ild Anlm.l Domntlr ..I.A 6. E.h.u.t 7. Enalnr 6. SIu.h7 7. 011) 6. A1k7 T. R.mP off 6. I'k"Inj 7. 1,,r h-Lit 6. Ykld .Ian 7. L.- m.,lina. I.J.rrd Sink I.J... d ,1 .1 E A. S-w bll. A. Gt... A. Le.,n 0. R.mp ow A. Drbr(. A. Spaid.Ian. Inju.rd b.,► L L 9. Other ..ble obj.rl 111. O.rrlurnrd 9. Other In. Cnlnu.n 9. Olhrr 10. U,,Ln..n 9. Other Vno. 10. nLn 9. Other in. LI.Ln..n 9. OIhe, I,P. 0. No r.mn.l Injurrd um m'•a IL Other. Si... 0. N. d,fn t. 0. Not .pplh-.bt. 0. N.1 .pplk.bt, 0. Vol .Ppli-ble Injurrd {ntrrn.lb '� E U rolli.{on r.n-1,_ c...e . I1. Tart 14. P..k. .Ian -- ROA6 TT P_ 1. Bbr►..p IGH�C0_RUI 16PT 1. D..n ROAD DESIGN X I. LIP do.n hill _ _ EA-'HEIi t bF" . 1. Cku .R TRAFFIC COND. 1. Offl. rr (/that in.n r'RU PI RTI DANI AGt. Oilll R TIIA\ t'L SINGLE S IS. Ledg, b,.uldrr, 2. Gr-I X 2. D.,liahl 2. Top of hill X 2. R.Wrog 2. Il.aprnu. 1b. Other .3. Dirt. train 3. Dw► 1. &.1..d hill 3. Sno. i.,a 3. D T A Fi.rd ,bjn-I 17. Moprd tA. Motun;.rk tq. L'nLno.n 2. Conrrrtr Other 0. UtILn.- A. D.rl N. D.r►light.-d 9. Other o. cnln..n 2. I�.rl 0. Cnln..n _ -kOAD ALIG?l- - 2. Fna&, S. Hallina 6. Cl..ud, .nil 7. skrnna 4. Croteb.rl. S. 1'(uhina Gahu 6. Slop Ian 7. N..nina.ian ON \t R'S NANt1 ,%I) 1,DDkI SS Dim fromL mwd CA. to fl.rd�bjrrl 1VEH.NO.I -r -- PAt EMENT N' -• -- IPOSTED (SPEED LIMIT 1 �- 1. Str.iahl 2. Silahl , r.r X 3. Sh..p r.nr 0.Lnln..n 4. Other 0. UnLno.n X V. Othrr n P•' to. V. RR r nt .4 11Nol .ppli,bk AIDTH AIPRO\(MAT►.QTOTAL Rk.YAI, j Jn/a COSTS I N-1_TVE_SSE_S OTHER THAN OCCLPAVTS_ _ _ LAST NAME i FIRST NAME j MIDDLE ADDRESS (IT) OR TON \ I 1 1 1 1 T E I s- s E S I I '--- I -- ---- •--' i 11 i 11 1 - ---- 2--- -- 1 1 ---------- - ---- -' - - 1 1 t EH. NO. VEH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES INJURED TAKEN TO 'A HOM TAKEN BY LI At 1 HLAN1, Rf tit l 1 11(ri P. ID- n a-- S- - --- - P 0 F- - - ------ -- NI J C L s IN THE OFFICER'S OPINION N HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT A. PRIMARY CAUSE O ��2 . .................. •--••-• P-•'• -- B. OTHER CAUSES Failure to laid J ............................... o.............................................................................................. LEAVE THIS BLOCK HLA%K / ..r ..f ... IJr.,t E T,p, .d -id Col. SIT ACTION_ YES- - �O -_------ _ _ - LIST LAN_L_IOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. _- - _ - t,h. n.. I menu rr -- L E t EHICLE NO. 1 X t.h. n. m.nru,rr C\ a LHICLE NO. 2 --- -- _ -`----- ------- - -' - - _- --_ U,arn .J runt L - - X - PEDESTRIAN ' Sl.d .r, {dam ..dr OR OTHER --i DEPARTMENT OR TROOP DEPT. TYPE DEPT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT III 11( 1 R tRRlt 11) AI N( I \I 0 PD South Burlington- 2 76 TIME MONTH DAY 1 0933 1 021211 H It I tI OM MO\111 Ht III t 02 2� 8§ F F - 1 SIGNATURE OF THE - !/L ^ 1\IESTIGATINGOFFICER DATE OF REPORT 02/27/89 RANI( Ptl. 1.11. ♦� 648 OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 1 WERE TAKEN BY 1 Im1l.t, 11 yh.o.. „l.w ___ 11 1r. 1 ♦ ♦. ; N C E R---- NAMES OF ASSISTING OFFICERS - I- - I - ----'----------- S IGN4TL RE OF THE 1 . APPROY'ING OFFICER I .� ' G DATE APPROYEDr i 7 J -3- POLICE NO. 89-02109 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF !MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, 11 plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL I EVTER OPERATOR'S RESIDLVCE ADDRESS IF 17 IS %ANES OF IVAOL\-FD PI RSON'S 1 VOT THE SANE AS THE OPERATOR'S LICLVSE ADDRESS BL'S Tl PE 11 OR III IF VEHICLE Al-A5 TRAVSPORTIVG A HAZARDOLS MATERIAL. (.ICE VANE OF MATERIAL BELOW ON RATOR %0. 1: 1 Smyle, Bernhardt OPLRATOR %0. 7: 1 Hackett, James 1 17 Mansfield Place, Rutland VT PFDLSTRIAV(SI Ior BICILIST) I t t RI FIR TO EACH %I. HICLF BI VLAIBI: R: '/� TIPF I —CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TI PE II CAPACITIOF 1E OR LLSS This accident occurred at the intersection of Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road. At the time of the accident the roadway was wet and the weather was raining. There were no injuries. The intersection is controlled by flashing signals. For traffic travelling in a northeasterly direction the intersection is controlled by a flashing yellow caution light. Traffic travelling in a southerly direction is also controlled by a flashing D yellow caution light. See diagram. E S Before my arrival both vehicles had been removed from the roadway. Operator #I(Smyle) C identified himself with a valid Vermont driver's license as Bernhardt Smyle, DOB: R 01/07/54. Operator #2(Hackett)identified himself with a valid Vermont license as I James Hackett, DOB: 10/14/59. B E Operator #1(Smyle)said he was coming down Airport Parkway at approximately 25 miles per hour. He said that he saw the vehicle southbound and wasn't sure it was going to T stop at the intersection. When he realized that vehicle I' i2(Hackett)wasn't going to H stop he applied his brakes. Smyle said that he tried to avoid the accident by moving E to the left, but collision occurred. He said when the vehicles collided he was on the brakes. _ C Operator #2(Hackett)told me he was southbound on Airport Parkway travelling at approximately 35 miles per hour. He told me that he was not from this area and was I unfamiliar with the intersection. He told me he saw vehicle #I (Smyle)coming down the D hill, but thought he could still make it through the intersection. He told me while E in the intersection vehicle #1(Smyle)struck his vehicle in the right rear quarter panel T Investigation reveals that this accident occurred as stated by both operators. It is my opinion that this accident occurred due to operator #2(Hackett)'s failure to yield at an intersection. I recommend no court action. D E T A 1 L ddp Mao Symbols = traffic light with flashing yellow light A ` = traffic light c with flashing C red light 1 D e N T S C E H E D 1 A C R / A M Ai Parkway 1{�r6 ji Airport Parkway 4 A a 1A -- Not drawn to scale. No measurements were taken. A, 119 Ethan \ Allen Drive Shamrock Rd. o . THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. B ROL7t CODt I I 1 1 Dt IAA(It L STATE OF VERINIONT POLICE NO.' ri AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 1 1 89-02647 CATION t tAtT tnc,noN ()Ul Af H N0 Dl uff. _ A.U.T• NO. 1 N ` POLICE REPORT OF A ' VEHICLE ACCIDEN 1 IATAuTILS FIRSONSINI. tNIOTOR L TIME OF ACCIDENT D41 Of %[IK MONTH DAY 1EAR CITY OR TOWN COCNTY MillMARhtR 0 0800 Monday 03 06 South Burlington 1(,69 Chitt. HIGHw A] OR Si R! tT 1PRIM ARt R(rl'7 F. II AT AV INTI RSI-I TIO-41 IN71 RS1 CTING HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD. ETC. I AREA T) PE T Airport Parkway Shamrock Road it 1 U - LRBASI It ACCIDLNT IS NOT AT AN INTIRSt CTIUN. HOAA FAR IS IT TO TILE NEAREST 11IGHw AY. STRI LT. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. LTC. I I I T OR MILES N. E. S.• W. Of OFI RATOR. LAST N ANTE FIRST MIDDLE A DDRLSS ION LI( LNSE1 CIOR TO%N $T- I Po•- •V b.lt rJr„ b)rr. Niblett Sarah YoungBox 211 WATaterbur Ct V1 24 F 5 2 5 OFLR470R'S LTC LNSE %0. STATE E 80678586 VT P A. 1 F AR$ DRIA7 N6 C`%P. 1 EAR OF DRIA Lfl ED. LI( LNSI RESTRICTIONS 1 I C S 1 RS. M0. 19 None S UP (OND CODE r,en, rlthl TI PE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E E -OPT R ATOR'S SOCIAL SL CL'RIT1 NO. 4h A . OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH ' 05 03 64 E Ow NIR'SNAlit R Niblett Sarah Young S e ^•' .ith. Ow Nt R'S ADDRl SS III Lf (.(. APPARENT PARTS A F HIC Lf DAM A(JD AI-. H. Kt PAIR COST 1 Waterbury Center Vermont n/a CIRCLE NO. IN BO\ IOR EACH AREA DAM A(,!0 OPF RA7OR-S Extensive 1.1 TIM ATt D SPEt D 15 1.1. NO. PLATE NO. STATF: 1 , I 7 ! 1 t . 1 It A 1 Il HOOD Il ROOF TRL. RLFAIR COST n/a DIRT (TION OF TR ♦S EL,S.t Sw l., S 1G4A527P7EK73530 4U614 VT -- •t:H.l O _ IS TRL NK tt H.1R. tf H. MAAt MIDIL TIT PE IT, LND1R TUT AL COST 14 84 Buick Skyhawk 2 dr. I: 1 II 1 10 1 V I A I- x l x I I 1 , CARRIAGt i7 TOTAL Extensive 1'.•. tLlf. MARE TRL. 1R. TR ULIR MAAt. TR AIL!R M(IDLL IR%II I R PLATt NO. I EHICLL REMOc 1 D 81": hb 11 , 1 \SN bbrl COMMERCIAL 19n a n a n a n/a Autoworks OPT RAl OR: I AS7 NAMt I IRST MIDDLE. 1DORI. SS ON LI( ISSE, CIT1 OR TOwv STATE h;.nl (OMMODIT1 P°• •tr -11 ':n -J.- Young Kevin J. Box 223 RD 1 Jeffersonvil eV op 9 M 1 2 5 OPIRA70R'S LICI.NSt. NO. STATk: I 11058981 VT :• 1 E 1 f A R S UR II I N G f P. 1 LAR Ot DRIA f R I D. LICL\St Rf.STRI(TIO%S 1 E IRS. %I(! ICI 74 None S th, I OP 1 UNO ( OOF. T) PE Of I I.ST ( Opt: P( T. ( ONTt. NTS E 4 1 0 4i I OPT R ATOR'S SO( IAL St ( L RIT) NO. OPT RA FOR'S DATE Of BIRTH G C L 224 02 0302 03 10 59 E pw N) R'S NAME E R Don Vac Incorporated S;•F t Ow♦FR•$ ADDRLSS C14711 C.(. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED SEH. REPAIR COS Box 513 Williston, Vermont n/a CIRCLE NU. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGF.n Moderate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED S .I. NO. PLATE NO. , I 1 2! 7 d 5 1 e „Hoop 15 1GDHC34MXFV503308 G9948 57,7E VT I. ROOF TRL REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF 1l TRCNK 2 A f H. 1 R. A 1 H. MAAF __ AEH. 2 D - n/a TRAAFL IN L.S W C.1 N MUDt.L TYPE le UNDIR TOTAL COST 19 85 GMC Truck Stake 12 i II ; 10 i V 1 , I CARRIAGE x` 17TDTAL Moderate 1..r S'l H. MAAF. T PL. 1R. TRAIL[R MAKE TRAILI R MOD1L TRAILI R PLATE. ;O _ SEHICLE RLMOt'tD BY: 11 ASN ---� 1OM'11 RC1AL 19 n a n/a n/a n/a bled bl.nl OMM 1 � P ►I UI ST RLAN IOR BI(1CLIST, NAME AUDR[$S CITI OR TOw `( STATE BIRTHRATE rb,h T.w1r Mlr InJrn wnA '.rdr ..1 prl. EON DAY 1 R. •tr redr rod. ,Mr rr.dr ronl. FF 1Vl Rt CODES 1. F.ul SLITCM fLS 1. No n.l..lnO CONDITION (ODES TEST COOLS CLOTH CODESBITNANR. (ODES -WHAT PtD[S. DOING B1( LIST wwl ,(00E1 7. Im .p.rluawt rvd I. Mlt nwl, r..d 1. A PP•n n,lJ ne.m.l 7. M. drin►tnl tllr.rd 1. lir.rnr.nl « 1. In .dry.. ,r.ftlt It. 1.. •1 rnu rr..,bn 1. T.r...d Iw,..rhk4 C!. ♦en.tnr. P•r1uD^• 1. H..nrn nni. rvd Z Innwnrr Kgrer T. 2. fl-h 1. bt. U•M 2. 1. .dry. .pt. ,..1. 2. 0.1 sf �. Irw.lb4 I.J•v ! N. 1.)., n . J '7 J d, h• h rvd Inw .0- t nn d. 1.11- drr . t Lrinr d. l'nlnn.. 2 B.Itht 1. %%.&-1, 1. On .hid'.. ,..IF. L1. Pb.lnt t. ,w•d 1. 0- Kld,, •t•t. �••f. !. TO" 1. 141d 0. l'M we.. n.l,dnul A. P.I. .wd Aunr.. S. InO. R tl°« !t dr.p •. a ,w.d41n. A. R,fr.rd �. DvY le. GrHiw nR •,A t en, S. OR rd.,.. t..If1r IS. ►r.hbt •rhtr4 �. L••1 bd.nre t. ►..hl.t bl • 1. [JE("T fODfi h. fAh .nd •I, Mt '. r.,tg_ 7, F1,Itrr « IN n. •. ,hMr N. ti•.n �. L'n►- •. OR rd.J..rl, tr.J. 1•. 1A'eA[., w..rAkM 1. O..Idr..I► rtrJ. 17. We,ibt Iw e. 0.L.tl.• 1 Wr /• H..n,n .nd .h Mt A. i defrM rn.d •. On .IM.•It .t.t. rd IR. 7. A.A(r4 hi. hl- I. S 1. 1.., re. pt. t.l, A O./1. A.. n..r. Mt O1Mr m1.dn1 O.T- • L.& 0. Cnl,.... •. Cr {rt.1 I.w-l. III.O,h., rn. n.r•rr A. 01M, w..,vr•.r •. 7. v. m.rd M .rbM4 10. Ne n.1..;m 10. Cn°.. 64•1 wen-Inl. (p, ('n►ww.n 3 P.r,1.11, d_ L wer,•phd •r Ah4 ••.II.h4 • L-M wo.n 0. l'nlwn.. Form No. TA-VA-08 10. 87 48.4 KMA ♦'EHICL'E COLLIDED NO. I WITH VEHICLE COND. 113rf. Equip.) SURFACE CONDITION ROAD ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL %IOTORCI'( LF. INFOR.%I,,TION O%LI '1 CHARACTER (check Ino.f.rrfout) IHifh.y On1J) (n41 O.42 (hn\u1f1.+�IJu It IFinl Action) • VS f. Prdnlri.n 1. Bnln 1. Dq X 1. Inkr.rrlb9 x 1. ►.thokt I. Offk'r un17 tl u...9 b T 1 ♦ UP PS UP PS 2. M►' in Ird(k 2. Tint 2. N'd 2. Brldgr o•n 2. r-i Mnn 2. ILgprnun .1. MVP -LA 3. SttrrinB X J. S... 1. L•ndrrP- 3. Sno.drifl 3. Sinpllghl Nun MIwwI J. RR uJn (. front Ilghn J. Ice J. RR C-I.g J. WI .htdr. J. Ship .ign N .re r.r Prvir.Ik.w S. Prd.nrk S. It- lights S. Muddy S. DA.r..7 S. C-1. ► 8 S• flotiuw light InJ-d M.d S6. N lid Antr...l 6. E.h.u•1 6. Sl.r•h7 6. AItr7 6. Iluoding 6. )'kid .ign I.J...d -L C 7. D.-Ik .wim.l 7, L'nglnr 7. 011) 7. Ramp off 7. err rh.nk. 7. L.- m.rLlop E 6. Snu. mobil. J. G6.6 g. Lr.. rt B. R.mP .n R. Drbr4 B. SPrrl.1 .IR.. I.Jund L 9. O.Mr --b4 9. Other 9. Olt, 9. Oihet 9. Olh- 9. Ulha hpe Injured h..► L n6Jrr1 In. o•raa.nre ln. Cnlnarn lo. on►n...n )o. t•n►nr..n t lo. unlnu.n o. N. r..ntr.d Injured .rm .r kg .a 11 O.h- Nun• 0. Nn drfn n X 0. %..1 .pplk.bt. 0. Not .ppli-ble 0. %.1 .Ppll,.h4 Inju.r•d ;nir. ti rulk•lon n.lh E 12. G-d .It. curb ROAbTYP IGH� fbtiDfllbNT ROAD DESIGN EAT-N ER Z�115. - TRAFFIC COND• Ihhrr;.- reurt Hn DAN1A(I UT111 N 111♦♦ 0 t�. Tarr .If L' U. Pu4, •ign 1. B4clwp 1. D..n 1. UP d..n hill 1. Ck.r I. Offerer t E111( Lt. $ IS. Lrdgr, bwldrr 2. Gnarl J{ 2. D..Oght 2. T.•p u1 hill 2. R.W.It 2. Il.r n.epn It. Other .1 . Dirt. trail 1o• . Dk 1, BN .. of hill .1. Snaring D Fi.rd u6jrrt 17. Muprd J. Cumair J. Dark J. 4•rl J. V.KK' J. Cra..hu.►. f enc e AI6. T Nf oiun.rk 'I. Other S. D.r►•iightrd 0, t'nlnvrn S. ILIh^g S. I'la.hing Iight. iMl, l'nl nn.n 0. Cnlna•n 9. Other _ _ 6. Cluudt unl) 6. SI..p .ign OS(♦t R'S %%MI. ANTI AUUHI NS .� 0. Cnlno.n {LOAD ALIGN 7. S{rr Ung 7. Warning .ign T." RT.I Dtsl from j PAVEMENT I POSTED 1. Stnighl 9. Other 9. Utbrr, ..Pr Unknown I rad r.I. to n/a1 N' I SPEED 2. Slight rur.r n.rd�bj-t ' LIMIT 0. Unlnn•n 10. Nu RR r...trd n/al 1 TOTAL MIDTH APPNOX)MATI. RIPAIN 1 S'EN. N0. 1 1 I 3. Sharp rune 11. Nut •ppik.hk X n .-- 0.('nlnn.n 1 („NT, 1 50.00 _ _ LIST NITNESSES OTHER THAN OCCUPANTS - --FIRST _ _ LAST.\AE--- 1 MNAME - ---MIDDLE_ ----_ _ . - ADDRESS i ITT UH TOWN - T Bombard (David ----- -- 429 S. Prospect Street Burlington, VT T- 1 ----+---- I E ; $ $ - - - --- - E S-- i -- ----- i %LH. SO. SEH. POS. _- - - APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES INJURED TAKEN TO wMOM TAKEN BY I nlI Hl ANK H(I�P. D It) M I I I - l.- Sore shoulder --- -- refused medical t ,eatment $ P O J C A. PRIMARY CAUSE LE.% E THIS BLOCK BLANK L H TFACTO FACTORS CAUSE CONTRIBUTED -.OTH.... .............................. �7 extremel hazardous ................................Y........_......................._................. TO E TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT B. OTHER CAUSES ........................... 1.u. of .r. Ideal E T. p• ul -idrnt COL RT ACTION TES NO LIST LANVIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. - L 1 EHICLE SO. 1 _ E _ _ x T rh. nw.. m.nru.rr '--- ------ - -- - -------- --.... -- - . - . Urg.n rf rur.r � 1 ENICLE NO. 2 L - -- x - PEDESTRIASI , OR OTHER Sl.d .r. id. nr ..dr _TYPE DEFT. CODE - - DEPARTMENT OR TRO40n� OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT OI 111 1 M 1NN11111 AI NI 1 ♦1 PD South Burlin t 82�76 TIMM N M O Y T'E R F1 Mu I U. I.o �0800 �0� b� 0� 1L 0� b�9 SIGNATURE OF THE � INS ESTIGATING OFFICER DATE Of REPORT RANKF 1 -------- --</ 03/06/89 Ptl. 664 OF ASSISTINGOFFICIAL OFFICERf PHOTOS I 1NAMES E - -- ERE TAKEN BY I ' n a DATE APPROVED, - SIGMA TURE OF THE APPROVING Of FICLR I -___.T--. ► Tr. 1 N '3- POLICE NO. 89-02647 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A ,ti90TOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT I SCHOOL I L%TER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS NAMES OF IN%bLVED PERSONS I NOT THE SAME AS THE OPI-RATOR-S LICF.NSE ADDRESS BUS Tl PE II OR III IF VEHICLE N AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, GIVE NAME OF M�TERtAI BELOW ON RATOR N0. 1: Niblett, Sarah Youngi OPLRATOR NO. 2: 1 Young, Kevin J. I PF DLSTRI A\151 to, RICI USTI i I 1 RFFI.R TO LA(CH %EHICLF. BY NUMBI R: TYPE. I-CAPACITI OF 17 OR MORE: Tl Pt. II CAPACITI OF IA OR LLSS On 03/06/89 at approximately 0800 hours I was dispatched to Airport Parkway and Shamroc Road for a minor accident. Upon my arrival vehicle #1(Niglett), a 1984 Buick Skyhawk bearing Vermont registration 4V614, was sitting across Airport Parkway sideways facing east. Vehicle #2(Young), a 1985 GMC truck stakebed bearing Vermont truck registration G9948, was off the road sitting on top of a wire fence facing northwest. D E Operator #1(Niglett)identified herself with a valid Vermont operator's license as S Sarah Young Niblett of Box 211, Waterbury Center, Vermont. Operator #2(Young) C identified himself as Kevin J. Young of Box 223 RD 1, Jeffersonville, Vermont with a R valid Vermont operator's license. I R Operator #1(Niblett)stated she was southbound on Airport Parkway and was going L approximately 15 miles per hour and she pressed her brakes and the car would not stop. Operator #'1(Niblett)stated she wanted to go straight and must have slid on the ice T because she was unable to stop and slid into vehicle #2(Young), who tried to avoid her. H E Operator #2(Young)stated he was northbound going approximately 15 miles per hour when he observed vehicle #1(Niblett)who he thinks was trying to make a left hand turn. A Operator #2(Young)observed her slide so he attempted to get out of the way and she C struck him. C i Witness #1(Bombard)was sitting at the intersection, was identified as David Bombard D of 429 South Prospect Street in Burlington, Vermont. Witness #1 (Bombard) stated E neither vehicle appeared to be travelling at a high rate of speed due to the road conditions and vehicle #1(Niblett)appeared to lock up her brakes. Vehicle #2(Young) T attempted to avoid vehicle #1(Niblett)by swinging wide, but was struck by vehicle #1 (Niblett). I v Damage to vehicle #1(Niblett)was extensive to the driver's side front cowling, hood and fender. Damage to vehicle #2(Young)was moderate to the wheels and axle, which D was damage. A wire fence and post was also damaged. TOperator #1(Niblett)stated she was not hurt, but her shoulder was sore. Operator fit 1 (Niblett)refused any medical attention. I L Vehicle #1(Niblett)was removed by the Autoworks. Vehicle #2(Young)was removed by Charlebois. Investigation revealed that vehicle #1(Niblett)was travelling southbound at approximate 15 miles per hour when she was attempting to make a left hand turn and she pressed on her brakes and they locked up and she slid. Vehicle #2(Young)was travelling northbound -3- POLICE NO. 89-02647 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANS PORTATIO!! DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES -- and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL NAMES OF 1SCOLS ED PERSONS ESTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS !SOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS BUS TYPE .1OR Ili IF VEHICLE R AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPI RATOR NO. 1: I Niblett Sarah Young OPI.RATOR NO. 1: I Young, Kevin J. PI DESTRIA\1S1 for BICI"LISTI I 1 1 REFER TO LA(H VEHICLE BI S'L'N18I-R: F� T)PE 1-CAPACITY OF 0 OR MORE TI P1 II - CAPACITY OF In OR LESS (page 2) on Airport Parkway and was travelling at approximately 15 miles per hour when he observed vehicle If1(Niblett)slide and he attempted to avoid her by taking a wide corner and vehicle 4f1(Niblett)struck vehicle #2(Young). The road conditions at the time of the accident were snow covered with ice beneath. D E S C R 1 B E T fi E A C C 1 D E 1 T i D E T A I L ddp No Text THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. rilova CODE 1 , 1 51 .1- STATE OF VERMONT 19 AGENCY OF TRA%SPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Jai POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN 1 POLICE NO. I 89-04226 L IOfNTY TOWN CODE A I%A(T LOCATION N NO of %IH NO orOCC A.O.T. NO. I I ATALITI(S ►I RSONS INI. L 0 TIME Of ACCIDENT 1200 DAY Of %AEIK Saturday MONTH DAY YEAR 04 1 1511989 CITY OR TOIAN South Burlington COUNTY MILE MARKLR Chitt. AHIGH% T -AY OR STREET (PRIMARY ROUTE If AT AN 147ERSECTION) Airport ParkwayU INTERSECTING HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD, ETC. 1 AREA TIPE (R • RLRAL 'u 1r ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, NON FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGH%%AY, STREET, ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. rcET ON 1/8th MILES ILXXXKXXSX W. of Ethan Allen Drive UPE RATOR. LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS i 0% LIC LNSEI CITY OR 7U%%N ST A7 ►•• r)_. r(2 u. 2 F 5 21 5 E Little Heidi M. I RR 1 Box 334 Huntin ton VT OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE 30706196 VT P I I (EARS DRI%ING EXP. IEAR Of DRI%'ER ED. LICENSL RESTRICTIONS S 1 'IS. MO. 19 82 1/ 1 S 3 r11h1 UP.COND.CODE TY PE OF TEST CODE PCT.CONTENTS IE 1 E 1 0 n/a OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECLRITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATF OF BIRTH w; 008 62 2795 08 10 65 E O%ANI R'S NAME }Z / Little, Bruce M. s e r I UM NER'S ADDRESS Huntington, Vermont %1 NO. PLATE NO. CYCLE C.C. n/a APPARENT PARTS %EHICLE DAMAGED %'EH. CIRCLE N0. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED RLPAIR COST OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 30 1 1 , X X ( J 1 S 1 IJ HOOD .1. 1G8CT18B3E0102426 4G183 STATE VT , E ( -- % EH. I D - 11 ROOF TRL. IS TRUNK REPAIR COST n/a DIRECTION OF TR AA EL IN I,S%A V.1 W %EH. 1R. vEH. MARL MODEL TYPE 16 UNDI R. TOTAL COST IQ 84 Chev. Blazer SW 12 I II j 10 1 • j 1 1 1 ( 1 1 I j C4RRtAGE k..r h,, %-EH. MAKE II TOTAL ,,, tl(N♦ TRL. 1 R. TRAILER MARL TRAILLR MODEL TRAILI R PLATE NO. %'EHICLE REMO%"ED BY: bloc► COMMERCIA 19 bl..1 COMMODITY UPI RA70R LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE A DDRLSS,ON LICLNSEI OR TOWN STATE I- I p I I I. I ]CITY OPERA]OR'S LICENSE NO. STATE P r.«rl A rlr. V E 1 EARSURI%I%(,L%P. 1 RS. MO. I EAR Of DRI% E R ED. LI(ENSL RESTRICTIONS 19 S J f.o.l r11M } OF (UND. ( ODE Tl PE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E A I 46 OPERATOR'S SOCIAL $E I'RITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH C, L E o%%.ER S NAME E R e U%ANFR'S ADDRESS CICLf. C.C. APPARENT PARTS %'EHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED %"EH. REPAIR COS OPERATOR'S 1 1 11 HOOD ESTIMATED SPEED %.1. %0• PLATE N0. Tu STATE 1 t l l; a 1 S e DIRECTION OF ROOF TOIL. REPAIR COST IS TRUNK 1 -- AEH. 3 D - TRAVEL rN E.S.M. V,1 %EH. IR. YEH. MALE MODEL TYPE it CNDER• TOTAL COST 12 ; II ; Of • ' 1 7 L� CARRIAGE IT TOTAL 19 4.r Ih4 YEH. MARE %EH (LA%% TRL. 1R. 19 TRAILER MARE TRAILLR MODEL TRAILLR PLATE NO _ %'EHICLE REMO%'ED BY, bbr\ COMMCRCIAL bl..% COMMODITI P ►1 VLSTRIAN IOR 81(ICLISTI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN! STATE BI RTHDATE ON DAY YR. ••• r4lh r.M .wr T„dr 6.1r redr I.1.- r.dr r d. rwM rrd. .nl. INILRY CODES 1. r.w BELT COOLS 1. N. (UNDITION CODES TEST (ODES CLOTH (ODES MANIC. CUDLS-%vHAT ►EDES. DOING BICYCLIST -I (DOLS E S 2. iw..p.r lr.Hw1 J. Ne. Inc q.rll./lwt •. Pw1641n. ( Ne In r 7 7 •. Cw1.e.w EJECT CODES 1. Yr., rew.,L.rl, 3. N.. .(rood I... Ak4 1. ►..r1.R, A44 • t'w1.e n .IM..vd 2. IS". ..I, .-a !. H..wru ..1� ..wd �. elr b.1 .w11 rood In ..h., S. B.11 •.d M.nne e. Mh .nd dr bq T. N..rrn ..d ❑. M! A. 14k, h.rwr.., b•R ! O.Mr ouni.l 1•. N. rr.r..inl yR.b4 A. l'wlww.w 1. App.-mll r.er.w 1 3. B..w dr(n►Iw ]. Inp.r rnv K l g.- •. Inflr..r dnle 1.0. Ilper a d-p e. Inff..wn rn.dklne 1. r1H 1•• a. 10 •. Ph..k.i drf.rl •. O.hrr •. L'n►...w 1. ""A 1. Rn..h Y. Urlw. e, L'n►we.w A. R.F.»d •. J.Mr w. NM 16rw I. FI.. _., a n.q lnl . IyM 2. Br11hl ], Mrdrnl. d. O..I< •. L'w►we.w 1. Iw rd. Ir.Ir4 11. 1. 1 .wvrvr ll.w 1. • , 3. lw .d.l. q.l. InJ. 1]. )q .1 wow lwwr.er 1. O. .hid,.. .-in, 13. P411w1 I. .«d J. Ow .Aida .1•I. ".1. 14. Gntlw1 r eff .rA S. Off rd.l..'1-tr4 1%. ►..M.1 ..hk4 •. Off 4"..C.I. Irw1. le. W.r►Iw1 .w .. hlrl. Y. Ow .1d...1► .'IrJ. It. WMIw1 Iw rood •. O. .L&..Ik .1.I. Ir.( 1•. •. C_ 41.I Iw4nw.i. ». Dlh.r w..rw.rr 1•. C_ 41d w.w.IM. �, L'w►r...w 1. Twr...4 IM..rhk4 2. 0.1 ]. rh1W 1. 11rN A. Lwl b.bwrr (, ►r.hiq b1r,rle e. D.f.rll.r 1 't• R' 1. %'rAk4 MI bk,r4 A. OIM..n.rrr•rr •. L'w►we.w Forwe No. TA.VA.nR IthIA7 ddM KM♦ I EHICLE NO. I I VEHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD COLLIDLD %ITH IDef. Equlp.l CONDITION CHARACTER I1"7n1 Ardoni I. Prdrur4w 1. Xnl„ X 1. Dn :• Imrnnlh.w _, Ml in v.ffw 2. Tien 2. µ"rl 2. Xrldl, n,rr 1. Ml' p.r►rd .1. S,... l.t A. Sn..w 1. U.dr.p.., J. RR ,,.iw 1. Iron, Gth„ J. Le J. RR C.....Int �i ---yyy t Prd.-tr S, Rr•r I;Ah" (, Studd) S---t A. Mild AnimJ A. 11hmN A. AIu.hJ A. A147 C 7. D,.mr.lir .nim.l 7. I ntin 7.011. 7. R.MP uft F,. A. Snoo m„Lilr A. W... A. I... r, A. R.mp ow L V 0.1- mm.hk V. 01h., Y. O,hr, Y. O,h., L III. Ihn1„rn,d In. (nl n,..n 1/1. t nlnu.n Ill. t nlru,.n _1 11. 0,hrr. \„n. X 11. ♦., d,f„I, u. \„, .Ppli-bl, X U. \.., .Ppti,.I,I, 1 E %{ ,..Ili ion 1I ROAD TYPE LIGHT CONDITION - -ROAD DESIGN O I1. Trrr L IJ. P.4. 0L. I 1. XI., I,..p I. D.ro 1. VP d...n hill 1 ,A. t,dtr. Ir..uldrr 1. br.-1 1. D..Ii h e 1 2. T•.p ,d hill Ih. 00- i. D;r1. ,,.il _X 1. Ou.► 1, µ., .( hill p ri.rl.,hje, 17. M..yrd 1. r,.n, r.,r - J. n..► 1. l�,rl I#. M..�orr.,4 'I Oihrr _ 1, D.rl-lith-1 it. T l nln.,.n n. LnLnu.n Y. O,h,r o. t nln...„ ROAD ALIGN T.; RTJ� ro.,d f- 22 ° PAV LMLNT I POSTI D I. Slr. itM -- - 1 D.rd uhJerl 1 "1DT ISPt:I.D 1 LIMIT X 1. Slith, rune TOTAL 35 1 .1. Ch..y rune 1 IAt. H. N0.1 122T WIDTH r_ - _LASTNAME LIST M17\LSSI S OTHI R T11 AN U(f l P A\TS 1 fIRS7 NASIE _---------'----- MIDDLE 11 I n/a 1 ' 1 T 1 1 5 S F- S - - ROADCOND. TRAFFIC CONTROL %jOTORCICLt. I*I11RN11T10%u\II (check most serious) IHlahrtq Onlll -- I.,LI t..42 (An►off ..•bh.l. ..nl. i1 .n.... I. Pu,M.ln 1. UfrA-r, or, YS 0? PN 1. 11 N Nurr A.Imrl J. S,dl .hld,. J. 5,,, ijin S. (7-1..". A, (..lion GAh, - _ - _ Inland M.d A. II,".dlnt A. l Wit .lew Injured nr,► 7. 1, , hu.L. 7. 1 .„r-1,1.e. InJu r.d . Anl A. D,hri. A. \prr;.l V. DIA,I Ix Y. II,Arr 1, yr - Inj.rrd h..► 111. X U. N..I .ppliuh4 _- _�- Injmrd :mr,n.11. 1 IHhrr EATHER COND. R.R. TRAFFIC COND. in'or. ,•R(n 1 N n uAMAa unn R n1A♦ 1.(k.r 1. Off„,r %I Hll 11 2. R.In;.g :. I'LRyrr..•r, Guard rails on the t''""'`"' - ''•^ north side of Airport J. r..Re• J. (r,,.,h„,L' �. II.IIinR �. I�I..hine I;Rh,. Parkway A. Cloud, Dols A. S,,.y .ten U%\1 N'S \A\It ASO AI)DNI SS 7'Str"1"` 7'"''"'""``" City of So. Burlingto V. thhrr Y. IHhrr, .W So. Burlin ton, VT 11. CnLr....n y ill. ].. NH nmu.d 11. \.., „pyii..h4 Q AI'1•N(111M%If Q N11'41R 1 J =� ,, ; Unknown ADDIO15-'_----.--I (ITl Ok 1(IA4\ Sl All 1 t H. ♦O.I \ EH. POS. --AYP AR FIST NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJL RIGS _ -- - -_ 1%JL HtD 7AK1_N TO___ -µ HOM TAELN XY L1 A%1 µl 01, - ( n a P u I A. PRIMARY CAUSE I I\ THE OFFICER'S OPI♦ION LEAN E THIS BLOCK BLANK L " H AT I AC TORS C ONTRI XLTI D ................................... , 1 sue ul .,. idr„1 -- TO THE CAL St OF ACCIDEST X. OTHt.R CAUSLS ......................................................................................... ................. I ( - R-T ACTION 1 LS -NO LIST LAM- \'IOLATIO%S AND LTT NOS. -- - �- --- ---- L 1 t HICLE NO. I - - - _- F. (J \ F HICLE NO. 2 Ikprr L_ ✓. -- Yrnrw, .d e,.d, _--.- _ P!DISTRIAN _ _._ _ _ _ OR OTHER Sl.d DEPARTML♦T OR TROOP DEPT. T) PE DLPT. CODE Off ICER NOTlllt D OF A((IDLNT OI I It I R \RNIA 1 D .1 M I ♦I 0 PD South Burlington I 1 2 76 1T200 �IME MDNT041 15 89 11204 %... 04115 189 SIG%ATt RE Of THE IN\ESTIGATINb OI'FICER ' r �\ DATE Of REPURT RANK I D ♦�.- 8 Pt 1. 657 C ♦AMES OF ASSISTING 1 108 Of IICIAL ►HOTO$ 1 UERF TAALN BY 1 n/a F OFfIfERS I 1 H I 1 ll(.\ATI RE Of THE I APPRO%M,ofIKI It 1 1 % DATL APPRO%I D: (-/-, I-;-i•;T---- ♦ ♦•• N -3- POLICE NO. 89-04226 Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT A.O.T. N0. accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT I SCHOOL 1 ENTLR OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS \AHIS OF IN%OL%ED PLRSONS iNOT THE. tAMF. AS THE OPERATOR'S LICLNSE ADDRESS BUS T1 PE d OR III IF AEHICLE'A AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOL'S MATERIAL. GI%E NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPI RATOR NO. I: Little, Heidi M. � OPLRATOR NO. S: I I I I PEDESTRIANISI for BICYLISTI 1 I I REFER TO EACH 1 EHICLE 81 NLMRI.R: 'F, T1 PL I —CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE: 11 CAPACITY OF' In OR LLSS On April 15, 1989 at 1200 hours this officer was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident on Airport Parkway at Ethan Allen Drive involving unknown injuries. Upon arrival this officer observed the accident to be on the curve of Airport Parkway approximately 1/8th mile west of Ethan Allen Drive and learned that there were no injuries. Vehicle #I (Little)was observed off the north side of the roadway, being held in place by a guard rail, which was lodged under the vehicle. D Upon locating the operator of vehicle #1 (Little)I obtained her license, registration E and proof of insurance, which were all found to be in order. Upon speaking with S operator #1(Little)she advised that just prior to the accident she had been travelling C wa west on Airport Park P y at approximately 30 miles per hour. She advised that on the R curve where the accident occurred that a small silver vehicle had crossed the center B line and was coming at her in her lane of travel. She advised that when she swerved to p the right to avoid a collision that she struck the guard rails on the north side of the roadway. E. T Damage to vehicle #1(Little)can best be described as contact damage to the front H bumper, nose piece, right front headlight assembly, right front quarter panel and right front E: tire. C Damage was also noted to the guard rails on the north side of Airport Parkway approxima C 1/8th mile west of Ethan Allen Drive. C 1 Investigation revealed that there were no known witnesses to the accident. Operator #1 D (Little)was unable to provide any further information on the description of the other vehicle involved. E T Operator #1(Little)was advised of her obligation to the state accident form and provided with the necessary information to do so. 1 D E T A 1 L ddp + \BHyJcl �O(J sl o OZJ 'I THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V,S.A.§ 1016. B k 1 ROUTLCODI f STATE OF VERNIONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION l DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF Ajua POLICE NO. - - (IILNTT TO" t%%(T tDCA 10N No orAIH jIkT4LITIIS1_ No olocc 1 A.O.T. N0. 1 .MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN 1. PIRSONSIN) L TIME OF ACCIDENT OA1 OF W 11 K MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOWN COUNTY MILE MARE,IR 0 01 1 • T 1 HIGHW Al OR STREET .PRIMARY ROL TE IF AT AN INTIRSECTIONI • INTtR%C 1 HIGHIAAI. STREET. ROAD. ETC. 1 AREA TIP! OR RLRAL L1 = LRBA4 1► ♦C( LN7 IS NOT AT AN IN ERSIcTION. HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEARLST HIGHWAY, STREET. ROAD, BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. TILT OR Mll fS N. E. S. NOV. Of" UPtRATOR LAST SAME. FIRST MIDDLE AD DRESS IUNLIfLNSEI CITI OR TOWN STATE P. •L* e.0 ryrt InJ.n E OPI RATUR LICENSE NO. STATE 90628143 V'r e P � I(rent C L E 1 F ARS DRI%ING EXP. I EAR OF ORIYLR ED, LI( ENSL RESTRICTIONS IRS, Mo. 19 UP COND CODE TI PE OF TEST CODE P(LCONTENTS 2 2 UPt. RATUR'S SOCIAL SECCRITI NO. OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH S S T rIRM E kill GA E OWNER'S SAME R O Tv S e Hai,,UW ] ♦4R'S ♦ L lS5 - (ICLE (.(. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGID CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAM AGI D I.H.YREPAIR COST OPERATOR'S R• LSTIMATED SPEED - vv I`' 1 1 I 1 3 ! t L <nl (� -- ALH. t U _ 13 HOOD JFZAC75B7FF227319 =D13668 STATE Vr U ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST - DIRECTION OF TRAS tL IN L.S W :.I IS TRL\K f.H. 1 R. S t H. NAAF MU UtL Tl PE It, l'NOt.R TOTAL COST 14 85 � �b Subaru G('r{ l7L 4 Dr. II 1 11 j Io 1 O j t I I 1 1 1 I , CARRIAGE IT TOTAL , I,." %EH. MANE , 111 I TRL 1R, TRA1Lf R MAKE TRAILER MOW TRAILIR PLATL. NU. VEHICLE REMOVED BY: W. I ,.. bloc► LErato. bhn\ E.-ERI.�'. ' UPI.RAT(IR� LAST NAME IIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LK LNSLI CITI OR TOWN STATE P- rtr I 1 -11 rp•r. ,nJ•n 1 ^P UPl.RATUR'1 LICLNlf. N0. STATE P r: Nr E A t I ARS URIS ING LXP. I R.. %10. It.AR OI DRI%LR I D. LIC LNSL RLSTRIC"TIONA S 19 S 3 from rlRhl OP COND. CODE TYPEOf TLSTCODE PCT.(ONTENTS EA I in t _ b PLRATUR'SSOCIALSICLRITI NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OI BIRTH G L E E OW ♦! R'S NAME R e OWNER'S ADDRESS (1CLI C.C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE. NO. IN BOX FOR EACH .AREA DAMAGED A EH. REPAIR COS OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED Y.I. Np' PLATE NO. STATE I ( 1 I 1 � � 3 ! 1 I S � e I] HOOD IA ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF IS TRUNK Z D - TRAVEL iN E.S.W U.I 11 11 ; 10 9 1 0 I EH, 1R. 19 AEH.MAAE MODEL Tl PE Ie UNDER- CARRIAGE 17 TOTAL TOTAL COST k..r Y"EH. MAAE TRL. I. TRAILIR MAAE TRAILIR MODEL TRAILER PLATE: NO Y"LHICLE REMOVED BY: IAI. %1 H. (L ASS -' 19 blwr\ COMMLRCIAL - - bt..l M P EO!A PI DLSTRIAN .OR BIC If LIST, NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTNDATE DAY YR. •t• rleth red. T••I, M4 rod. blur. - rrd• 'r.d• wn d ..1 .ode Pr. root. C E S1. IN1l Rt (ODES t F•W .rlu.ln 3. New In .P.rtuil^t 0. ►e.Nbk bJ.q S. N. InJ.q •. l'n►ne.w EJECT (ODES Yn, r. nPkklr 1. N...u..d Iw .•hick 3. ►.n1.81 0. L'warr.PW .•hick • l'w►we.w BLLTCOUtS 1. Ne rr.tninu r.rd MII o.l. trvd 1. H.- ..I. rvd �..Ir b.R .n17 r.•d Inn n.M. nunbHl t. BA .wd h.r.•.. e. hh .nd .tr A.R 7. H.rn.n .wd .1. h.R t. Mh, A.r.+... MR 0. Mr n.tnlnl 10.01 Ne n.tr.lnt •'•II.e4 0. l'wln...w (CONDITION CODIS 1. APP.n.tl. w.rm.l 1. B•.w drin\InR 3. I.n..wrr 114- •. 1.11 rr des. t. l.n. IIO..r { dr.P R. e. Inn.•... -raw" 0. 7. r..1Rw rr IB 0. •. PA.rkA d.feel 0. OIMr 0, l'n\we.w TEST CODES I.Blmd 1. Bn h 3. Urine �, Un\ne.n R,r.vd ZOO- IV.,. d RI• CLOTH CODES 1. F1rw -1 w r • in . II hl • O t t 1. 6rI2M 1. M.drnu d. D.rt 0, V' Lw MANR.CODES-WMA7 PEWS. DOING I. 1. rd.7..%trwffk tl. ly .I .mr nrrtbw 1. In rd. 1 •!•I• tnL 11. Jy M wow inhnnr Y. Ow .AWr. w tnrrk 13. ►tytnt Iw ne•d A.Ow .AId'..&.1. 1-11. 14. GruleR-,.IT.rA S. OR rd.q..lt,.Rk It. ►r.M.R aAkl. •. OR rd.3..PI. (rd. 1•. WwrilwR ...,hick 7. 0..Idr..l► .rlr-t. IT, Ww tl-1 1.....d S. 0..Ide..l► .R.I. Ord 1•. 0. Cn,.. kRJ IwV ..rl. 10. Ott r. w. rr.rr 1•. Coe.. k R.1 www.lwl. W, l•n►wn•■ BIC I( LIST .nI �( ODES 1. T.rwrd W..,hick 2. O.t 1 d (.r•.1 3. r.IW .. lkid d. Le.t Ml.wrr t. ►..hl.R l k7rlr •. D.GrMr pdR. 7. A'rhkk Mt W rk t. O.O_ tw.wrr•rr •. L'w►n..w Form. No. TA-VA4m nA "Rfc RAM VEHICLE NO. 1 VEHICLE COND. SURFACE COLLIDED WITH IFlnl Action( 1 (Def. Equip.) V? CONDITION ROAD CHARACTER ROAD COND, (check most .erSoualMOTORCYCLE OL ) INFORMATION q�Ll' 1. Pedntrl.n 2. MY I. Intfk 1. Bn►n 1. T'1m 1. Dq 1. Imrr.ec0on 1. Pmhn4a 7Si.pmghj O► PS OP PS onl) v awr.rr 1. 1. I. N'el ). Snur ). Bradae e.rr 1. M1o.l hrnra N•erc Aelrwrl J. RR "ra4 RR 1-14 Frrrdna J. Front Ilahu J. In 1. Un&rpa 1. S... drift S. Prd.grk S. R..r J. RR C-1.11 J. Sort .hldr, J. Smp .Ian - _ - N'•rc rJr p.o"n "i.n 1 e. WBd Anlmal OaAI. e. E.haua S. Mudd) !. Drt.r..) S. C.n.l. area 4C.u"{un Itahl Injured M.d S C 7. D.-II, anlmd 7. En Inr R e. $lurk) 7, OII) e. AIIry 0. FToodlna e. Y41d 'fan _ _ Injures nni E. R. Sno.mobl4 S. G6". A. l<..ra 7. R.mp ofT 7. In rhun4a v /► 1. Ian. -Al. ea _ Injured rhea L v. O"Arr monb4 9. O"hrr 0. O"her A. R.mp en A. NISH. J• Spend L eb}n�l 9. Olher 0. Other 9. O"her ype I.Jured b.,h 10. Ovnorwrd 'a- l'niru- 10, UnLno.n 10. U.I,...n 10. U.Lno.n 0. Nu ron"...I InJurcd ve .r ba 11. Orher. Nun. rolll.lo^ 0. So drfn b 0. Nor .pplk-ab4 0. Sol .Ppli, W. 0. 1ul .pplh .bl, E I:. G.. rd 'all. r h Injured In"ondlJ IJ Trey ROA�TYPE- IGH� C� If6 A E IZ.�-- -�rHER OUNb. R. TRAFFI�CO\D. orhrr in u L' 1J. Poo, clan 1. 66rWoP 1. Darn I. l'p.�o. hill I. C4ar •KUPI RT1 DAMA(.L OTHI R THAN \ It, l�dae, boulder T. Ora.el 2. Dgliehl :. 7up of AIII 2. Raining 1. Of6rrr EHICLI. e. O"her S. D.; ". "nil 1. Dm4 (. B.a. of h10 J. Sno.I^R eve nun D A Fl.rd nbjn" 17. Mnped J. Cu nrrnr J. D.rk 1. 4•rl 1. Fna47 t. Gan. J. Cro..burla T ta, bt oiun7.k v 0"hrr S. D.rbllRh"rd 0. L'nlnu.n S, Hailing R S. Fla.htna liah". 10. Cnlno.n 0. Lnino.n 9. Olhrr 0. L'nino.n BOA A Imo- e. Cloudy ony e. S"nP �IRn UN nLR'S %A%IL AND ADDRI SS _ T. RT.i b. I PAVEMENT t POSTED i. S"n{ah' 7. Strelin L 7, N.rnina .Ien -d o d r.l. "o D.ed obJert I N p 2. Slight rune V, Olhar 9, Oihrr ". � Ir 1 \'EH. NO• I I TOTAL 1 N'IDTH 35 (SPEED 1 LIMIT 1 I 1. Sh.rp rune 0. L'ninu.n 10. N. RR -m,ul AYYRU\fN1 Ai E. ' ( ' e 0. Cnino.n 0. Su" .pp1L.hle Q RLPAIR ' J 1 LIST N ITNESSES OTHER THAN OCCUPANTS COSTS 1 LAST NAME __-_ - _ -- r----- FIRST MANE 1 -_ MIDDLE A DDRESS 0T1 OR TUNS STArV I _ T 1 1 E � I I S ---- ' i S ' 1 t ' 1 \ LH.-SO. 1 EH. POS. APP.ARE\T \ATLRE ADD EXTENT OF 151LRIES --- - - ----- __- I%JL'RED TAKEN TO NHOM TAKES BY Lt A\ E BLANK H(N P. RLN( t I. S P -- - I J (' A. PRIMARI 'CACSE IN THE OFFICER'S OPINION E N HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED THE Operator......... t._ for conditions LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK STO CA l'SE OF ACCIDENT B. OTHER CACSfS .__.�c�A..f.. """"""'"""""'-•'^•••-•••• ............................... ............... rw.r or .rr:dnn RT ACTION YES NO in fta T.p• ..r.rr:drn" ----- - -- -- __ __-_ _-_-_-- ---_ LIST LAN' VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. MICLE NO. 1 [E, ICLE NO. 1DESTRIAN -- ----_ Prn•n"..f p.dr R OTHER DEPARTMENT ORTROOP Nt.d - -------___-_ DE T. il'PH DEPT. CODE OFFICER NUTIF'ILD OF ACCIDLNi O P. D.-C`.-.ut -Bur �� F 0 G t 76 TIME MO�TM DAY YEAR 111 l l(I N ARK(% I U AT V I N► TIME. %I tl%f I D\1 11 AK SIGNATLREOF THE 1 _--�06-L$i89_ 01506 08 89 F IN\ ESTIGATING OFFICER DATE OF RCPORT RANK 1 II. Nr. C N AMEN OF ASSISTING E OFFICERS I OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 J_ .- MERE TAKES BY 1 Indi ..e 0 y1.n.1..,tew SIGN'ATl'RE OF THE 1 APPNO\'t%C 01 FILER / - - --_- 1 DATE APPRO\ ED, '3. POLICE NO. Pages 3 and a are for STATE OF VERMONT C14 4-R4-�F159f1 A.O.T. N0. ! AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION accident description DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, CL plus operator statements POLICE ;MOTOR VEHICLE R ACCIDENT SCHOOL I ENTER ON RATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS BLS T1PE IF 1 EHICLE'A AS TRANSPORTING A HA7.ARDOLS NAMES OF I\%OL%FD PERSONS i\OT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LIC L\SE: ADDRESS II OR III MATERIAL, GI%E NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPIRATOR NO. 1: ! _. I.RATCIRr\& PI DE STRIA\ISi for 81C1 USTI RI FI R TO LACH %1 HICU Rl \LMRI R: 1` T1 PE 1-C4PACITT OF 17 OR MORt: T1 PE II- CAP ACITI OF IE OR LESS On June 08, 1989 at approximately 0146 hours this officer was dispatched to meet Colchester Police Departrent at the intersection of Rte 15 and Lime KiLn Road in reference to a single car accident which had occurred on Airport Parkway in, the vivinity of Sharock Road inthe city of South Burlington. Upon arrival this officer located the operator cho identifieri himself with a valid Vermont operators license. This officer observed minor damage to the vehicle on the right rear fender and corner. Also observedl was the left rear tire was flat. D E This officer took the operator to the vicinity of the accident and he pointed out s exactly where it occurred. This officer observed scuff marks leading off the east c side of the road and tire play marks through the soft dirt up to and past three R broken fence posts. I B The operator was intezviet,7ed at the scene and a written statement was obtained. E The operator was also questioned about having consumed any alcoholic beverages prior to the accident. He advised he had had some drinks. This officer observed T the operator balance, walking and turning to be sure and a roads -de test indicated ii a B.A.C. of .08%. This officer decided at this point not to process for D.W.I. E C�perator (Pocho) advised that he was traveling north on Airport Parkway at approx- A matey 35 to 3 miles per hour. As he was negotiationg the sharp curve at the c intersection of Shamrock Road he observed a raccoon dart out into the road. He c advised that he attempted to go around it but lost control and slid off the right I side of the road and into the fence posts. D E As there are no witnesses to this accident this officer has only the operators statement and observations made at the scene to go by. File responding to meet T with Colchester Police Department this officer did observe a large raccoon in the area of the Airport Parkway/Shamrock Road intersection. I N This officer feels that this accident occurred due to the operator (Pochop)driving too fast to safely negotiate the curve. When a hazard was presented, the raccoon, D he was going too fast to avoid it. E T 1 L No Text • f f sOUT11 DU12LING'1TON POLICE UEPA12'1`1•tENT Sout.h Burlington, Vcrmont. t atemont. form 11 ( 7 Com ltiiiit: Numl��r a c(�/S Name :� ��lti N � ! "!. c nn •--_.. ----- �' / f� AddressZ_Dates 7 DOB j![� !!� _Time_1 0 D Phone_IL�{_ � Officer__ The following statement is tlio I.ruth to the hest: of my knowledget o.,j rv( Poe", nAF %yam 4, • v�l� ; (• JL i {��' f L��Uw�� U -liiter Z. Iry T-Z�j �J Witnessed THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. L ROUECODE ' -- STATE OFIVERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION POLICE NO. 1 89-09021 COLNTY TON-4 CODE I%A(7 LOCATION A N DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A EMOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN 1 A.U.T. NO. I 1 NO OF EIH NO OI OCC, 1, W111 PERSONS INl. L TIME OF 411 IDENT DAY OF NECK MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TONS COLNTY MILE MARKER 0 1615 Mon da 07103 1198 South C T HIC.14N41 OR STRFET (PRIMARY ROLTE Ir AT AN (NTERSECTIO•II Airport Parkway p y -Burlington INTt RS(CTING HIGHNAY. STREET, ROAD. ETC. Ethan Allen Drive , AREA 71 PE IR ` RL U v LRe,r iRA` IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTF RSECTION• HON FAR IS 17 TO THE NEAREST HIGH" AY. STREET. ROAD, BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. I CUT OR MILES N. E. S. W. OF' OPI. RATOR LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ON LH LNSEI CITY OR 10M 5 STA7 Pe• •1• bell •/'e' P 27 M 5 2 5 Monahan Thomas P. 8B Oak Terrace Colchester VT E OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. E5910436 STATE Neb p Arr' ! r..l 1 1EAR5 DRIEING EAP. 11 IRS MID YEAR OF DRICERED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS 19 78 N/A S S f.om NRAi E \ OP. COND CODE 1 TIPEOFTESTCODE PCT.CONTENTS 0 t kfl E Gt OPI RATOR'S SOCIAL SECLRITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH 515-88-46, 12-2-61 E (11' R ONNER'S NAME t Richard Rossi S\� I O"%LR'S ADDRESS 22 Deerfield Dr A -Montpelier, VT (YCLL C.C. lT APPARENT PARTS AEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NO. 11 BOA FOR EACH ARLA DAMALLD I'EH. REPAIR COST Moderat OPERATOR'S ID SPEED 5 , , 1 1, 7 1 7� t L S I/ (� -- E'EH. i J _ IJ HOOD E ISO. 1 l:.P r; PLATE NO. STATE U ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST N/A DIRECTION Or DIRE EL IN ! S N U.I E II TRUNK 171 IIj��Q ' I�>%LI 1 1 E E.M. I . 19 83 EIH. MARL CHEV MODEL C -MARO Tt PE 2 DR Ib LNDLR- CARFi TOT Al. COST Moderate k.•. h1. EEH. MAKE 11TOTAL tiit IIA\, TRL. IR. TRAILER MAKE: TRAILLR MODEL TRAILiR PLATE. NO. EEHICLE REMOc ED BY: b:-k C 0 M MLACIA t9.N/A 1\ N/A NIA I Onerat r 1,1.n1 (OMMODITY O P I R A T O R. I A S T N A M t FIRST MIDDLE A D 1)R L S S, U N L I C L N S L I CI TI OR TO'AN STATE P^• •r MI ,- m).n Zaetz Toby J 30 Mt View Blvd So Burl VT OPLRATUR'1 LICENSE. NO. 0093312A STATE VT 1 f11. 1 LARS URIE INL LAP. 4 i pS. MO 1 EAR OF DRIE L.R C D. LICLNSL RLSTRICTIONS S 19 84 7 S � ) from NIA( E OP (ONO (ODE TIPEOF7ESTCODE PCT.CONTENTS E t I 1 0 1 N, If, OPI R A TORS SOCI AL St( L RITI NO. OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH G S L E _ _oi 2-5-69 O" NER S NAME Jay Zaetz SLti E R NiCIRCLE 1 Ou'ILR'S ADDRESS Sane as above (1CLI C.C. N/A APPARENT PARTS EEHICLE DAMAGED NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DA/r,AGF.n AEH. REPAIR COS *loder.ate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 20 I 1 7 t 1 S t S EH. 2 D t 7 I II 1 10 I i t B I - I I I 1 U HOOD %.I. N0. 1P3BM54C2ED164705 PLATE NO. 301V6 STATE VT It ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST N/A DIRECTION OF TRAE EL IN.E.S N.U.1 S IS TRUNK S EH. Ill. IO 84 E LH. MARE PLYM MODEL TOU TYPE 2DR It LNDER• CARRIAGE TOTAL COST Moderate k•.. EEH. MALE ,Ft. AI H.(LAR, 1710TAL TRL. 1R. 19 N/A TRAILER MAKE N/A IRAILIR MODEL N/A Tit MLII PLATE, NO N/A E'LHICLE REMOE ED BY: 0 erator bk.c\ COMMERCIAL bI.", M._r, I TY p Pt DLSTRIAN .OR SH YCLISTI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE III E ATONTDAOY YR. •p r e. T."k �•dr ir). .r.•d• nd. Ali E N/A n1LRl COOLS Bt LT CODES (ONO171ON (ODES ZEST (ODES CLOTH CODES MANR CODES -%HAT ►EDES. DOING BICICLIST e.l (OOL, ic E S 1 F•..1 7 Iwr.p.r lF.nw• ). Nen Inr. p•r ll.awR t. P-.ibk I.).n t. N• I^2•� 0. C n\ne.. IJ[lT CODES 1. 1.., r• wpkvl/ •.Ak4 1 ►., I.07 t l'w..re)Ld •rAk4 • l r\M.n 1. Ne -.W. o d 2. f4h nnl..vd 1. H.. wrn nni. wd t N. b.R en11 .vd Inw mMr n.l n:nnt t, Fkll .r.d M.M•. A. B•h .nd •ir b.R 7. IF-" .wd .1, A., R B•U, Au n.... A.R i. p,A•r nu..ini .dbb4 0 Cn►nn.. 1. App•n 0, nerm.l !. B.•. drew►InR 7. InR.•nn Raver t. I.N.nn dnp t. Inn. IF, 0 dnp 0. Inn.•nn-ell'IM 1, r.Ntw e. IR R. IKntnt d.brl 0. OIMr 0. Uw►w... 1. tlk.nd 7. BnuA 1. l'NM t. L'.►- R, Rrf.vd 0. J.Mr 0, Yu RF.•. I, r1..•n.rrn, M r.rn lwR . lithe I. BNRAI .1. %I-U, t. Dui 0, Un►M.. 1. 11..d.).. I.JN 11. T.) ...... -16.w 1. T.," I.,...AkI. 7. 1..a.,.."1. 1-1. 12. 1., .1 .o. Wn 2. 0.1 of drbr..) 1. Ow .Aldr.. L.Ifk 11. n.)IwR 1. real 2. row i. /kw t. (lw .Aldr..R.L Ir.l. It. G.Hiq M1.17 .rA C L., b.l.wrr S. OR rd.7.. 11-M IS, p-hi., ..Aki, t. ►..M., bhrM •. OR -4-Y. 10. N'.N.Iw A4L ►, D.l.c ll.r I 7. 0..Id...t\ 1. It. N'..A1.► iw n.d 7, Y'rAk4 All bk)rM S. On .idr•.1► .pl. 1� IB. R. D�Mr .n....•rr ♦. C_ 1.1.1 I.U-1. 20. OIMr rw.w.e•n 0. Cw►M.. 10. C- 69.1 ..w.ln1, 90, ('.►M.. I EH2CLE NO. 1 \'ENICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD COLLIDED WITH (Def. Equip.) CONDITION CHARACTER l[Int Action) I. Pedr.Irl•w 1. B'.ln 1. Dn :, Iwtrne.al- 2. Mc :w Iuffk 1. Ti. r. 2. N rl 2. BrWp u,rr 1. %1% p.rlyd .l. Sln ring .t, Sn»r 1. U.&'p... J. RR b•in J. Il..m I:ghn J. hr J. RR Cr.••.InR A. Prd.r., lr A. Rr.r Ughl. S. S1udd.. i. Drl. r•.) S6. IA lid Anim.l A. F, h.u.l 6. Slu•h} A. Allrf C 7. D,•mr•14 •w1m•1 7. Fnglwe GI... 7. Oil) 1. R.mp off E A. Sno. m»h0r A. A. U., r. A. R.mp ow L V. Olhrr m W. V. (rihrr 9. O.hrr 9. Olhrr L h' 1 x` In 0-1-411. In. L'nln,,.n Ill. L'nln,..n Ia. L'nL.- � IhMr. \»n• 11. Nu dr(rrl. It. N»I .PPI4.61, IL %ul .ppli, who 12 G»..d r.il. •urb ROAb TYPE LICHT CONDITION! ROAD DESIGN 11. Tire L IL P.•.. .ve 1. Bl.rl l»p 1. D..n 1. l'p d».n hill S It. Lrdgr, 1»•uldrr 2. Gm0 2. Dr,Iighl 2. T.•p .d hill In. Oi6rr 1. Dirl, bail I. 0." t- 111»1. w( hill D - F{,rd »hjerl J. C.n. rrtr J. 0. 1, J. 1-1 17. St»p d A•1. Olhrr C. D.rl.Iirhlyd 11. L'nln.•.n tg. Mm...r„4 T U. L'nl nnwn V. (Ilhrr A 191. L'nln».n It. Lnln».n ROAD ALIGN T. RT.i from r rL [f 1 PAA EMENT l POSTED 1. SI.igM ...d d c.l. 10 1 Nlp 1 SPEED I. Sfghl rur•r ----) rl"J ob)- l LIMIT 24 'TOTAL 35 ). Nh•.p runt 1 VLH. NO. t 1�IDTH 1 �- U. 1 nln».n LIST N IT\LSSk.S OTHLR THAN O( C'L PANTS LAST NAME I FIRST MANE I MIDDLE 1 I 1 ) Connors Paul ; B. T N --+ I ---- + - i -- 1 I ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL �tOTURC'1 CLF: INF(1R�IATION 4N(1 (check mo.l 6crfou.) IHlth.6) Onl)1 1 •. 4 1 l 7.4 2 -- (hr. ► ..fl v � bl. li unl. q . .•rr OP PS UP PS 1. P.wh»Ir. 1. Offlrr h l l \ 11 Nun Mlmel 2. 1'r.al hrw.n I. I I.tprnun ]. Snu.drifl I. SI.Pllghl - -' J. S,JI .htdr. J. SI»p •Itn N».r r.r p.»/n Ii•NI %. Con•I..rr. t. 17-11'r, lighl InJurrd M.d -_ - 6. 11-41.1t 6. 1 Wd .lgw InJurrd -1, 7, he ,hunl. 7. L. nr m•.ling. `1n)u.rd,hr•1 g. D.W.H. X. Sprri.l .ign. 9, Olhu 9. 0,Mr I,P. InJurrd .rm »r 4it U. %..I.ppli, •I.1. tnjurrd :n,rrn.11. - 11, her in .n 'FATHER COND. R.k. TRAFFIC COND. r.R1.1.1 Fill DAMAGI 01111 R lil A\ 1. Cl... 2. R.lning 1. Offi•rr 2. Fl.gpen»n A I lilt 11 \ S. li.itinit S. ITw.hing light. FIN NI R'S NAMt. AND AUDRI SS 6. CI».d, ,mH 6. SI"P sign 7. Slrrling 7. N'uning .lgn V. Olhrr 9. O.1," l,pr 11. Cnln».n Ill. N. RR r..nlr»I i U. NuI •ppt:r•hlr I APPROXIMATEt Kt FAIR 1 J (US7S 1 ADDRESS (Ill OR TUN\ I AIRS! 14 Cottage Grove So Burl VT E I I S S i E i i S A I11. NO. j A EH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJL RIES 1 ,JL RED TAKE.% TO N HOM TAhLN BI 1 ! 4A ! RLANA �. A. PRIMARI CAUSE 1. THE OIF'ICLR'SOPINION Operator 4f Did not see Vehicle #2 LN HAT I ACTORS CONTRIBL TED............................................................................................................................... S TO THE ( ALSE OF ACCIDLNT B. OTHER CAUSES ( OL RT ACTION 1 ES NO L A LHICLE NO. 1 -_ - V G _ ILHICLE%0.1 X L _ PE DLSTRIAN OR 07HIR LIST LAN \'IOLAT1O. DEPARTMLNT OR TROOP DEPT. I) PE DEPT.0 PD South Burlington 0 ^02 76 I SIGN ATE RE OF ; iINA l.ST IGATIN4 OFFICER 1 I C ♦AMlS Of ASStSTNG F OFFICERS 1 R SIG\ATI G OF THE IOFFICER I LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK ...................................... I .uv »f .c. idrwl T•p. ..I -idrm N5 AND LIT NOS. A e6. m.. I m.nru•rr -_- A rh. n... 7 m.nru,rr I OF CIDLST ODE OFFICER NOTIf IE MO. THC DAY EAR 1 (14A1Lf I It 111 AR; UN111 A1)A111 AN 1615 1 07131189 1624 07 3 89 DATE Of REPORT RANK 111. N... 08 -8 OFFICIAL PHOTOS N ERE TAKL.N BY DATE APPROIED,% T r• 1 3 Pages 3 and 4 are for accident description and accident sketch, plus operator statements NAMES OF IN Y OLI'ED PER SONS OPERATOR NO. 1: Monahan OPERATOR NO. I: PFDESTRIANIS) for BICIUSTI •3- POLICE NO. 89-09021 STATE OF VERMONT A.O.T. NO. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL 1 ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS BUS TYPE IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS 11OT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS 0 OR III I MATERIAL. GI%E NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW REFLR TO EACH 1 EHICLE BY NLMBER: 'I� T1 PE 1-CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE 11 -CAPACITY OF .A OR LESS On July 31, 1989, at approximately 1615 hours, I was advised of a motor vehicle accident on Airport Parkway by Ethan Allen Drive. upon arriving at the scene, I observed that two vehicles had been involved in the accident with both vehicles' points of rest being uncontrolled. Both Operators were present and identified them- selves with valid driver's liceneses. Both Operators advised that they were not hurt as a result of this accident, and that it was not necessary to contact a wrecker service. D Operator #1 identified himself as Thomas Monahan. DOB 12-02-61. Telephone number E 878-4736. Operator 1#1 advised that he had stopped for the stop sign at the inter- s section and had planned to cross over the roadway to C p y proceed east onto Ethan Allen Drive. However, his path and view was blocked by a truck which caused him to go R slowly around the vehicle. Operator Vl advised that traffic had backed up, with i three vehicles attmepting to turn from Shamrock Road/Ethan allen Drive area onto B Airport Parkway. Operator lit advised that as he went around the truck at a very slow E rate of speed, he was hit by Vehicle #2. Operator 111 advised that he did not ob- T serve Vehicle #2 until contact had been made. H Operator #2 identified hiself as Toby Zaetz. DOB 2-5-69. Telephone 658-3494. E Operator rig advised that he had been proceeding south on Airport Parkway and was intending to proceed onto Shamrock Road at the time of the accident. Operator #2 A advised that as he approached the intersection of Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen C Drive he did observe Vehicle #1 stopped for the stop sign. Operator lit then to pro- ceeded o around the t g pick-up truck, but Vehicle 4I1 was suddenly in front of him r, and he was unable to avoid contact. E A witness to the accident was a Mr. PAul Connors of 14 Cottage Grove Avenue, Apartmen N, A, South Burlington, Vermont. DOB 11-11-53. Home telephone number 864-8202 and T work telepohne number 657-7460. A written statement was taken from Mr. Connors and in summation of it, he advised that both drivers' view was blocked from each other I by the other cars at the intersection. p Damage to both Vehicles was moderate and mainly due to contact damage. No measur- E ments or photographs were taken of the accident site, nor did I observe any tire mark T in the roadway. A Conditional factors involved in the accidne include traffic backing up at the interse I tion which proceeded to block Operator Ill's view of vehicle #2. Operational factors L involved in the accident include Operator lit being inviolation of Title 23 VSA 1048, Stop or Yield Intersections. pas Airport Pla-M oil a Map Symbols = traffic light with flashing yellow light = traffic light with flashing red light A C C _ t D E N T s C E N e D 1 A G R A M Airpor. Parkwa, a r —— APP OX t Not drawn to scale. No measurements were taken. Shamrock Rd r thar Al l er Drivc 6 S%— ?YGd Ccae�k, SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT South Burlington, Vermont Statement Form A Name �r1S;L- Complaint Number_�� Address �� C� r�{ 1� Gf,CVG- i�1�E : ,1P�', A �•l, Date__ 3 ► `()Lt DOB �T Time S POBi�,�yc u Offiepr__ �77ot. l -n11,111.tl,ji-- Vi(LrlLM-l(1L _] ct'-'1.1.s n L�t1 L tizi r �EtP�'t y I t {-u ltk J i--C 1 C� ctt- P iz LG Lc7 /&Pl\ CCt tv Aeo Witnessed Signed r SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT South Burlington, Vermont: Statement Form A Name ComPlaint Number AddressL �V xti�(L\,r�V(�-_i 1 Date DOH UtX ' " Time POH +cD CAD i r-1-o-r�,c-vc1c. fxj / 2c j ok� G"6 pr I I —i-�a Cc'. LiJb `j e-c-,Q- v) O}-�'. Witnessed _ igned '^par4 ""`.T.�. ...-ice XS. +..�1�Y«-.,r:.S...tt' �,•� .as,u KL;.yzcc .. .-. -F c i w. _ - x_ :^:r„�.., .....,x .b$1�.-.,K7..� r•� ".._, ."'2Ax'.s. c 73i^� s cry SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT South Burlington, Vermont Statement Form A � r Name �� Complaint Number `4 Address - r� J��: Date DOH 1 % Time - POH Officer t Witnessed Signed �? 'l , to ..i �ll_t 1 9r iN �f t THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.4 1016. ROVTE CODE 1 - CUL.NTY TONNCODE L STATE OFIVERMONT POLICE NO.' AGENC O TRANIfff ATjONI DEPAgTM N OF MO uuFF�i YYEHJO,11 8 9- 12 2 6 5 A LX+(T Locenon N No. orcrN No. orocc. 1 A.O.T. NO.. Rcla POLICE REPORT OF A I 6TOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 1 FATALITIES PERSONSINI L TIME OF ACCIDENT DAY OF WEEK MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOWN COUNTY MILE MARKER A I 1983 South Burlimjzton Chitt. HIGHWAY OR STREET IPRIMART ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTION) INTERSECTING HIGH%AT. STREET. ROAD. ETC. 1 AREA TYPE T i Airport Parkway1906 Air ort Par�cwa U II: RV:AL IU URBAN IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. HOSV FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. FEET OR MILESIN. E.S. W. OF OPI RATOR: LAST %AME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSEE CITY OR TOWN STAY ►°•- •p b.N .1,r. Iw1.q Roper Robert Scott 3508 Steven Drive Plano T ' 2 M 5 2 5 OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE E P 2 13081 173 Tx YEARS DRIVING EXP. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S ] 8 YRS. Mo. 19 3 0 S kb\ O►. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE KY .NTENTS E 3 2 1 E OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECERITY ------------- NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIR T H-] l 174-48-3407 10-14-65 E r;r' OW NLR'S NAME R Scott Roper 5 OM NER'S ADDRESS CYCLEE C-C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED Y'EH. REPAIR COST I 3508 Steven DR., P l a n o, Tx N/A CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH ARLA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 35 PLATE NO. i G 1 ]! 1 l S , 1 'HOOD 38HK012004 614SCD STATE Tx -� 14 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF IS TRUNK EH.MAKE -- V'EH 1 D TRAA' EL INE.S.W.V.I N MODEL TYPE b 'NDLR-70TAL COST jN n/Schirr 2dr 1=1 "; � RRIAGEolkswa co/ 1770TAL RAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATt VO. Y'EHICLE REMOVED BY:------- N A----- -------- Lucia's Wrecker Service OPL R ATOR: L AST N AMt. FIRST MIDDLE AD DRLSS i ON LICLNSEI CITY ORTOWN br.w► COMMODfTY STATE Fp• •R I rj..r. Iwj.n 1 OPf RATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE Pr 2 ew q r.r.' TEARS DRIVING CXP. TEAR OF DRIVLR FD. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS ] E YRS. NO. 19 f oni OP COND.CODE T1 PE OF TESTCODE T. CONTENTS E f 1 I N iris OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SLCCRITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH G S L E Ow NER'S NAME R • E n,r l(AI O.t NER'S ADDRESS CYCLt. C.C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COS CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S U HOOD ESTIMATED SPEED V.1. N0. PLATE NO. STATE I : ] ] 1 i S 1 f It ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF S'EH. 1 IS TRUNK TRAVEL IN.E.S.SA.V.1 A EH. YR. cEH. MAKE MODEL TYPE O 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 19 12 i 11 I it 1 • 1 IF CARRIAGE 4... MAKE _EH. ._- TRL. YR. TRAILER _ MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO. VEHICLE REMOVED BY. I7 TOUL IA4 YI N. CLA\S 19 bl.r► COMMERCIAL _ P blare♦ M PEDESTRIAN too 1110CLISTI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTHDATE crab b.►, Iw}.n rew1. wt prl ON DAY YR. ••• redr �.,d. rod. rod. rsd. redo r...l. D E _T t N1CRT CODES BEET CODES CONDITION CODES I. F. 1. N. mtn[wh •.rd 1. A ►►•nwfl, MrwJ TEST CODES CLOTH CODES MANR. CODES- WHAT PEDES. DOIN BICYCLIST .w CODES 1. I«•patl.f.w� 1. 2. Fhw Irl.11w. 2. ]. N.w-IPA •y«I..Nw• ]. tlleod 1. FT..n•rt wl « i. Iw r1.,. .rl..f}4 I1. 1., -1 W--ftM 1. T.. 1 N... .a\Ni. Bn.16 rur,l..t . n M 2. Iw ,I. t u.f. 12. H•.Mu ewl. -4 ]. Iwfl.r wrl « 1. ►-061. M - ]. N7 1' •N ►•E •r•h .'./ IPA w/M, 1. Iwn.nwn Ent• P..p1. !y H wew.lwfrnw. 2. 0.1 i Jrt.r. •2 UrlM 2. Bright A. 0..bldr.. I,.rne I]. Pi.11.1t1. r..d ], f.n,4 f.,MN {. N. .nJ.p /. mfnt..•1 t, LR. Il�w B dnp •. L'.lM.• A. Modr..p 1. Ow .\rde .pt, trd. 11. CmlwB ..f.lF .e\ 1. L.a M4rwy R. Vwl...w S. Bell .w1 \..w,.. •. Iwllw..� w.1{rIM R.f..rd 1. D.h S. OR rd.F..10.fflR IS. ►..bt.t n\Ir4 S. P►.\l.♦ ►4Tr4 �. V.I 1 _ ♦. IF • , .Ir .6 7, F.f.1.. « IB •. EJECT CODES T. H...r...nI •4 MR d. Ott drfM M.w •. OR rl.,. •pl. I..F. I♦. Wa11..t fr. nAW •. O.F,rtl.. ."I,. N.r O. rri..s .ft..F. .t d.,w 7, lT. Wu.lt M r..1 7. Y,\44 ►N Wpr4 f S 1. R. BrN, M,w,... ►.t •. OI\,r Y.. , B. Ow .tdr.•Il tnJ IL Y+�• R. OIMf w.w..... 2. .).a 1.r1, •• Otl rr ..In lwf •. (1wlM.• N., .f.1,1 Iw .,\44 1•. N. •. C.... 4t.1 I.t. .nt, M. OIMr w•w...rr •. V'w►...• 1•. C.+.. hJ w...l.l, 1. mfr.{y ►...l.R, N. Uw►M.• ...n.b4 WA w•d"aw r.�r' ..... VEHICLE NO. I COLLIDED WITH Action) I VEHICLE COND. IDef. Equip.) VI ... SURFACE CONDITION _IfIrst _ ROAD CHARACTER- .., ._ .. ROAD COND. (check 00a eerlou.) TRAFFIC CONTROL (HIBh.tq Only) MOTORCY(Lt. NFORNIATION I1SLY �--'- 1 ..111 v 1. Prdtwism "- 1. Bnlea ... 1. D 4 � - �-- t. 6urwvtb0""" .. 1. M/win _,.... 1. OIM1tr - -'.'�• UP K- or PS _.. 4 t 1 \ • 1. MY In tr.Hte I. Tim !. N'rt 1. 96d" ..rr :-. 1. 1'rwt Iwo."- 2. 17.gpe.ww' _ _ N.n Mlmtt 1 MY.p.rled _ A. RR Irrdw - ]. Steed.g S. 1-n.nt lights !. Swo. J. he i V.dtrpo. - '. 4. RR CtoaslsB !. S...drift A. Soft .hkdr. !. A.p0gh1 J. Swis .Ip -•' -• N.rr tyr Prvtr. tk.w a. Prd.grIv !. Rm lights S. M.ddy !, Dd-.) !. C-9. ate. S. C.wlo. tight InJ..rd 6.4 ' S •. N'Itd A.11.4 7. O.mr.l4 ►ntmd 0. F.h....1 T. Fngine •. Slr.lq 7, 011y - 0, A11ry 7. R-P e T ..o •. I,di.g 7. Itt rh..Lo •. YLrld .fats 7. L.nr m.rllnp In)..ed nn L InJo.rd .hr.I E L L 0. Soo-mle a. OIMr mr•.n4 " 10. O.rn..-d nr R. GI.. 4. OIMr Ia. lb►rw.w R. I.rnrt V. OIMr Iw. l nln...w B. Romp a 9, OIMr 10. U.L.- B. Drbrb 0, OIMr 10. O..l.w.w R. Spr.ul Jena i. OIMr hpr 0. N..-.•r.IrA1 l.d h. k J InJorrd um w 4g A t. 0 U S 11. ()tlrr. N...• ...Ilhl.m 1 2 c...d ..If...,rn 1!. T,",�l Ia. P.4. 'It. ;a:O.1..lder I 0. N. drfn-ts ROA6 TYPE 1. St., l.p 2. C: r..el 1- Din, Ir.B 0. ti.l .pplk�.n4 IGHT CONDITION 1. D- 2. Doy light ,. Du.► 0. Not .ppik�.hte _ _ ROAD DESIGN 1. 1. V hill 1. T..p d hill 1. B..t. ..f hill 0. N..1 .pp1k-.bk FATHER COED. 1. C4u 2. R.In:ng A. tin..ing R. TRAFFIC COYD. 1. Offi.tr 2. Il.iPrnun A. (:.tea injorrd intrrn.lh IUMr in on eRUPI K,t DAMALI UTIlk R III A\ % 1 nlcLt Porch o f house a t 1906 Airport Pkwy. D A T A Fi-d ..njn'1 17. Moprd IR. Mwun•yr4 tt0. L'nlna.n T. RT.t -od frvm 1 n.d rb 1. 0.rd object 1� I VEH. NO. I 1, c..nrntr ,k. Otl.er a. Unlm..w r 1 uJDTHENT t N'I a. I1. rL S. D.rl•I:ghled e. (HMr a. LnLno.n 1 POSTED ;SPEt:D LIMIT 35 ( •--- 1. li.rl 0. t'nlm..■ ROAD ALIGN 1. Slr.ighl 2. Slight .-ur.e !. Sh.rp vane 0. l'nl n...n �. Foggy S. ILII{ng h. Cl...dy only 7. SL-dng 0. Uthrr 0. L'nlno.n J. Cn-b-L. S. ITuhing tight. •. SI..p .Ign 7• N•.rning •ik^ V. (IIMr n - Ill. %Ih NR .-..ntr.d 0. Noy .ppli, h4 " 0%%%1 R'S NANt ANU /1101,111S s h 1 i n e Construct 1 19 0 6 A l r O r t P k W TOTAL I�N'IDTH APVNUAIN AT t. 1 RO111M 1 5 U n k n o w n CUSTS 1 LIST NITNESSES OTHLR THAN OC('L-PANTS I I T-+- 1 E S S ---- LAST SAME None --_-I -- -FIRST SAME _---�-------- 1 MIDDLE --- 4 - -- ADDRESS (-III UK TUN\ ST%It. ---- -- --- - - - 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 _ S 1 1 1 t k.H. SO. VEH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES INJL RED TAKES TO N HOM TAKES BY ll ♦t 1 BLANK HUSP. RI S( L L D 'nnP I _ P O J Al1 LN S THE OFFICER'S OPINION HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT A. PRIMARY CAUSE ................................... B. OTHER CAUSES ................................................................................................................................... LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK t'...e of .n:dr..l T.pr of -id-, COURT ACTION YES NO LIST LANt'IOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. X -- - --- T.23 VSA 1201 (a)(2)/ cited for DWI L E--- VEHICLE NO.1 t.h. ^•.2 m.nr..e. C• A cLHICLE NO. 1 -- --- - Witt.r f .-m- Ll P.-I .1 R'.d. PEDESTRIAN Sl.d .n-kl.nl ...d. OR OTHER DEPARTMENT OR TROOP DEPT. TI PE DEFT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFILD OF ACCIDENT of I H I R %NNI% 1 D %1 S( 1 \1 0 F F PD South Burlington SIGNATURE OF C /� INVESTIGATING OFFICER - 2 __.75 TIME 0035 DATE OF REPORT MONTH DAY YEAR 1-10 1171.89 TIMt. NUS, 11 Utl ll AR �8.2 RASK 1 11. S., 657 C E. R NAMES OF ASSISTING O[ryClRS SIGNATI'RE OF THE a►PROttSG OFFICER P t 1 . � v J . P ii R $ . r - -- - - L OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 N ERE TAKEN BY I 1"'1""r is Yhw.n r.l.n DATE AP►ROYEDt _ -1-'�T__- is ,� N ; •"' ar BS c +r�t<7� 4.E s t � r t 4's .�i '� i, to+,e \ s l..�i'4t LU 4 ,: S,Y.`i � 1 �.'� iL1:,L .t ,�:.;p : L:s ! �: :.a+ t�.. �I i r z�.1,i�7."_ aiel . _. -3- POLICE NO. $ 9 _ 12 9 6 5 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS BUS TYPE IF VEHICLE H'AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS NAMES OF INVOLVED PERSONS I 140T THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS It OR III MATERIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR No. I: ' Robert S. Roper OPq RATOR %0. 2: N/A PEDESTRIAYISI Ior BICYLISTI 1 I 1 REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: Y,, TYPE I —CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE II —CAPACITY OF I! OR LESS On October 17, 1989 at 0035 hours this officer was dispatched to Airport Parkway at Ethan Allen Drive for the report of a motor vehicle accident. Ptl. Panus arrived prior to this officer and advised that the accident was on Airport Pkwy. just around the curve. It should be noted that when this officer was enroute to the accident that we received further calls from residents in the area indicating that the vehicle was attempting to leave the area. D E While Ptl. Panus was speaking with the operator this officer began checkin 5 the accident scene and found that vehicle ill had left the roadway on the C right side and struck a house at1906 Airport Parkway. Tracks in the wet R grass further showed that the vehicle had then backed up and pulled across I the lawn back onto the roadway where it was when Ptl. Panus arrived at the g scene. E Upon returning back to the area of the vehicle this officer observed exten T sive damage to the front of Vehicle #1 and also observed peices of wood H embedded in the front end. Ptl. Panus was speaking with the Operator of E Vehicle #1 and having him perform dexterity test. Shortly after Operator of Vehicle #1 agreed to accompany Ptl. Panus back to the station for DWI A processing. C C Lucia's Wrecker Service was contacted to remove the vehicle. While furthe I investigating the accident this officer learned that Vehicle #1 was north D bound on Airport Pkwy. when Operator #1 lost control of the vehicle and le E the roadway on the east side. Vehicle #1 then traveled 174 feet before N contacting the porch of the house at 1906 Airport Pkwy. Operator of Vehic T #1 then backed the vehicle up and pulled back onto the roadway where he was located by Ptl. Panus. The house at 1906 Airport Pkwy. was found to b I owned by Ashline Construction who use the resi dence as an office . Mr. N Frank Naef of the company was advised and declined to respond that night. D Upon speaking with Operator of Vehicle #1 at SBPD he advised that just E prior to the accident he had been northbound on Airport Pkwy. at approx— T imately 35 mph. He advised that he lost control of his vehicle on the lef A turn because of the wet roads, the down grade and the sharp curve. He adv I that he then struck a house at which time he thought his vehicle was going L catch: -fire so he backed around and pulled the vehicle away from the house. It should be noted that this officer could smell an odor of intoxicants on his breath and observed his eyes to be bloodshot and watery while speaking with him. m This officer obtained..0 Operator of.vehicl,e 1,' ,....,.�„ �., ;� p. Q._., lic.e,nse,,regis,tration, ..and t .e ;w Rt 4 .•r- +s. sac tiVt �, '..,. 4 �..5.*+ .-,...� r r F. t. } n s< �+.V' : I ):: ,- - c a X c c. «= _ ..3.__._ - POLICE NO. 89-12265 Pages 3 and 4'are for STATE OF VERMONT A.O.T. NO. accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS NAMES OF IN%OLVED PERSONS LOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS BUS TYPE JI OR III IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR NO.1: 1 Robert S Roper OPERATOR NO. 2: PEDESTRIA NISI for BICYLISTI 1 1 1 REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: `/� TYPE 1—CAP4CITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE II —CAPACITY OF 1. OR LESS proof of insurance which were all found to be in order. It should be note that damage to Vehicle #1 can best be described as contact damage to quad- rants 1,2,12,13, And 16 of the vehicle. Further investigation of the accident scene showed that the weather at the time of the accident was raining and that the roadway was wet and slippery D There were no skid marks or yaw marks found at the scene. There were trac E in the grass which showed the vehicle's path after leaving the roadway S however the grass was not uprooted which would indicate that Operator of C Vehicle ill did not apply his brakes. There were two places where it appea R the undercarriage if the vehicle struck and dug up the soil. The tracks I continued onto the area of the porch then backed around and proceeded B across the lawn and back onto the roadway where the vehicle was located. E Damage to the house at 1906 Airport Pkwy. can best be described as damage to the porch in which three main support beams were moved approximately H3 feet or uprooted all together. The front of the porch was flat on the E ground and the roof of the porch was hanging. It is unknown if any struct ural damage was done to the house itself. A Operator of Vehicle #1 was advised of his obligation to the state accident Cform and provided with the necessary information to do so. I D E N T 1 N D E T A ,: :. r_ � � a ,: �; � <, s rr ae •,s t._: .{.• �} � (,' r ri r; ,, � n . �. ,. r �; � T ,-i s;; s ea tt7 �,. SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT SouLh Burlington, Vermont Statement: Form t) Nam //�t,�' S _ __ ;-� ,� -'_Complaint Number Address C� / pk/a Date DOH i ici �. _C/ Time �°�� 3�2 �� {� I I C POH t .�i1 /(�� GOff icer � The following statement. is tho truth to the bF:st of my knowledget ca Witnessed I �, ) Signeda P,/ 190 6 A;rPerf- PxW.� a (� 4e' Uc�•:e� 17, 1989 ;;..; 0035 times. THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. R ROUTE CODE4dn �{L OFVERMONT POLICE NO.;AGENCYOFTRANSPORTATION COLNTY TON'•(CODE`SbSTATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES w REPORT OF A 1 8 -14268 A IXA(T 10CArION_ A.O.T• NO.,.T.unrs No 01 SIH POLICE FNIOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENLTIME Of ACCIDENT MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TON-4 COUNTY MILE MARKER O 2223 Wees( 12 )6 1y89 South Burlington Chitt. C HK.Hw A, OR STREET tPRIMART ROUE IF IT AN INTERSECTION, INTERSECTING HIGHNAY. STREET. ROAD. ETC. T Airport ParkwayShamrock Road RAREAR`1R+L U tv - LREAN I It ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NE.REST HIGHNAY, STREET. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. FEET OR MILES N. E. S. W. or OFF RATOR. LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LI( LNSEI CITY OR ION N STAT P•+ •C bll 'J." 1•J•^ ; 3' M 1 2 MIcLaren Robert D. 86 Pinecrest Dr. #11D Essex Jct. VT 5 OPE RAIOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE I E P 1 I- 80363702 VT 1 F IRS DRIA ING EXP. YEAR OF DR[%ER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S I 1 RS. MO 19 tz, nr P S nthl OF (DID. CODE T1 PE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONT LNTS E 1 1 0 n/a IN wit E OPI RATOR'S SOCIAL SECL RITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE 01 BIRTH G1 ' 1 58 E QN %LR S NAME R 1 Sisco Supply Incorporated is 11� UM It R'S ADDR ESS (ICI LC.C. APPIRLNT PARTS I EHICLE D AM (,I (EH. RLPAIR COST CIRCLE %O. IN BO% FOR EACH ARLA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S I South Burlin ton Vermont n/a r Total LSTIMATED SPEED I , I I }` 3 1 J I L S 1 xl! HOOD i NO. PLATE NO. STATE U ROOF TR L. REPAIR COST 1GCC514B7E2174474 y4696 VT __ ,EH., D - n/a DIRECTION OF TRAI EL ,N ESN U.I IJTRUNK 1IH. 1R. XEH. MALE MODEL T1 PE UNDER. TOTAL COST k"' 1CM.MAKE 11' 1°I ° R ; 7 ;TOTAL I It ( I (\% IQ 84 Chev. Truck PK X I Total ,M. 1RL. 1R TRAILER MAKE TRAILLR MODEL IRAJLIR PLATL SO, SEHICLE REMO%ED BY, bl-k COMMERCIAL COMMODITY IQ nl f W-1, 0PiRA7OR: LIST NAME. IIRST MIDDLE LIC LNSEI CITI OR TWAN STATE P- •V I I 1 11- 11 In1•^ 1 op JAE)DRISS,ON OPERATOR'S 11CLNSE NO. STATE 7 P r. A 1 I IRS DRIITNO LXP. 1 EAR OF U'R11 LR I D. LIC L%SL RLSTRICTIO%S J S fro E 1 RS. MO. 19 S thl OP (OND.(ODE I TIPLOFTLSTCODE PCT.(ONTE%TS E 1 I ti kf1 OPLRATOR'SSOCIALSLCL-RITt NO. OPLRATOR'SDATEOI BIRTH `j 1 E L Ow ♦I R'S NAME R b E A.hl ON ♦t R'S ADDRESS CICLI C C. APPARENT PARTS 1 EHICLE DAMAGED NCH. REPAIR COS N CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERAIOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 1 t 1 IJ HOOD PLATE NO. STATE 11 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION Of IS TRUNK TRAAEL IN LS.N U.1 EH. 1R. S EH. MAKE MODEL T1 PE 11 UNDER- TOTAL COST 1 j 12 i 11 ; 10 Y 1 B CARRIAGE k.•. A'EH. MAKE 19 I A- 1'. TOTAL M. %I H. ( LA%S I RL. IR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TR All1R PLATL NO ALHICLE REMOcED BY: bto-► (OMMERC LAI 19 1bl-h COM' ODITY P PIUISTRIIN IOR BI(1( LIST, NAME ADDRESS CITI OR TO MN STATE BIRTHRATE rl.,h I..rlr '-I .nd. ON DAYIR. .1. r•'d• r..M r.d. rrd• rad. ...,. I N)I RT CODES Bt LT MUfS (O%DITION (ODES TEST CODES CLOTH CODES MA%R. CODES-NHA7 PEDES, DOING BKICLIST I..Ij CODES 1. I•,.1 1. Ne n•t..In1..vd 1. App•nw,l, n«...1 1. tl1-4 1. itenn•..w, a 1. Iw .d.,.. InRir 11. l., .t twy nrrlbw 1. T.n..I iw,• •.hkk ). Lr.p•rlwlnt 2. R.h wn1..vd !. 8... dnnklwt 7. Bn.Ih r•...tnt • Rthl J. N.n In..p.r ll.tlnt J. H.. nr•t nnl, -d J. I.II..n.• HQ.er 1. Urine 7. B.tthl 1. O..hId,.. ,.in, 13. PI•,Int 1..«4 J. F.Ikd I. ,kw 1. ►.w.lbk Iw7•7 I..I, h.1 ..1, ..rd Inn n,Mr 1. I.N.- d..1. 1. L'nL.- 1. M-11-o. 1. 0. •hid, ..M. "A 1,4. C.Ill.t.w'Jf ..h 1. L-1 b.t.nr. S. N. I.), 0. Cnl ne.w n.,r I.w 1. i.n. 11 N•« t dnp R. R.f...d 1, D..1, S. OR .d.7..�IrJRr 11. P.•hlwt ..hk4 f, h.hlnl bk,r4 1. Fkll .nd h•.rw.. •. I,.ft....r. w..dklry •. J.F., (L Un►n..w •. Off .d.7..pt. I.J. It. N'..LI.1 .w ..hkk t. Drfrn,l.. rp.1P. E tJE( T CODE S t. SO, ..d .I, MR 7. h.1 7. r.tl.w « 111 t. Ph�.I-I 0. N., .brw 7. O. •Id.. •t► .rlr.F. 17. W.r11nt 1..e.4 7. %,hkl. MI bk,rlw Hu....• •.d .1, drf.rl !. Ow .td...4 .t•I. I.J IB. S 1 I... r•..pkrl, M. •. O.h- h- �. C- ":I Iwl.rrrl. M. Otm.nr. •r. �. L'.L- 7. N...a;.d 1...hkt, tl O,Mr n•,••Inl t. C.L.... 10. C- 6 j .ew-Awl. W, V.L-.. J P•.,I.II, 10. N. -.1.1 ..11.64 1 Lns,.p-d..hkI. 0 Cnhne.w t L'nl wa form .10. EA-vA-OB 10187 48M KMA VEHICLE NO. 1 EHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD ( OLLIDED N ITH (Def. Equip.) CONDITION CHARACTER IFiml Action) 1 �: 1. Pedr.l.l.w 1. 8nln I. Dr7 :. Intrr.e. d..w 2. %1% 1. 1,.lrM• 2. Ti- 2. N'rl 2. Bridg...rr 1, M\' puled .1. Sterrin� X A. Snow I. U.J-P... A. RR 1,.in A. 1'n•m l:ahl. 2. 1 4. RR Cr.w.InB (. Prd.t7clr S. R- I;Lht. S, h1.dd7 S. Drl.r..7 Sh. \\Ild A.;m.I h. 1-.h... t h. Slv.h. ►. 4167 �. 7. Dnmr.tM ..;-1 7. F.ilne 7. OII7 7. Ramp off f• R..P ow L v. (I,hrr rn...ble 4. Other 4. (hhrr Y, Other L d}«1 Ill. O.rrl.rnrJ In. Lnlno.n lU. Lnl no.n IU. L'nln..n 11. f/IMr. N..n- X U. Nu drfrt t. U. Not .Pp&.hl' Y. Nm .Ppli,.hl. f. 1. G.•rd -it. -rhl ROAb TIE PE IGHT CONDITION ROAD DESIGN 0 11. Tnr L X N. P..I,. .;xn Iv 1. BI«ltop 1. D..n 1. Up do.n hill S I(. Lrd Rr. I.o.ldrr 2. U-0 2. D..light 2. Top .d hill th. (Ithrr 1. Dirt. Ir.;l 1. Do.► (. B.n..J hill p Fi.rd .•Ljn"t 1. (",.n, reu X 4. n.rL 1. I"'I .' lIt. M....J •1. 0'Mr A. D-L-61tM"I U. l'nlno.n T IR. Mw.rt..M U. Lnlm-n Y. Olhrr .� lilt. Lnl nn.n B. t'nlnn.n ROAD ALIGN T.� RT.i DI.I. I- r 1 P+1 E IE%T i POSTED I. Str.i�M 1 road C.I. to n/a I ttlD ISPE'L_D I. SGrhI r.nr fl.rd ob*i 1LIMITTOTAL 7a' 25 ;1.n/ YLH. NO. I n/a t NIDTH U. t'nL....n LIST NITNLSSLS OTHER + THN OCCUPANTS LAST NAME I FIRST NAME ( MIDDLE I I I n/a ' ; T 1 1 t S t i S �- ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL MOTORCU LE INFORMATION IINI I -- (clink mo.l ►erlou.) 1Hlthwlq Onl2) /..Ml (pM2 (h«►.JII�. W..l. .nl. I1 ...... Or PS Or PS I. P.ah..M. 1. OIM b 1N N wr helmrl 2. Pr.a he..n 2. Il.l;prnuw 1. S... drift ]. Sn.plgM - -• �. 541 .hIdr. J. SI'.p .Itw -_ - \. Cnn.t. ore■ X S. Ca.11.n light InJ.rrd M.d ►. FL ding ►. I I'M .Irn Inj.rrd n«► 7. hv,h.nl. X 7. L.nr I.Jwrd.F-1 R. DrIVI. B. Sprci.l .ign. I.jmrd 1...► V. Olh.r 111. l'nl n..n Y. Olhrr I.P. 0. Nu ...ntr..l InJ.rrd - .n Me _ $I. %..I •Ppli..l.M Injwrd :ntrrn.11. - " Illher in'un FATHER COND. R.R. TRAFFIC COND. ,.Rul'1 Rn a+Mu.l. uTul N IIt+� 1. (-Ir•r 1. Ulfiter \ t III( LI 2. GMP # 10 1. �. 1'.qq� i. C.00hurb NET # 19 IIIht. lIN ♦t R'1 N+Mh ANU AU11R1 SS h. Cl.•ud, -I., h. Stop .irn 7. Sitting 7 N-'rnln"1Kn Grn. Mountain Power V. Other 11. L'nlno.n 4. O.her I,pe RR ...mr.d n, Nor .Ppli, bl. O. Burlington. +II HIIPAIRAT ' CO,I, 1 0 IT OR TUNN i if NO. I VEH. POS. - APPARENT NATL RE. AND EXTLNT Of INJL_RILS _--------ISJL RED TAK 1_1, TO---� 'A HOM T+hI.N BY IL t.l 11 _ III1,P. RI u l 1 I� n/a _ S P O J �. A. PRIMARY CALSE LE.k%'E THIS BLOCK BL%.NK IN THE. OFF ICLR'S OPINION L NHATI ACTORS CONTRIBLTLD................................... Road and weather conditions s TO THL CAL SE OF ACCIDLNT B. OTHER CALSIS f. # I Too fast for conditions T71s- of arident ( OL FIT ACTION YES ♦0 LIST LAN VIOLATIONS MD LTT NOS.--- L , LHICLL %0. 1-- \rh. Or(rrr ..I runt \I. HICLE NO. 2 A L- - - _ .... _... - - ------- - - - I...rnl ..r p.dr Pi DI. STRIAN OR OTHER ,L.d .t. idrnl..dr DLPA M NT OR TROOP DEPT. T1 PE DLPT. CODE Of I IC -Lit N0711 ILD OF ACCIDLNT (JI I It I R \RRI\ 1 11 , 1 ,( 1 ♦1 J O PD Sou If Burlingto ffh JMOl 10oY611ls5 2Ty Mtlll n0 \IR9 F 1 \ 4r DATE OF RLPORT rcpl. 111. N.. SIGN ATE RE OF 1 Y 1N\ 1 STICATING OFFICER 1 %'�G/ 7�./ 12/16/89 662 NAMES OF ASSISTING OFI IICIAL PNOTUS F f - ornnRs L NLRE TAh LN BY 1 P 1 --- R 1 - DATE A►PROYI Dr Y 1r.1 N SIGNATI RE OF THE 1 / ^�-•�--� p +PPRO\7NG OF FICLR C.�T /'- / / / Z - Ir O �1rr N _ N' j •3• POLICE N0. 89-14268 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A rtOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 1 SCHOOL LSTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS !NOT BL'S TYPE IF 1'EHICLE U AS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOLS NAMES OF IN%OL%FD Pt RSONS THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS 11 OR III MATERIAL. GI%E SAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR %0. I: 1 McLaren Robert D. OPERATOR NO. t: j 1 1 PFDESTRIANISI I-, BICILISTI I I 1 REFER TO EACH %CHICLE Bl %LMBER: It, T1PL 1-CAPACITY OF I- OR MORE TYPE II CAPACITY OF 16 OR LESS �rJK On December 6, 1989 at 2223 hours I was dispatched to a t+s+e vehicle accident with property damage only. The accident had occurred on Airport Parkway near the intersection of Shamrock Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Airport Parkway is a two lane paved roadway providing for north and southbound travelling vehicles. Traffic is controlled along this section of highway by a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour, lane markings and a caution light suspended over the intersection. The design of the roadway in the area of the accident is at the bottom of a long hill and on a D sharp curve to the left for vehicles travelling northbound. The weather at time of E the accident was snowing. The road surface conditions were snow and slush covered. 5 The road surfaces were very slippery in the area where the accident occurred. C R I identified the vehicle involved in the accident as a 1984 Chevrolet pickup truck I bearing Vermont registration Y4696. The driver had been Robert McLaren of Essex B Junction, Vermont. McLaren's vehicle had collided with a telephone pole. This pole E was identified as Green Mountain Power pole #10 and New England telephone pole #19, this being the same pole. T H McLaren advised that he had been travelling north on Airport Parkway and that as he E came into the sharp corner that he applied his brakes. He indicated that in doing this his vehicle started sliding and that he was unable to regain control of the vehicle. He indicated that the vehicle slid off the road and collided with the C telephone pole. C I The investigation of this accident indicates that it occurred as stated by the D operator. The vehicle damage was consistent with the operator's statement. The E vehicle was considered totally damaged with heavy damage to the entire front end of N the vehicle including the hood and undercarriage. The vehicle had to be removed by T Interstate Gulf. I It is my opinion that the primary cause of this accident was due to poor road and weather conditions and also that McLaren was probably operating at a speed too fast for these conditions. However, due to the fact that it was a single vehicle accident D I recommend no court action. E T A I L ddp 1I THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. IL PIWTE COD[ I • STATE OF* I VERMON'I' AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION - I POLICE NO. 1 89-14338 1 (OIITT TOMNCODE I %.( T LOCATION A Jul DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A A.O.T. NO. I No of IIH No. orocc. 11tOTOR VEHICLE ACC(DEN I I AT ALITItS rERSONSINI. L 0 TIME OF ACCIDENT 1557 DAY Of m I EK Friday MONTH DAY tLAR 12 081,989 CITY OR TOMY South Burlington COUNTY Chittenden MILE MARKER C T HIGHM At OR STRICT IFRIM ARY ROUTE IF AT AY INT LRSECTt091 Shamrock Road INTERS!( TING HIGHM AY, STRCCT. ROAO, ETC. Airport Parkway I AREA TYPE U iu L'R BAN I 11 ACCIDENT IS NOT AT A9 INTERSECTION, HO%% FAR IS 17 TO THE %EARE&T HIGH7t AV. STRILET, ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. NJ FEET OR MILES N. E. S. W. OI' OPI RATOR LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESSION LICLSISEI CITY OR TOWN STAB P•• ••r t t1 r)-, 1.}rn 24 F 0 2 5 Doubleday Judith 281 St. Paul APT## ]Burlington 1VT E OPI. R ATOR S LICENSENO. 81035415 STATE VT P I 'enl ,.. Ir..., 1 EARS DRII ING EXP. IRS. MO, 1 EAR OF DRII ER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S 19 0 S ] Ath. OP. COND CODE T1 PE OF TEST CODE PC T. CONY EFTS E 1 0 !r 4fl E OPL R ATOP'S SOCIAL SE CL RITT NO. OPER ATOP'S DATF Of BIRTH t 002-66-0647 09-13-65 E OM NER'S NAME R • Judith Doubleday S \ ;,ZI OMNLR'S ADDRESS 281 S t . Paul APT #2 CYC LL C.C. APPARENT PARTS IEHICLE DAMAGED 1-EH. CIRCLE h BOX FOR LACH ARIA DOOD Gtp REPAIR COST Moderate CST MA ED SPEED 10 XA'I1.1.7 ] • l S i L __ =1E.. _ . 1 1. NU. JN1PB1153E5755834 PLATE NO. 75AN4 STATE VT U ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRE( TION OF TOR AV EL IN.L.S.M U.I 01 IS TRUNK IIH-1R. %LH. MAKE MODEL TYPE ID L%DLR. TOT AL COST 19 84 Nissan Sentra 4 Door 1 1 17 1 Il i IO i 0 i R ; CARRIAGE k..r Ohl. IEH.MAKE -TOTAL \f H (I ASS TRL. ) R. 14N/A TRAILER MAKE N/A TRAILER MODEL \/A TRAILI R PLATL NO. N/A %EHICLE REMOVED BY: Operator block W-h COMMERCIA (OMMODITY I IPIRATOR. IA%7SAMI. IIRST MIDDLL A DDRiSS.0% LIC LNSLI CIT) OR TOMN STATE P•. ••r 1 11n1 1w1v17 431F1 0 2 5 Boucher Rachel M. RFD Box 940 Fairfax VT Opt I,ATOR'S LICLNSL NO. STATE 7 � E 80057598 VT rlr. 1 LARS URI%ING LXP. 1RS. MO. I LAR OF DRII I I D. LICENSL RESTRICTIONS S 19 0 S ) from rIJM OP COND. CODE TY PL OF TFST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E J I 1 0 It. OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SLCCRITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH G S 1" E 009-34-0349 09-01-46 E fly' OMNFR'SNAME Rachel Boucher R • N, ON NI R'S ADDRESS RFD 2 Bovat Road, Fairfax, VT CYYLI. C.C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NU. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGFFI %CH. REPAIR COS Moderate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 30 �x` ' 1 2 I 1 7 S b __ LEH 7 D _ I] HDDD 1'- NO. 1G4HP6935GH413392 PLATE NO. 7AM74 STATE VT 1J ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST p1RECT10N Oi DIRE lIN O M'U.I N iI TRUNK 1 f H. 1 R. IY H. MAKE MODEL TA PE 10 UNDER. TOTAL COST 19 86 Buick Le sabre 4 Door li ; It to ; . • ; 7 a_ CARRIAGE 4. •. Ih4 1EH. MAKE 11 H. CLASS 17 TOTAI TRL. 1R. I9N/A TRAILLR MAKE N/A TRAILER MODEL N/A TRAILLR PLATI NO N/A VEHICLE REMO%ED BY, Operator bt«► 14-1, COMMERCIAL Co, ODITY P ►I D 11, T RIATiTTRytFt ZIIJJLNAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOIi!1 STATE BIRTHD ON ATE DAY' 1R. •R• "' r1.IM cedr enr '...Ip h,►• r.d. Iw}•r. r..d. .end. .ed. »•1 rod. pcl. rvwl. E N/A E S I N1CR1 CODES I. F•ut 7 IM.p.•Iuu.,1 ]. Ven-Inc• IUIi. P•r • ( Pe.db4 Inl•7 t. N. Iw }•r7 0. C.►w•.w !JL((ODES t. Yer r•. p4r17 w.rd 1..•M.k ] r.n•.1y 1 C.«r•, Ld ••hk4 BELT CODES 1. N• nunlnl+ v»d 2. &II only v»d J. H.......nl. u»d J..ir b.R ont, v.ed Inn nlMr n•Ir•tnul t. B.n •nd Mr«q Brtl h.. ..nr»•nd •Ir b.R R. B•h,.hv n•n, M, 0 DIK.I n.l.elwi 10. N• nunlnl .dhbY 0. Cn►ne.w (ONDIi ION CODES 1. App•nnHf no... •I 7. B- d.lw►In4.y. t ]. Inflrrwry n0.., •. InOv.nn drop S. in0. 110.« A dnp •. InOvrLro w..dkln. R. ►h..k el drfeH •. OIMr 0.1n►we.w TLST CODES 1. 111-d 7. Bn.lh 1. l'rin. J. l'n►wo.w R. Rrf.»d 0. JIt- . CLOTH CODES 1. Flvnn»enl er rerr, lnR . IiRhl 7. Br1EM 1. Modentr J. D•r► 0, L'.►....w MANR. CODES-M HAT ►EDES. DOIN 1. i. rd. 1 me 11. j. .I .nNr•It1{.. r� " 7 7. In .pl. IrtJ. 17. !.7 .1 wen�lnlrr«c 1. 0" .Kid,.. Inffir 13. P471.R 1. ro.d J. (Iw ehWr. • 1. Inf. I•. Gr111w R+ R..'oR .rh S. OR rdry..lb.ffk IS. ►..h1.1 .rhk4 •. Off 4•7. apt. b.j. 16. W.U., ..•hkk 7. 0..W-1h 17. W-U.R 1.od 0. Ow 06r•.1► •R.l. Ir.E is. •. Cro» I.I Iwu--I- 70. Olh.r rw•wr.•er R• 10. Cn« kE.1 wow.l.e. 00. U.►..•vw BI(YCLiST -1 , CODES I. T...»d I....rhk4 J. O.I ). TO" 1. fkw 1. Le.I b•4wn t. ►..hln b c4 t k7 ♦. pfn11•r pdP. 7. V.I.Irk UI bkc4 R. 0.1»r .w•I»..rr •. C'n►ro.w Form Nn_ TA.VA_" 1.- 1- ..... I S C E L L 1 1 E O L S D T .A I T N E S S L S S P 0 \'EHiCLENO. I VEHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD COLLIDED %ITH IDef. Equip.► CONDITION CHARACTER IFlnl Acllon) '1 1I I. Prdr.trf•w I. Bn►r, 1. Dn 1. 1wlrr.rrtwo 1. M\' pulyd ]. S.nring .1. Snnw 1, l'nderp... J. RR 1r.iw J. Il..n1 light, J. ire J. RR 47-4n1 I. Prd.r.. it 1. Rr.r light. 1, Mudd} S. D'I..y 1., N-ild Animal L. C.M..I !. SI..h2 h, 4142 7. (tnmr.lk •nimd 7. Fnginr 7.011. 7. R.mp off R. Lnn R. R.mp ow .. 0.M, -...•h4 V. Olhrr V. OIMr V. OtMr ..hjn t In. 0.rn..nrd )( X la. L'n►n.r.w 111. Cnl, r n Ia. L'nlnorw I I. Ihhrr. ♦.n- a. \r dr4.. 11, N....PpIl'.h4 a. Nwl .ppliuh , ..Jli.:..n � 1; Gu•rd ..:I. rush T1 PE LWHT CONDITION -ROAD DESIGN 11. TROAb 14, P.4, .(L. 1. Ill., L,,.p 1. D... 1. Cp do. n hill It. 1_.dgr. Luuldrr 2. Gn.d 2. Daylight 2. T..p of hill It.. Ulhrr 1. Din. .,.it A. D..L x 1. H.a...f hill 17. N..prd J. Dart, J. Lr.rl Iw. SLu.nr.rk •1. O'hrr 1. D,rh-lightrd 11, 1. L.. M. Lnln.�.n a. Lnln.r.w V. (llhrr B. U.L...n ROAD ALIGN T. RT.1 Dbt. from Aj PAVEMENT NIAJ I POSTED 1. Mr.ighl ro.d r.l... N1 ISPEED 2. SG[M rune - T n-d ob)rc1 1 LIMIT T/AID-- ;\ 1 \ t:H. NO. 1 N TOTAL 35 .1. Sh.rp rrr.r LIST NIf NLSSES OTH1R THAN OCCE PANTS AME 1 FIRST NAME l---- M!DDLE ------ N / A 1 ( 1 ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL MOTOR('1CL1 INIOR♦IATION ti♦L1 Icheck most serious) IHIEh.[J Onlyl f..kl f�.k2 tMlrH v.l.t..l• rnh If •w..rr P.•Ihulr. t. (Ilflrr OY PS (lP 1'S If1. 4 11 Y !. Il.gprnuw Nrn Lrlmrt J. S.-drift J. StnpR[M --' -" - J. S..n .hldr. J. strp I;,.gw M urr nr pn.yIli. S. C...I..". x S. C..It... light - - Injorrd M•d b. IT' dl., h. 1Wd 0gw Injrrrd -L 7. Lr . N..n►. 7. 1.- -Ling. R. Drhrl. [, Spn-i.l sign. V. Ott-V. Olhrr (.W I njuM h..► la. Unlwr.w If. N. r..wtr.l In).,,d um m kg a. N..I .ppll .h4 Inj.rrd inlr rn.11. EATHER COND. .Ff. TRAFFIC COND. inbr. r, , R(111 kit II ANt A(t llT 1 R III 1. Cl1. ( r-, 11111E Lt 2. R.inin[ I. Il.gpr..on 1. Snr.:wg 1. G•Ir. J. Frge1 J. (-ru..huA. 1. H.ilin! 1. PI•.hing light, 6.(71-d-,-1, n. Sl..p .:gn WA ♦1 R'S ♦ AMt. AND 4DDR1 SS 7. Slrrlln[ 7. N ..nine sign V. (h Mr V. (hhrr vpe U. L'nlnorn la. Nr RN rrnlyd a. Nnl •Pptn.bk APPRO\IM ATk. ( S I NI PAIR 1 ( IISTS ( ADDRESS _-- (IT) OR TON\ %It S'EH. POS. ( APPARENT NATL RE AND EXTENT OF INJL RIES ----1------.-_-.----_-- -_ f♦JL RED TAAk.% TO '- A. PRIMARI CAUSE 1♦ THE OFFICER'S OPINION L N HAT FACTORS CON'TRIBC TLD S TO THL CAUSE OF ACCIDENT B OTHI R CAUSES* _ ....... 'A HOM TAKLN BY I It AI t IiLANh - ---- LEAVE THIS BLOCK BL:\.\K .............................................. t ...v .d ,rridrnt T.p..d .r.,drnl ( Ol RT ACTION - YES -♦O _ LIST LAN \ IOLATIONS AND L'TT NOS. L S CHICLE NO. 1 E XX VTT D202197 Failure to Yield T23, VSA 1048 I." nr.2m.nru.rr I HICLE NO. ! ' -' --• --- ---------- - - -------. - - Ikgnr d rr..r L XX-- __....__----.___ .... _ _ _ Yrn rN rf Kral' PI DFSTRIA!1 (1R OTHI R DLPARTMLNT OR TROOP DEPT. TI PE DLPT.CODE 0 South Burlington Police Dept. 02 76 I SIL%ATI RE OF THE I ► 1♦\ I STIGATI♦G OITICER { ► ij+ - C NAMES OF ASSISTING OFFICERS CPL Rh ume H 'Ib♦ATl RE OF THE 1 IF 1 T_ ��• F�C�•-••-��- Sl.d u.iJrnl ..dr Of I ICtR NOTD 11 D OF ACCIDLNT 111 I Il 1 N INRII I D II Nt l ♦1 TIME MONTH DAY YEAR TIN►. Slu♦I11 UIl 11 AM 1557 112 1081 89 1606 DATE 01' REPORT RA♦t( i Is ♦.. 12-24-89 Patrolman 648 OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 HERS TAKL♦ RY I iV/� IwdL.. d I p"••n^.•►•w _ 1 OATC APPRO%LDI r 0 ----- T--- t SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCIDENT SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT N0. 89-14338 PAGE NO. 1 On 12/08/89 at .appr. 1557hrs I was dispatched to a two car motor vehicle accident, no injuries, on Airport Parkway at Shamrock Rd. I arrived on the scene at 1606hrs same date. Upon arrival I observed vehicle no 1 at rest across the roadway on Airport Parkway, facing west. Vehicle no 2 was at rest on the southbound shoulder of Airport Parkway,facing north. There were no injuries and no available witnesses. Damage to vehicle no 1 was moderate to the passenger side front quarter -panel, headlight, grille and hood. Damage to vehicle no 2 was moderate to the entire passenger side door. Both vehicles were removed by the operators. Operator no 1 (DOUBLEDAY) advised that she had stopped at the stop sign (small cross --road between Shamrock and Airport Parkway) at Airport rarkway near the Shamrock Rd/Ethan Allen Dr intersection. SEE DIAGRAM Operator no 1 advised that she turned left onto Airport Parkway, but, did not see vehicle no 2 northbound (on Airport Parkway) and she was struck by same. AP�,c Operator no 2 (BOUCHER) advised she was travel ling^northbound on Airport Parkway. Operator no 2 advised that as she approached the intersection with Shamrock Rd, vehicle no 1 suddenly pulled out in front of her from her right. Operator no 2 advised that she swerved to t;ie left to avoid a collision but was struck by vehicle no 1. For intersection description.. SEE DIAGRAM. The posted speed limit on Airport Parkway near Shamrock Rd is 35mph. The intersection in question is near the bottom of a hill with vehicle no 2 (BOUCHER) tr<►velling dr)wn hill at time of impact. There is a stop sign controlling traffic. entering Airport Parkway from the above small cross road. Traffic was moderate and the road surface was wet at the time of the accident. Cpl E. Rheume assisted. INVESTiGATION: At. rest position of vehicles, damage and operator st.at.e.ment•s reveal the following: Vehicle no 2 (BOUCHARD) was travelling appx northbound on Airport Parkway. Vehicle no 1 (DOUBLEDAY) entered Airport Parkway from the small cross road at the intersection with Sha;r,rock Rd/ Ethan Allen Drydirectly into the path of travel of no 2. OPerat•or no 0. swerved left into the southbound lane to avoid collision, but both vehicles came into contact- passenger side front of no 1 with passenger side door of no 2. Operator no 1 (DOUBLEDAY) is,u,-d VTT:D202197 for FAILURE TO YIELD AT AN INTERSECTION. INVE TI G OFFICER COMMA DING OFFICER M A C C 1 D e N T S C e N e D 1 A G R A M Airrx3rt PMY Mao Synbols = traffic light with flashing yellow light ` = traffic light with flashing red light Airport Parkway APP nX Not drawn to scale. No measurements were taken. 8?-I L1339 )a-6-,67 1 ss -7 her S Gpo %A.M rock( Ro CLA c than Allen Drive EXHIBIT STATE OF VERMONT I N-10 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter AFFIDAVIT I, Karen B. McCrea, first being duly sworn upon oath, state the following: 1. That on June 5, 1990, I reviewed the records of the South Burlington Police Department pertaining to reported all't'mmnhi l a ar•r•i riAni-c rinri r,n +},o 1 r,nn 2. That the attached four (4) documents are true and correct copies of the police reports I reviewed and that these copies were obtained from the South Burlington Police Department. 1990. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June, Not ry Pub is THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. ROUTE CODE 1 1 L COUNTY !TOWN CODE STATE OF IVERMONT POLICE NO. A EXACT LOCATION AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION �0-06003 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES N No.OFS'EH. No.oFocc. POLICE REPORT OF A A.O.T. NO, rATALITIES PERSONSIN,. )MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT I L TIME OF ACCIDENT DAY OF WEEK MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOWN COUNTY MIL) 1709 TUES 05 29 19 9 South Burlington Chitt A HIGHWAY OR STREET IPRIMARY ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTIONI INTERSECTING HIGHWAY, STREET, ROAD, ETC. T Airport Pkwy I AREA TYPE 1 5 Shamrock Road IR - RURAL IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTIO;V, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY. STREET, ROAD, BRIDGE. LANDMARK, ETC. N FEET OR U U 'URBAN MILES N. E. S. W. Of' OPERATOR: LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSE) r,ry no I- __ _ _ YE Magnant Kri OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO' STATE VT YEAR OF DRIVER ED. I LICENSE RESTRICTIONS IOP. COND. CODE TYPE OFTEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 0 OWNER'S NAME Same OWNER'S ADDRESS n aztoAVT I oP 2 Iron, tlf. 3 front right A k0 S s rtor e right APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COST CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S I; 2 31 e, S I g 13 HOOD slight ESTIMATED SPEED 0 L 1 14 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF S __C] VEH. 1 D - IS TRUNK TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.I 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 12 j 11 TO , 9 j A 1� CARRIAE ka-r VEH. MAKE 1 I 1 Tnt .G. S1 i oht . 3 R. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE I VEHICLE REMOVED BY, 19_N/ N/A N/A N/A OPERATOR OPERATOR: LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSE) Parkes, Cynthia M. Grandview G6 OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE __QQ9115 5A P YEARS DRIVING EXP. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S YRS. MO. 19 N/A S Ashley Parker OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS 1 E 0 OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY N0. OPERATOR'S DATE OF -BIRTH Cj 12-24 56 E O N'NF.R'S NAME p OPERATOR'S DATE. OF BIRTH 6-27-64 CYCLE C.0 V.I. NO. PLATE NO. WVWGA0169FW255864 4B188 VEH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL 19 $ VQLKs TRL 014 NER'S ADDRESS V.I. NO. PLATE NO. VEH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL 19 83 TOY TERC TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL 19 N/A N/A N/A PEDESTRIAN IOR BICYCLIST) NAME I ADDRESS I.Few _ I. lo,.parllaling 1. No mtrdnd Yard 3. Z.No.A.r.p.rltating 2. Bell only used 3. Harness -.1,uwd �. dble I.JY'y 4..1, bag only owd S. No Injury (no 0. Unkno.n mttdnnl S. Bell and h.,n E - EJECT CODES 6. Be11 and air bag 7. Harnew and .1, hag - I. Ye., 1, R. Bell. bar-... beg I. UY d 1. •eyed In •ehkk 6. 016rr m1..lm 10, No mr.aim ParNo. J. Partially �. Uneeropkd .ehkk .ailable 0. Unkno.. 0. Unkoo-n Form No. TA-VA-08 10/87 48M KMA CYCLE C.0 STATE STATE VT TYPE thl. I Sf It(CA%% block COMMERCIA b1Ynk COMMODITY R TOWN STATE Po age , eJer1 Inj.r, Burlin tc VT IP 33 F 1 2 5 o front 3 9 F 1 2 5 m r left S rear Ir. e -1-t- t or right APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COS CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S ,J I3 HOOD ESTIMATED SPEED 0 1S 2 1 3 A , S t 6min 14 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF VEH. 2 D IS TRUNK A TRAVEL IN.E.S. W. U.I `S TYPE X 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 4DR Z I II 1 10 9 6 F j ! CARRIAGE kale VEH. MAKE _ 1 F I , I Minimum - +--_ 17 TOTAL TRAILER PLATE. NO. VEHICLE REMOVED BY: N/A OPERATOR CITY OR TOWN I STATE Ihh S E.H. (LASS Mork COMM__ERCIAL blank M DI II rloth an hike a I.jY ond. feel pet. w• fodt male rode rode rod. 'ode 'on,. 1. Apparently normal t. tllood r[uL]. Du1NG BICYCLIST lent') C 2. Been drinking 2. Breach I. Two of or 1. In Id-y..in..-it..r I1. Jay a, in..-tn I. Turned into .ehkk 3. Inn-nR Ilyoor .3. r.rry{ng . light Z. In rd.y..,.I. traf. 12. Jay al non-interxf. 2. Oal eI drl.e.., Urine 2. Bright 1. On ahldr.. Irafnr 13. Playing In read 3. Talked to yield R. Inne.n deal• 4. Unkno.n 3. Moderate J. On ahld,. alai. vd. 14. Getting nnioff •eh. e. Lost Inl.- S. Inn, 119Y i drop A. Rrfowd 4. Dark S. Off rd. ,train, 6. Influenn medklne p. J1her 6. J• IS. PYahing .ehkk S. PYahing bk,,l. 7. Twig- or ill Unkne.n 6. OH rd-y.'Ply Ira1. 16. Working an .ehkk 6. Derrell,. 1 0. Not gb•n A. ►7, On .Ide-ai4 -heal. 17. Working 1. and 7. Vrh{rle hit leyele 6. DtIRI hen delrol 1. On .Id...1k pl. Ird is. A. DIhr1 TaneYefl 0. Un►no.n - 0. Crew "Id lot'-'- 20. Olhe, enanw.er 6. Unk,w.n 10. Crow legal non -ill. ". Unkno.. • anJLL.t JNU.Y_ VEHICLE COND. COLLIDED WITH SURFACE ROAD (Def. Equip.) (Finl Action) VI V2 CONDITION CHARACTER I. Pedealrian 1. Br.k.. 1. Dr. 1. IntrraecHon 2. MV In traffk• 2. Tirea 2. N?t 2. Brid Rr n.er I. MV.parked .3. Steering 3. San. M J. RR v.in J. Fn.m lighra J. kt T. Underp... J. RR Cru.JnR S. Pedarlrk S, Rrar lights S. Mudd, S. Dhru. r. S M1. Wild AnimalM1. E:. h.ust h. Slu.h! 6. All'. C 7, Dume.lk animal 7. Fnginr 7. OII. 7. Ramp off E K. Snn. mohlir A. Glna R. U.'r. R. Ramp on L V. Other mo hk, 9, Olhrr nbjrrt V. Other v. othr. L H1. (h rnurr.ed Ill. t'.kno.n III. Unkmo 111. Unknn.n A N 11. Ocher. Non• 11. Nn defrci. e 116ion II. Nw .pplk.hk U. Nol .pplh.bl, E 17. Guard WE rnrh 0 I t Tree ROAD TYPE IGFIT CONDITION ROAD DESIGN U 14. Pule. Ogn i. BI.r4top 1. Dawn 1. Up1doun hill S IS. Ledge. Iu.ulder 2. Gn.d 2. Dnlighl 2. Top of hill Ih. (hher 1. Din, (nil y. Du.k (, Rol. of hill D I'i.rd nh*.' J. U..meet, 17. Moped J. (lark J. l.e.rl A T IN. W.I.-ark '/• Other S. Durk-IighteA IL Unknown A IKI. l'n4no.n 11. Unknorn V. Other o. Unkn..wn ROAD ALIGN T. RT.I Dbl. from j PAVEMENT (POSTED I• Straight I ro.d c.I. to 1 W SPEED --T n.rd object 2. Slighi cacao 1 �---- I TOTAL I VEH. NO. 1 �� (LIMIT 1 1. Sharp rune I.WIDTH 1 r.-_ 0. Unknown --- LIST WITNESSES OTHER THAN OCCUPANTS LAST NAME I FIRSTNAINE -'-�--- - j---INI1) DLE (_.__.-____ T 1 1 1 t_ --- :H. NO. VE:H. POS. S1 L ENT NATURE AND E%TENT OF INJURIES ROAD COND. (check moot.rriouo) TRAFFIC CONTROL (HIQhway, Only) MOTORCYCLE INFORMATION ONLY (;..Ir I ("p' 2 CAe.i nff tr hh.. 4. 1. Pnlhnlra 2. Fe-1 he.,-2. 1. Sno.drift 1. Ofnco FI.Rp<nun 1. SInpBRhl unl. II an..rr h tLN UP PS OP PS - -- --- Wore helmet J. Soft ahid,. 4. Ship .Ion N uer r.e prutrcthrn S. Cnnat. are. S. C..1hm light Injured head h. F-Io..dinR 7. 11-1 chunk. R. Dehrl. h. Yield .1gn 7. Lane marking. R. Special sign. Injured neck Injured cheat - -- -- - 9. Other 9. Other I'P. Injured h.rk I0. Unknown 11. Nn ronn,.l Injured .na or kg IL Not applh.ble Injured intrrn.lh EATFIER COND. R. TRAFFIC COND. (Ilhrr ioun r'R(IPE:RTY DAMAGE OTHER TIIAN I. Ck.• I. Ofnrrr A-FHR Lt. 2. Raining 2. t'Iagper.un 1. Snowing 1. G.trc !. FuRAL J. ('r. ubu,-k. S. Hailing S. Fla.hinR lights 11. Cloudl unh h. Stnp.ien 111,'NER'S NAME. AND ADDRESS 7. Sleeting 7. N.rni.R .ign 9. Other 9. 011rr hpe 0. Unknown I11. No RR , mirol II. Not .ppli-I'le APPROXIMATE. I $ REPAIR I COSTS j I CITY OR TO%%N -_ ----- ADDRESS -INJURED TAKEN TO _ WHOM TAKEN BY LEAST. µLANK -- --- FJO%P. Rt1( (' A. PRIMARY CAUSE IN THF:OFFICER'S OPINION LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK JJ� WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED __ __ __Wet Roads TO THE: CAUSE OF ACCIDENT B OTHER CAUSES ........................................... _ F_ Unidentified vehicle blocking road T7V--'r accident COURT ACTION YES NO --" ---- --- -- LIST LAW VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. VEHICLE NO. I Veh. no. 1 m.neu.rr E X - . 2 maneu.er VEHICLE NO. 2 L _ _ X D.trre of runr Pen<nl of grade DEPARTMENT OR TROOP Siod accident rndr p DEPT. TYPE DEPT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT �, PD South lingtOn _ rt - -_ _. _ _. - ._ _. _ _ TIME _ (/FFICFH ARRII I:D ,\T S(1 NI G 76 (IMONTH DAY YEAR TIMI. MUN711 11%I )OAR ' 1709 1 5 1. 29. 9 n 1- SIGNATURE OF TH ; ///' DATE OF REPORT i SL F INVESTIGATING OFFI 'R [�/L RANK !ti 5-29-90 Cpl 662 1 C NAMES OF ASSISTING - - E OFFICERS I OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 Inrli..tr ii R l N'ERE TAKEN BY I Phulo. Eden I I SIGNATURE OF THE E DATE APPROVED: APPROVING OFFICER THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016 ROUTE CO DEL I ' I - t L COUNTY -TOWN CODE STATE OF VERMONT POLICE NO. A EXACT LOGInoN AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 1 90-0600 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES N No.oFVFH. No.oFoccWE POLICE REPORT OF A A.O.T. NO. FATALITIES PERsoNSINJ. (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN I L TIME OF ACCIDENT DAY OF WEEK MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOWN COUNTY MILE MARKER 0 1709 TUES OS 29 1990 South Burlington Chitt A HIGHWAY OR STREET IPRIMARY ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTION( INTERSECTING HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD, ETC. 1 AREA TYPE T w 5 Shamrock Road IR = RURAL IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD, BRIDGE. LANDMARK. ETC. U'U URBA!V N FEET OR MILES N. E. S. W. Of' Opt RATON: LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSE( CITY OR TOWN STAT Pe• age v. belt e)ert Injury McSweeney, Ralph F. 72 Bert's Trailer Park ilton VT o 4 M 1 5 V OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE E 60365890 VT P Iron, rtr. YEARS DRIVING EXP. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S I J Iron, YRS. MO. 19 S dghl OP.COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT.CONTENTS E , 1 0 N/A N ieitr E OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE: OF BIRTH 08-30-40 E "or e OWNER'S NAME R S O t W'Nt: R'S ADDRESS CYCLE C.C. Same N/A APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COST CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S V.1. "t 0. E 1 1 I 1) HOOD ESTIMATED SPEED 10 3 �6CA64 STATE I 1. g L s� 6 MinimuIJ ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF 4F 8L1LL132532VT VEH.( D _ IS TRUNK N A TRAVELIN.E.S.W.U.1 jq EH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL TYPE 16 UNDER• TOTAL COST 19 90 JEEP CHER 4 DR u i 11i 10 I 9 g 1 7 CARRIAGE k.n VEH. MAKE "TOTAL Minimum thi. 1 F H. I LASS TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO. VEHICLE REMOVED BY: block COMMERCIA 19 _ N_ N/A N/A N/A OPERATOR OPERA I OK: LAST NAME FIRST MIUDLE AUDRESS ION LICENSE( blank COMMODITY CITY OR TO W N STATE Poe- ap l rjerl I.)up I OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. op STATE P 2 Iran, p r1r. PEARS DRIVING EXP. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S V ) 1 RS. MO. 19 front S right OP. CONO. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E g I kh OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH C, s En•r O NNER'S NAME R r1r. E 6 oar N rlgrightOWNER'S ADDRESS CYCLE: C.C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COS CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED OPERATOR'S I ESTIMATED SPEED V.I. NO. 1 1 t) HOOD PLATE NO. STATE 1 2 1 J! j S 6 14 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF -- VEH.2 D - ISTRUNK TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.I VEH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL TYPE 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 19 12 ; II ; IF, 9 11 A 7 CARRIAGE lea•, VEH. MAKE TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO. -VEHICLE REMOVED BY: 17 TOTAL ,File S'f.H, I LASS 19 biork COMMERCIAL blankCOMMODITY-____ _ h PEDESTRIAN ION SIC"YCLISTI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTHDATE tb1b m.n. h,kr In)- ond. at. ON DAY YR. acede r..Ae cede rode rode .•ode t. INJURY CODES BELT CODES CONDITION CODES I. Fwl TEST CODES CLOTH CODES MANN. CODES-wNA. PEDES. DOING BICYCLIST on1 CODES 1. No ml1, - used 1. App rontlydrink normal 1. Blood I. Flunnvenl or 1. to rd.,, atraflk I1. Jay a1 ,meon•tbn 1. Turned Into •ehkk 2. h.raparlmly 2. 8rh onh uvd 2. Been drinking 2. Breath J. Noo- lnraparl,ating ). Nunen nnh uud ). (.,nuance liquor arging • IigAl 2. In rd.ry, pa. iraJ. 12. J. a1 ,.on 1.1.- 2. 0.1 of drive..y �. Poedb4 Injury g, air bag quo .I. Urine 2. Brighi 1. On .hld,.. Infrk U. Playing in road J. F.II d to ykW J. No Injury t oni) uvd Inn ether 4. Inn.en,. drop A• Unkno.n 3. Moderolt A. On .hid,. a .,. ir.f. 14. Ge11In9 -/-IT .eh. 4. Leal but.- mvatnul S, Inn. liquor A drug. g 0. Unkno.n J. Bah and baron. e. Inn..n,. ntedklne A• Refund g. Dark S. On rd.p, ./i,.W 15. P-hing ehkk S. P..hlwg bkyrk - 6. Belt and air bag 7. F.H .e or IN 9. Ott- 9. Unkno.e 6. OR rd.y..gal. 1-1, 16. Working on .ehkk 6. Defetli.e grip. EJECT CODES t 0. Net gt.en 7. On .Wr.alk .nrJ. 17. Working in road 7. Vehkk Fill bkyrk E 7. 801 an and air bag 6. F.116-1 defect - - - A. 8r11. baron., bag 9. Other A. On alde.alk apt. Ind IS. A. Other inane..., S 1. Yn, completrl, 9. Other ree,ralnt 0• Unkna.n 9, Croa. legal Inion rei• 20. Oth r rnane.•er 9. Unkna.n 1. No, ia"A In ..bkl. 10. No msiratm 10. Croaa legal non lwt. O9• U.kee.. J. ►vt1aN, aailnbk A. Unar•rupkd..hkk 0. Unknn.n t. Unk- Form No. TA•VA-08 10/87 48M KMA VtHICLE NO. 1 COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE COND. ID.f. Equip.) SURFACE ROAD ROAD COND. TRAFF (Firal Action) r I VZ CONDITION CHARACTER Icheck mwl IC CONTROL MOTO RCYCLE INFORMATION OSI-Y .gdoup IHiQhway Only) Prdntrlan 1. Bn4„ I. Dn 2 Che, 4 o MS'in Inflh' 2. Tko N'rl 1. Imer•ection 1,unh PS i.2. M4'.par4d Steering 3. Snow 1. Bridge o,rr 2. From hea,e• 11'6RP,nunKure J. RR tni^ J. from lithe .1. l'nderpa.. J. Sno.drlft �. Smp11RM- helm., ►I S. Pda,,ek S. Rnr Iithh J, lee J. RR froaaint J. Adt •hldr. J. Slop •ignK.re ne 6. K'ild Anim.l 6. l:,hw,t S, Mudd.S. Dd.l S• Cont. are. S, Cauliun lightInJurrd he.d 7. Domntk animal 7• F�n IM �' Allrl 6. IT,wdin(- R6. Ykld signInJurrd - R 7. oil, 7. Ramp off )lchunk. 7. Lan. ne, 4 L V, OcheIwahle V. Other t. I,..ea t. Ramp on R. Dbl. m.r4lnt. R• Spe,i.1 site.V. InJurrd ,he,l L I11Od ill. l'n4nwn other V. Other V. Other npeA FDAMA Injured b.ck I11U4 10. Unknwn 10. Unknown 1I.Other. Non- 11. Na defrh. Nu, .pplhithl, 0. Nu ronlrolInjurer) arm ur leg 1). Not appli,.bl, 0. Not appIh.hkrd E .if,n 1:. Guard nil, curb Injured internal], O u Tier ROAD TYPE IGHT CONDITION ROAD DESIGN EATHER COND. other in n 14. Poll. >IR"LLn kd'P 1. Down RTRAFFIC COND.O AGt. OTII! R TH S IS. Ledge. luwlderd 2. Dglith, Up/down hill I. ('leer 1. Ofncee A.N1. IA. Other I., ir.il Dm4 2. Tup of hit) 2. Raining 2. F6Rpcn.,n p Fi,ed objec .1. I. Bot, of hill 1. Snow inR Gaa A 17. Moped rect. J. Dark J. L„el J. Fngq, .1. T IR. Mutunlrirer S. D.rk-ligMrd /1. Unknown J. Cn.aahurk• A ,RI. l'n4nnwn4. nuwn Other S. H.Ilint S. Fla,hing light. IL Unkma _ ROAD ALIGN h. Cbud) Doll 6. Stop Ogn OK'NLR'S NAME AND ADDRLAS RT.I Din. fromVEMENT road 1, Straight 7. Sierting 7. WarninT. R aiRn e.l. l0 naee object1. SPEEDO SIiRM tour 4. Othert 4. (hher ype TAL (LIMIT0. Sharp cure Unknown III. No RRDTH 1 r 11, ,Nut .ppii,.hle APPRO7(IMATt. I _-_ -- LIST WITNESSES OTHER THAN_OCC_UPANTS 0, l�n known Rt.PAIR 1 C OSTS 1 _ LAST NAME I FIRST NAME �- 1 ---_ -------- 1 _ ---'- ---'-- -- MIDDLE ADDRESS CITY OR T(IN N 1LST! T I I I 1 E-- ---- - - -- ---- - S I S 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I S F.H. NO. VEH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJ L'RIES _..-___ _--- INJURED TAKEN TO WHOM TAKEN BY Lt:AVF: NLANK n -_-_-. - __..__- -- __ _.-. _ HOSTT RI ti( S P _ -_-- O F N - --- (' A. PRIMARY CAUSE A IN THE OFFICER'S OPINION T� LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK U J(HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED Wet Roads S TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT R C U.. -- ....... ................. B. OTHER CAUSES ....................................... . .......................... Unidentified Vehicle blocking road r,a COURT AE#3 LIST LAK' VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. LVEHICLE %.h.E---------- EHICLE .L Degree1"Ky4+------- -OR OTH- ___ ___ __ _. _ _ __ __._.___ _. - Pcn.nl of grad, DEPARTMENT OR TROOP S4.d .acidrnt ,ode DEPT. TYPE DEFT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT F PD South Bur ton _DE - ,7 Me LO� Orll(!R ARRI1 l:D AT ufN! g 02 76 17U9 IM"DYE11 17d§"F. ,bSTu 19) 19at(SIGN'ATL'RE OF THE 1 ATE OF REPORT 1 11f I%%k STIGATING OFFICE 1 05-29-90C 1 662 C NAMES OF ASSISTING � f. OFFICERS 1 OFFICIAL PHOTOS to J R J - _ WERE TAKEN BY SIGNATURE OF THE 1 APPROVING OFFICER : IN 1 APPROVED.I--_ .3, POLICE NO. 90-06003 A.O.T. NO. ,�— Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT SCHOOL 1 ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS NAMES OF INVOLVED PERSONS i NOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS BUS TYPE II OR III IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR NO.1: j Magnant I OPERATOR NO.1: I Parker ; i xsc>£xmmxNncrFlVehicle 3McSweeney 1 1 REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: '% TYPE 1-CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE 11--CAPACITY OF IA OR LESS On May29, 1990, at 1709 hours, I came upon a three vehicle accident with property damage only. This accident had occurred on Airport Parkway at the intersection with Shamrock Road in South Burlington, Vermont. Airport Parkway is a paved two lane roadway providing for north and south bound travelling vehicles. Shamrock Road intersects with Airport Parkway. Traffic along Airport Parkway is controlled by a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour and a suspended caution light over the intersection of Shamrock Road. It should also be noted that Airport Parkway in this area has a sharp curve near the Shamrock Road intersection. The weather at D the time of the accident was raining with a road surface condition being wet. E S I identified Vehicle #1 as a 1985 Volkswagon Jetta bearing Vermont 4B188. The C driver had been Kristine Magnant of South Burlington, Vermont. Vehicle #2 was R a 1983 Toyota Tercel bearing Vermont registration 95105. The driver of this vehicle had been Cynthia M. Parker of South Burlington, Vermont. Vehicle #3 was a 1990 B Jeep Cherokee four door bearing VErmont 6CA64. The driver had been Ralph F. McSweene E of Milton, Vermont. T Investigation of this accident shows that all three vehicles had been travelling in H a southerly direction along Airport Parkway. Vehicle #1 (Magnant) was the lead E vehicle with Vehicle #2 behind and Vehicle #3 behind Vehicle #2 and #1. A fourth, unidentified vehicle had stopped in the southbound lane to make a left turn onto A Shamrock Road, therefore Operator #1 (Magnant) had to -stop abruptly in the roadway C behind this unidentified vehicle. Vehicle #2 also had to stop abruptly to avoid C hitting Vehicle#1. Vehicle #3 (McSweeney) attempted to also stop, but his vehicle slid on the wet pavement and collided with the rear of Vehicle #2, and Vehicle #2 D was inturn pushed into Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 received slight damage to the rear E portion of the vehicle, VEhicle #2 received minor damage to the front and rear N portions of the vehicle and Vehicle #3 received minor damage to the front right corne T of the vehicle. All three vehicles were removed from the roadway by the operators. I It is my opinion that the primary cause of this accident was due to the wet road N surface conditions and also the fact that the fourth unidentified vehicle had stopped in the southbound lane to make a left turn instead of using the left turn D lans, causing the other three vehicles to stop abruptly. I recommend no court E action on this accident. T A I L pas Map Symbols OD = traffic light with flashing yellow light A ` = traffic light with flashing C red light I D E N r s c E N E D I A G R A M 1�1 Parkway kwav 4 Not drawn to scale. No measurements were taken. 10, 119 rthan Allen Drive Shamrock Rd. a THIS'REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. L ROUTE CODE ' 'w STATE OFIVERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION I POLICE NO. 1 90-00536 COUNTY -TOWN CODE EXACT LOCATION 1 A.O.T. NO. I 1 A N DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN NO.oFVFH. NO.oFocc. FATALITIES PERSONStN). L 0 TIME OF ACCIDENT 0516 DAY OF MEEK aturday MONTH DAY YEAR O1 13 I990 CITY OR TOWN South Burlington COUNTY Chitt. MILE MARKER A T HIGHWAY OR STREET (PRIMARY ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTIONI Airport Parkway INTERSECTING HIGHWAY. STREET, ROAD, ETC. Shamrock Road 1 AREA TYPE I R RURAL U 'u = URBAN I IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK, ETC. NI FEET OR MILES N. E. S. W. OF OPERATOR: LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ION LICENSE( CITY OR TOWN STAT Pa •V w. bell eJnl Injury 2 F 1 2 5 JADDRESS Raymond Shelly D. 35 Thasha Lane Pt. C3 Essex Jct. VT V E OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. 8077924A STATE P VT A 2 front r'r' YEARS DRIVING EXP. IRS. Mo. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S 19 82 None S 1 N- g I OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TESTCODE PCT. CONTENTS 1 E 1 1 0 n/a N 711 E OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE: OF BIRTH 5 009 50 8817 11 21 63 E r"r OWNER'S NAME R 6 Raymond, Douglas S. S .Ighl I OWNER'S ADDRESS Junction Vermont CYCLE C.C. n a1 APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COST Moderate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEEDEssex 20 rCIRCLE , / 1 , 6 ' C 1HOOD V.I. NO. PLATE NO. STAT 11 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST DIRECTION OF 1G2AB6908E7208098 DSR VT VEH.I D - n/a TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.1 S 15 TRUNK I 12IF 101 9 6 I, 7 1 I j x ' x I x 1 1 1 NEW YR. 19 84 VEH. MAKE Pontiac MODEL Sunbird TYPE 2 dr. 16 UNDER. CARRIAGE TOTAL COST Moderate I.- Ihl. VEH. MANE 17TOTAL 11H.(I.A.S TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO. VEHICLE REMOVED BY: bl-k COMMERCIAL COMMODITY 19_ bl.nk OPERATOR: LAST SAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSE( CITY OR TOWN STATE Pw. .ge I 10' Injun P 61 M 1 2 5 Morse Bernard S. Route 2 Box 217 Groveland FL OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE P 2 fro.( M620 097 28 252 FL A r'r YEARS DRIVING EXP. 451RS. MO. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS 19 n/a 1 rlghl Vfront E S S E OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS 1 I 0 G 46 OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH S I' 005 20 3970 07 12 28 OWNER'S NAME E R 711 6 ft E R.R. Charlebois Inc. '''"' I I N OWNER'S ADDRESS 1 Hercules Dr. Colchester VT CYCLE: C.C. n a APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED -Moderate VEH. REPAIR COSTOPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED - 1 I , I 1 2 1 1 , S 6 -- VEH.: D - 11, 11HOOD V.1. NO. 1FDPK74N8GOA19907 PLATE NO. I D35379 STATE VT 11 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST n/a DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.1 N ISTRUNK 1: n I III 1 9 ' B i 7 VEH. YR, 19 86 VEH. MAKE Ford MODEL Truck TYPE Van 16 UNDER. CARRIAGE TOTAL COST Moderate I.- 161. VEH. MAKE S't H. CLASS 17 TOTAL TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO. _ VEHICLE REMOVED BY. blurt COMMERCIAL 19 n/a n/a n/a n/a Operator a l--k COMMODIT _ _ _ P PEDESTRIAN IOR BIC'YCL15TI NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTRDATE ON DAY YR. '� .loth rode m.n. c.wle Mke rode Injure rode cured. rode wl rode �1. 1. S i , INJURY CODES BELT CODES CONDITION CODES TEST CODES CLOTH CODES MnNR. CODES -WHAT PEDES. DOING BICYCLIST onl CODES I. F.tal 2. I-parll.ling 1. No --int. uwd 2. Bell ..I uwd 1. Apparently normal 2. Been drinking 1. Blood 2. B-th 1. Flu. -I er aMI.It . IIRhI 1. In rd.y..itr.ilk 11. J.y .1 inlenertbn 2. In rd.y..1.1. Inf. 12, Jy .1 ran-Inkner. 1. Turned Into .ehkk 2. Oul of drl.r..y ]. N-1-pw11.11n1 3. H.rnea. -10 uwd 1. Inn.e liquor 3. U.IM 2. Brlghl .1. On .bid,.. Infra 13. Pl.ying In ro.d 3. F.Ikd I. yield 1. Pw.lble I.J.r, I..1, b.g only .Jed Inn .(her 1. Inn..,- drug. 1. Unknown .1. Modem. A. On hid,..R.I. I,.(. FI. G,WnR ../off .eh. 1. Lu.l b.l.nre S. No Injury n.l.ainlal S. In11. iquor 6 drog. A. Rrf.wd 1. D.rk S. OH Huy. .ilr m 15, Pr.61.R .rhkk I. Pu.hl.g bkyrle 0. Unknown 5. Bell .red hnnra. 6. 1.0.- medklne 9. JIMr 9. Unknown 6. Off rd.,. ag.l. 1-1. 16. Working en .rhkk 6. Def-il- eq.1p. -_ 6. &11 .red dr b.R 7. F.Ilgue or 111 0. Not 111- 7. On kk.alk .It-f. 17. W-hi.it In ro.d 7. Vehkle 11B bkyrk E EJECT CODES 7. Hunen .red .Ir b.R 6. Phydnl defers S. On .1&.alk .g.t. 1rd 19. A. Other m.ner.n SI. Y.. romplekly _ 6. Bell, 1.b.R 9. OIMr mininl 9. Other 0. Unknown 9. Crow. I.S.l I.W-1. 20. Other m.nrr.er 10. Crow legal non-int. 99. Unknown 9. Unkne.n 2. N.. rayed In ..h1cl. 10. No mtr.inl 3. P.M.11, -11.blr 1. Unoerrpkd .rhkk 0. Unknown 0. Unknn.n Form No. TA-VA-08 10/87 48M KMA VEHICLE NO. I VEHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL p101'ORCYCLE INFORMATION ONLY COLLIDED WITH (Def. Equlp.1 CONDITION CHARACTER (check mwl.eriouq (Highway Only) (}cle 1 (,rk 2 Chni uff i,, hi..k. IFinl Action) VI VZ ..I, OP PS OP PS 1. Prde.Irl.n I. 8nkn 1. Dr.. X;. Intc-erUon 1. Polhnlr. I. OfOcer b 1 ES 2. MV in Ir.Hk• 2. TI- 2. K'el 2. Bridµr - 2. 1'nwt It-- 2. Fl.µpenon Kurr helm,, 3. MV.p.,k.d .1. Swri.it A. Sn- 1. Undnp... 1. Sno.drlft 1. Slnpllghl - --- J. RR Inin J. I rom light. J. Ire J. RR Croulnµ J. So0 .hid,. 4. Smp Ot. Wure e,e pru,eo,k.n M S. Ped.,,rk S. It- light. S. Mudd) S, Dri,e.n S. C-1..n. S. f.uthm light Injured hod --_ - S 6. Wild Ani-1 A. 1: h.u,l 6. Slush) 6. Alley 6. 1'1o,.dlnµ 6. YI,Id dµn Injured neck C 7. Da.-H, .nlmd 7. Fnµinr 7.011. 7. R.mp IT 7. kr ,hunk, 7. L.nr m.rkinq. Injured ,hr,t A. Snu.mublle A. GI- N. l-ena d. R.mp on µ. Dehrl. A. Sprcid Otin, L v. Other m....hk Y. Other V. Other 4. Other 4, Oiher 9. O,hrr npe Injured h.ck - L o In. O,r 1-d 10. Unknn.n In. L'nkno.n 10. Unknnrn In. Unknown It. N., ,noun) .rm or I,µ A 11. O, her. X X It. No dcfra, it, Nol appli-hl, 41. Nol .Ppli-bl, 11. Not .Ppli,.hk I.Jur,d in.,-Il, N e:.Ilkinn 1:. Gu.rd nib curb _ -ROAD _ (hhrr in un rROPERTY DAMAGE OTHER THAN O IJ, Tree ROAD TYPE IGHT CONDITION DESIGN FATHER COND. R. TRAFFIC COND• U 14. Pole, ,it. 1. Bl.rkmp 1. D..n 1. Upid-n hill 1. Cl.. I. Officer YP.IIICLF. S IS. I dµr, I-td,r 1. l: n.rl 2. [)..,light 2. T,.p of hill 2. Raining 2. Fl.µpenun It.. Other i• Dirt. I-il 1. Dusk 1, Hw. of hill .t. Snoring 1. G.le. p Fhed ol.jn•t J. Cuncrcle J. D.rk - J. Iw,el J. Foµq, J. Crouh-1. A 17, M..ped 4. Other tA. Momm,ck X S. D.rk•liµh„d 0. Unkno.n S. I1.11inµ 5. I'luhinµ light. T IKI. Unkon.n it. Unkn-n 4. Other 6. Cloud) onl, 6. Stop .iµn 0%%NEWS NANIE AND ADDRESS A 11. l'nkn,,.n ROAD ALIGN 7. Skr,inq 7. Warning .ign T. RT.1 Dbt. from J PA\'EMENT - 1 POSTED 1. Str.,µht V. Olhrr, Y. (hher type 1 read c.l. to n/al WIDTI. SPEED 2. Slight rune n.ed obj-t ILIMIT it. U.1-- 111. N.. RR control 1�-- VEH. N0. 1 TOTAL WIDTH 25 I 1. Sh.rp rune 11. Nul .pplir.bk APPROXIMATE Q REPAIR j $ n/a1 n/aI. IL Unkno.n (COSIS 1 LIST WITNESSES OTHER THAN OCCUPANTS ---- - -----t---------- LASTNAME 1 FIRST NAM-E I MIDDLE ADDRESS CITY (1R TOKN SL\7 t. 1 I � n/a ' T 1 i N I I E 1 I i I - I 1 S E S �- 1 ( - 1 1 1 1 VEH. NO. .,EH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES INJURED TAKEN TO NHOM TAKEN BY LEAVt: BLANK HOSP. Rt.S(l E. D P O J A. PRIMARY CAUSE LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK UA IN THE OFFICE R'S OPINION H-HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED 0 #1 ...........P.! Driving too fast for conditions S TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT ..................................................................................................................................................... B. OTHER CAUSES 1'.u,e a-idenl T,P' d-videnl E Slippery roads/snow covered (OL_RT ACTION YES- NO --_- -_--- LIST LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTT NOS. X L VEHICLE NO. I T. 23 SS 1081 O (a), Too Fast for Conditions \rh. no. 2......11 E , A VEHICLE NO. 2 Degree of rune Percent of It-dr L- _.. __ _. - _ __X - _ _.___- _..__. _. __ __._-._---_.--_--_--_--__. PEDESTRIAN Sk.d urident ndr OR OTHER DEPARTMENT OR TROOP DE ` YPE DEFT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT (111 R t R ARRI\ FD AT S( 1 St �� PD South Burlingt n 2 76 TIME MONTH DAY YEAR 0516 01 131-90 TIME: M0 MON711 1)\Y 11 AR 0 1 90 1, SIGN�ATL'RE OF THE 1 ,� DATE OF REPORT RANK I.U. f IN%FSTIGATING OFFICER 1 j/1 01/20/90 Ptl. 664 NAMES OF ASSISTING OFFICERS I OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 I.d„°" 11 horn. t.k,n (•; R 1 SIGNATURE OF THE WERE TAKEN BY � n/a P DATE APPROVED: APPROVINC OFFICER �T \ - N• N � 1 E S C R I B E H E A C C I D E N T 1 N D E T A 1 L Pages 3 and 4 are for accident description and accident sketch, plus operator statements NAMES OF INVOLVED PERSONS OPERATOR NO. 1: Raymond, Shelly D. OPERATOR NO. 2: Morse, Bernard S. PEDESTRIANISI for BICYLISTI REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: •3- POLICE NO. j 90-00536 STATE OF VERMONT A.O.T. NO. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 1 SCHOOL I ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS BUS TYPE IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS I NOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS II OR 111 MATERIAL, GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW % TYPE 1—CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE II --CAPACITY OF 16 OR LESS On January 13, 1990 at approximately 0516 hours I was dispatched to Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road for a report of a two car accident. Upon my arrival I observed vehicle #! (Raymond)to be a 1984 Pontiac Sunbird bearing Vermont registration DSR. Vehicle #1(Raymond)was facing westbound directly in the middle of both north and southbound lanes of Airport Parkway. Vehicle #2(Morse)was identified as a 1986 Ford truck bearing Vermont temporary registration D35379. Vehicl #2(Morse)was facing northbound and was partially off the road at the intersection of Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road. At the time of the accident the roads were snow covered and were extremely slippery. Operator #I (Raymond)was identified as Shelly D. Raymond of 35 Thasha Lane, apartment #23, Essex Junction, Vermont. Operator #I (Raymond)had a valid Vermont operator's license. Operator #2(Morse)was identified as a Bernard S. Morse of Route 2 Box 217, Groveland, Florida. Operator #2(Morse)produced a valid Florida operator's license. Operator #I (Raymond)stated she was southbound on Airport Parkway going approximately 20 miles an hour and as she was approaching the curve she applied her brakes and the vehicle started to slide and she attempted to steer to the right and was unable to do so and struck vehicle #2(Morse), which was coming the hill and was trying to avoid her. rdcwn Operator #2(Morse)stated that he was northbound going approximately 20 to 25 miles per hour when he observed vehicle #I (Raymond)to start coming around the corner and then slid into his lane and struck his vehicle. Damage to vehicle #I (Raymond)was moderate to the left front fender, bumper, hood and driver's side door of the vehicle. Damage to vehicle #2(Morse)was moderate to the left side fender and minor damage to the fuel tank. Neither driver was injured in the accident and vehicle #1(Raymond)was removed by Lucia's Wrecker Service and vehicle #2(Morse)was removed by its operator. Investigation revealed that vehicle #I (Raymond)was southbound on Airport Parkway and was approaching the sharp curve at the bottom of the hill when the operator attempted to brake to slow down and lost control of her vehicle and slid into the northbound lane just as vehicle #2(Morse)had come down the hill and was starting to make the corner. Operator #I (Raymond)will be receiving a Vermont Traffic Ticket for a violation of Title 23 VSA 1081 (a), Too Fast for Road Conditions. ddp No Text THIS REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. g N R%JUTE CODE 1 i - I STATE OF VERMONT *9POLICE AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A I NO. 1 90-01990 Q COUNTY TOWN CODE jA EXACT LOCATION No. OFV•EH. NO.OFofC. 1 A.O.T. NO. I (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDEN I FATALITIES I PeasorslNl. L TIME OF ACCIDENT DAY OF N'EEK MONTH DAY YEAR CITY OR TOWN . COUNTY MJLE MARKER 1528 I Thursday 02 1 15119 90 South Burlington Chitt. A i HIGHWAY OR STREET IPRIMARY ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTION, Airport ParkwayShamrock INTERSECTING HIGHWAY. STREET, ROAD, ETC. Road 1 AREA TYPE I R = RURAL U '11 = URBAN IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, HOW FAR IS IT TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY, STREET, ROAD, BRIDGE, LANDMARK. ETC. N FEET OR MILESi N. E. S. W. OF OPERATOR: LASTNAME FIRST MIDDLE ION LICENSE( CITY IRTOWN STAT- Poo •0• bell eJrcl I.J.ly e P 32 F 5 2 5 JADDRESS S rabear Ga la 3 Nahma Avenue Essex Jct. VT V E OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. 8121986 STATE P , from rr. I YEARS DRIVING Ea P. 17 YRS. MO. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS 19 83/73 #1 S S 3 (- I right OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E 1 left E OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH 01 06 58 E .r f tv OWNER'S NAME }Z 6 Nikon Precision Incorporated S right I OWNER'S ADDRESS San Bruno, California CYC LL(A. n/a APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED REPAIR COST Minor OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 15-2 1 i J I 3 1 1 S I 4 L ' -- VEH., D - �•� HOOD V'.I, NO. 1GIJD81163351 PLATE NO. 162G3 STATE VT 11 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST n/a DIRECTION OF17��T� IS TRUNK VEH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL TYPE 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 19 87 Chev. Chevette SW 11 ; 10; ° ; " 7 " 1 CARRIAGE Minor kne Ihla VEH. MAKE 17 TOTAL 1 H. (lASV TRL. YR. 19_n/a TRAILER MAKE n/a TRAILER MODEL n/a TRAILER PLATE NO. n/a VEHICLE REMOVED BY: I Operator block blank COMMERCIAL COMMODITY OPERATOR: LAST .NAME FIRST MIDDLE ION LICENSE( CITY OR TOWN STATE Po•- •p , 1 .jff1 l.Jer, o 8 F 5 12 5 jA11DRLSS Hemingway Eileen 22 Valle Ridge So. Burl. VT OPLRATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE P J from 50409518 VT A err. V E YEARS DRIVING EXP. IRS. Mo. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS S 19 None S Barbara Silman 3 F 5 2 5 OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT.CONTENTS E 1 1 1 0 n/a N oar ion OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE OF BIRTH Cj 3 L E 05 13 51 E OWNER'S NAME R Silman, Barbara 6 righi N OWNER'S ADDRESS CYCLE C.C. APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NO. IN BOIL FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED VEH. REPAIR COS OPERATOR'S P.O. Box 330, Wait SESTIMATED ield. VT SPEED 0 1 , 1 1 1 � 3� 1 , S� 6 __=H1- ()HOOD Moderate V.I. N0. JF2AN53B7HF889601 PLATE NO. 950F5 STATE VT 11 ROOF TRL. REPAIR COST n/a DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.1 W IS TRUNK VEH. YR. VEH. MAKE MODEL TYPE 16 UNDER. TOTAL COST 19 87 Subaru GL SW j 11 " k� g 1 7 CARRIAGE 17 TOTAL Moderate 4a.e Ohio VEH. MAKE aT H. CLASS TRL. 'OR. 19 n/a TRAILER MAKE TRAILER n/a MODEL n/a TRAILER PLATE NO. n/a VEHICLE REMOVED BY: Operator block blank COMMERCIAL COM, P PEDESTRIAN IOR BICYCLIST( NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTN ON DATE DAY YR. age wa 'loth ede man. r.rle h.k. ode In)- ode .ond. rode wl cede W" cool. E S INJURY CODES I. Fetal J. Incap.Owing J. Noo- lnrapaclialing 1. P-a164 InJ•O S. No Injury 0. Unknown EJECT CODES L Yea. completely J. No, rayed In .rhkle 3. Partially 1. L'noccepkd .ehkk 0 Unknown BELT CODES 1. No rew.irrt. used J. Belt only uud 3. H...... only used 1. air hag only used Inn whet mininul S. Be11 and Aarnrsa 6. 9r11 and air bag 7. Harm.. and air hag 0. Bd1, ha.new, bag 9. 01her Her Hint 111. No minita ..ilabk 0. Unknown CONDITION CODES 1. Apparently normal J. Been drinking r 3. inn.- llquor 1. Innuence drug• S. Inn. liquor i drup 6. Innuence medklne 7. Fallgoe or 111 S. Phy.1-1 def-1 9. Other 0. Unkne.n TEST CODES I. tlland 2. BRa1h 3. Urine /. Unknown A. Rcfuwd 9. 311er 0. Nol glen CLOTH CODES 1. Fl-- -enr or carrying a Iighl J. Brlghl 1. Modem, /. Dark 9, Unknown I MA-R. CODES -WHAT PEDES. DOING 1. In rd.,..�Onlfk 11. ly a1 -Oe "Or J. In .dry. ag.1. rraf. 12. )a, al rron•Inter+ec. 1. On chid,.. Ilydfk 13. Pl.ying In road J. On shid,. apt. 1r.(. 14. Gelling an 1.11 •ch. S. OH .day../IrafDc IS. P..hing .ehkk 6. OR rd-y. as-1. Oral. 16. Working on •ehkk 7. On alderdk rIi-f. 17. Working 1. road S. On dde..Ik agat. Oral 19. 9. Croat legal I.W-1. J0. Oiler manw•er 10. Crow kpl noo-lnl, 99. Unknown BICYCLIST onl CODES I. Turned Into •ehkk 2. 0.1 of dri•er., 3. F.IW 10 ykld 1, L-1 balance S. Pushing bk•yck 6. Defecll.e equip. 7. Vrhkk loll bkyck R. Oiler rrarar-, 9. Unkwn no w. an -era vv tutor -411 nl A COLLIDED VEHICLE NO. I WITH (fln1 Action) VEHICLE COND. (Def. Equlp.l 1 V2 SURFACE CONDITION ROAD CHARACTER ROAD COND. (check most serious) TRAFFIC CONTROL (Hlghwa2 On171 MOTORCYCLE: INFOR MATIUN ONLI Ork 1 (ark 2 -- Cher4 .jt t,. hh. 4. 1. Pednlrian I. Walk" 1. Dq j{ ;. Im<rucUnn I. Pnlhnka I. Officer unl. If ...... b 1 FA OP PS OF PS X 2. MV In i,.ffk- 1. M\•_pu4ed 2. Tire. <r 1. Slring 2. K,I 1. Snnr 2. Bridgr u.er S. L'ndrrpu. 2. Fnr.1 hra.e. 1, Snurdrih 2. 1'Lgprrwn 1. Slnplighl --- -- K'ore hdmrl - 3. RR train J. Fmm light. S. Rear light. 3. Irr S• Mudd) 3. RR Crmdng S. Dri.r...) 3. Soh .hldr. Ii. C.mt. are. 3. Su.p .ign S. Caution light Nbre .yr pr 1-b.n InJurrd heal S6. K'lid Animal 6. E.h... i M1. Slu.h) M1. Allea A. FImdI^R 6. Yleld alit. Injurrd neck C E L 7, Dome.ar animal x. Snuwmubila V. Olh<r mo..hk 7. F:nglnr x, GI... V. Other 7. Oil. x. Lw. 9, 01h<r 7. R.mp if A. Ramp on 4. 01hrr 7. Ire .hunk. x. Oebrl. V. Other 7. Lane m.rklne. x. Sperl.1111m 4. Other 1)pe InJurrd .heal In)umd h.,k L A N lit. O.rrlun.etd 11. Other. Non. colil.ion }{ lit. Unknown }{ IN. No ddret. 10. Unknown 11. Nnt .ppli,.hl, III, L'.I,.own 4 Not applicable 111, Unk..wn 11. No1 .ppli-bl, 41. Nu .um rot InJurrd arm nr kq Injured in-.0h E 1-'- Guard rail curb 1.1. Tres ROAD TYPE L16HT CONDITION ROAD DESIGN _ EATHER COND.R.R. TRAFFIC COND. Ulher in un eorF.DAMAGEDAAucuT111 R THAN U 14. Puk. 02. I. Bl.rk lop I. D..n I. Up%dawn hill 1. Clear 1. Officer VF HK LE S IS. Lrdge, buuld,, 2. Grwd X 2. D..lighi 2. Tup of hill 2. R.IninR 2. Fl.gpenun D A T A T. It'. 01hrr 11rd object 17. Muprd IN, !Nuwn;.rk ql. Unknown RT.1 Dla1. from road -1 Jrr Hard o6 t I S'EH. NO. I n 1. Dirt, Intl 3. Cnn.rrtr '1. Other 1). l'nknnwn A' PAVEMENT a 1 W T 1. Du.k 4. Dark S. Dark lieh ed V. Other 11. Unkn-n 1 POSTED I SPEED 35 (LIMIT 1 I r X 1• But• of hill 1. Lead it.Unkn.- - ROAD ALIGN 1. Straight 2. Slight tune ]. Sh.r prune 11. 1'nknuwn X A. Snowing �. Fr. RR S. H.iling M1. Cloud) onl) 7. Skrting V. Other 11. Unknnwn 1. U.N. 3. Crn»buck. S. Fl..hing light. 1'. Stop dgn 7. Warning ig. 9. 01hrr qpr la, No RR control 11, Nut applicable DK'NEWS NAME: AND ADDRESS n/a1' 1 TOTAL I WIDTH n APPROXIMATE I Q 1 $ REPAIR COSTS 1 _ -- LIST WITNESSES OTHER THAN OC(UPANTS T N ADDRESS ( ITV OR TOWN STAIE _ LAST NAM[.' 1 FIRST NM AE j--MIDDLE __-----� nLa I i --------- + ----- - 1 ---------- - - - S S E S I � �- 1 � i I 1 \ POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIESINlLIBE:D TAKEN TO NHOM TAKEN BY 1 E4\'E. NLANK 4%0.EH. HOSP. REM 1. Fy - --- - - - ----- --- - - - N 0 F - C A. PRIMARY CAUSE ' UK IN THE: OFFICER'S OPINION HAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE. OF ACCIDENT .................................. B. OTHER CAUSES y .7 �7 ......... Weatll er...rind:,ro ad.., C,Ornd1_t_1 On, .„............................... LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK lyu e..f acrtdem E' T)p• of . Odrm COURT ACTION YES NO LIST LAW VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. --____-- \'eh. nn. 1 m.nru.rr -------___ __ _ L VEHICLE NO. 1 . - \'eh, an. 2 m.nr.Z i A VEHICLE NO. 2 I, _. P< nt of gndr PEDESTRIAN ---_ --- _----_- OR OTHER Sk.d ..ridenl ends DEPARTMENT OR TROOP DEPT. TYPE DEPT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT ofI I( t R ARRI\ F1) AT M I'll 0 L f PD South Burlington SIGNATURE OF THE IN%ESTIGATING OFFICER- g I �- 2 _ . _ - _76 ^ .. - - - EAR 1528 IM NTH DAY 021151Y90 f DATE OF REPORT TIMo211 1543 D1, 1190 RANK I.D. ♦u. (• k. NAMES OF ASSISTING OFFICERS SIGNATURE OF THE APPROVING OFFICER - _. _. ... 1 S 1 �.' � ��-'l�(.�l OFFICIAL PHOTOS 1 WERE TAKEN BY 1 na / Indi..le it phub.. 1.Lrn DATE APPROVED: 1 Inj___ ,• -3- POLICE NO.! 90-01990 A.O.T. NO. Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A ii MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT i SCHOOL 1 ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS BUS TYPE IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS NAMES OF INVOLVED PERSONS 1 NOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS 0 OR III MATERIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR NO.1: j S rabeary, Gayla OPERATOR NO. 2: j I Eileen ' PEDESTRIAN(S) for BICYLIST) 1 1 1 REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: 1t TYPE 1—CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE 11 - CAPACITY OF 14 OR LESS On February 15, 1990 at approximately 1528 hours I was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road. There were no reported injuries. The intersection where this accident occurred is controlled by a stop sign. At the time of the accident it was snowing extremely hard and the road surface was snow covered and extremely slippery. Upon my arrival I observed both vehicles to have been removed' from the roadway and parked on the west side of Shamrock Road. D E Operator #1(Sprabeary)verbally identified herself to me as Gayla Sprabeary, DOB: S 01/06/58. Operator #2(Hemingway)identified herself to me with a valid Vermont driver' C license as Eileen Hemingway, DOB: 05/13/51. Operator #1(Sprabeary)also had a valid R Vermont driver's license. 1 B Operator #1(Sprabeary)advised me that she was travelling northeast on Airport Parkway E at approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour. She said she turned on her right directiona signal so that she could turn onto Shamrock Road to proceed south towards the Air T National Guard. She told me she was coming down the hill and it was very slippery. H She said as she was making the turn that brings her onto Shamrock Road she struck a E patch of ice and lost control of her vehicle. She said she slid into a vehicle that was stopped waiting to proceed up the hill. A C Operator #2(Hemingway)told me she was stopped facing westbound at the intersection C of Shamrock Road and Airport Parkway. She said she was waiting to proceed southbound I on Airport Parkway. She said a vehicle came down the Airport Parkway hill and it D appeared that the vehicle hit some ice and the vehicle was losing control. She said E the vehicle then crossed the lane and struck her vehicle. N T Investigation revealed that this accident occurred as told by both operators. I I feel that the existing road and weather conditions were the primary cause of this N accident and recommend no court action. D E T A 1 L ddp A.iziort Parkwav Map Symbols = traffic light with flashing yellow light A = traffic light C with flashing C red light t D E N T S C E E D 1 A G a R®\ Parkway Not drawn to scale.. No measurements were taken. tp, 149 r tha Alle Driv �J Shamrock Rd. Map Symbols = traffic light with flashing yellow light A = traffic light C with flashing C red light t D E N T S C E E D 1 A G a R®\ Parkway Not drawn to scale.. No measurements were taken. tp, 149 r tha Alle Driv �J Shamrock Rd. r TiHI; REPORT MUST BE SENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PER 23 V.S.A.§ 1016. L ROUTECODE 1 i 1 STATE OF V*ERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION POLICE NO. , 90-04319 COUNTY JOWN CODE LXACT LOCATION NO.OF VEH. No. of'OCC. A N DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES POLICE REPORT OF A A.O.T. NO. I VEHICLE ACCIDEN FATALITIES S(MOTOR LTIME OF ACCIDENTAY 1815 t?ER'ON OF WEEK nday MONTH DAY YEAR 04 1� Ig90 CITY OR TOWN . South Burlington COUNTY Chitt. MILE MARXftO C A TAirport HIGHWAY OR STREET IPRIMARY ROUTE IF AT AN INTERSECTION( ParkwayShamrock INTERSECTING HIGHWAY. STREET, ROAD, ETC. Road 1 AREA TYPE 1 R • RURAL U lu VRBAN IF ACCIDENT IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, HOW FAR IS 1T TO THE NEAREST HIGHWAY. STREET. ROAD. BRIDGE. LANDMARK, ETC. N FEET OR MILES N. E. S. W. OF OPERATOR: LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE ADDRESS ION LICENSEI CITY OR TOWN ISTATI Poo .grare1e11 ± 1 I"i•ry w 4 F 5 2 5 Eld Daphny M. P.O. Box 179 Colchester VT V E OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. 80348614 STATE VT P 2 loat `X. X. I T EARS DRIVING EXP. 18 YRS. MO. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS 19 66 None S S Ir3 right O P. CON D. CODE TYPEOFTESTCODE PCT. CONTENTS E 1 0 n a n.r kfl E OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE. Of BIRTH G S 05 20 47 E "I7 OWNER'S NAME R 6 Eld, Daphny M. S right I OWNER'S ADDRESS Colchester, Vermont CYC LL C.C. n/a APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED VEH. CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DAMAGED REPAIR COST Moderate OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 35 I 1 1 IX a 2X 1 1 ♦ S 1 0 l 1 -- VEN.1 Q _ 11HOOD V.I. NO. 1GlAW19MGG109246 PLATE NO. 64AT5 STATE + VT 14 ROOF TRL. REPAI/g COST n/a DIRECTION OF TRAVEL INE.S.W'.U.1 S IS TRUNK 12 1 11 10 1 9 j g 1 7 I I 1 I 1 VEH. YR. 19 86 VEH. MAKE Chev. Celebrit MODEL TYPE 4 dr. 16 UNDER- CARRIAGE TOTAL COST Moderate Ir..e the. VEH. MAKE 17 TOTAL 1,H IIA%% TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE NO, VEHICLE REMOVED BY: bkrk COMMERCIAL COMMODITY 19 n a Interstate Texaco bl.nk OPERATOR: LAST NAME. FIRST MIDDLE LICENSEI CITY ORTOWN STATE Poo. or 1 .fort i"1.q JADDRLSSJON Zeno Robert A. 15 Mt. Mansfield Avenuel Colchester VT ' 251 MI 1 2 5 OPERATOR'S LICENSE NO. STATE 2 00717843 VT P A " YEARS DRIVING EXP. YEAR OF DRIVER ED. LICENSE REST RICTIONS 3 ,/ E 9 1RS. MO. 19 82 None S Shawn Merrihew-Colchester,VT front right 20 M 1 2 5 OP. COND. CODE TYPE OF TEST CODE PCT. CONTENTS E 2 2 .017 N Robert A. Zeno -Colchester, VT k,r 3.5 M 9 2 5 I OPERATOR'S SOCIAL SECURITY NO. OPERATOR'S DATE Of BIRTH G S 03 13 65 E L E OWNER'S NAME Zeno Tina A. S R Katland L. Zeno-Colchester,VT 6 •+.1'd F 19 2 5 N OWNER'S ADDRESS 316 Winchester Place ,Colchester CYCLE: C.C. VT ri/ APPARENT PARTS VEHICLE DAMAGED CIRCLE NO. IN BOX FOR EACH AREA DANIAGEn VEH. REPAIR COS Heavy OPERATOR'S ESTIMATED SPEED 2 1 yyi y 1 Ix i'� 1 ♦ 1 S i 6 __ vEH.: D - 13 HOOD V.I. NO. 1MEBP5443FW626967 PLATE NO. AAM949 STATE VT I♦ ROOF TRL. REPAI COST n a DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IN.E.S.W.U.1 E TRU ISNK I 2 1 X1iXII I 1 1 I VEH. YR. 19 85 VEH. MAKE MercuryLynx MODEL TYPE 2 dr. fi�AR1AGE TOTAL COST Heavy lr a the. VEH. MAKE Y, H. CLASS 17 TOTAL I TRL. YR. TRAILER MAKE TRAILER MODEL TRAILER PLATE: NO. VEHICLE REMOVED BY: blerk COMMERCIAL 19 Texaco blook M, ODI - P PEDESTRIAN IOR BICYCLIST) NAME ADDRESS CITY OR TOWN STATE BIRTHDATE aye r1olh rode m.nr rr.k h,kr rode 1nJ.r. rode rood. rode Nt rode pet. rent. ON DAY YR. INJURY CODES BELT CODES CONDITION CODES TEST CODES CLOTH CODES MANR. CODES -WHAT PEDES. DOING BICYCLIST one CODES I.F.ni 2. b.r.p.rltati., 1. Non-lnr.p.r101in, ♦. Poadbk ).)or, S. No Injury 0. Unkno.n 1. No mtnlnn uwd 2. Brh one, uerd 1. Fiat— only uvd ♦. Nr bolt one, uerd Ina nth,, -,,.Intel {. Brl1 and harnree 1. AppamnHy normal 2. Been drinking 1. Innu.nr. IlQuor ♦. Inna.nre drop S. Inn. Ila.or A drop 6. Inn.enn medklnr 1. Blood 2. BmIh .1. Urine ♦. Unkne.n A. R,f..d 9. all.. 1. Flunreerenl or r... ying . eight 2. Br1lth1 1. Moderate ♦. Dark 9. Unkno.n 1. In rd.y. rilleffir 11. Jo, al lmr 11" 2. In rd.y. apt. Inf. 12. i., a .en•Intrr.er. 1. On .hid,.. I Ont, 13. Playing in road ♦. On ehid,. opt, tt.(. 14. Gr111n0 on/ofI .eh. S. Off ed.,..itrslnr IS. Prahing .ehkk 6. OR rd.y. apt. 1-(. 16. Working on .rhkk I. T. d Info ..hkk 2. 0.9 of tire.,.., 1. F.ikd t. ykld ♦. Lose knel.- S. P..hing bkyrl. 6. DefrrIN. e9.1p. L7 - --- fJ EC CODES A. Br11 .nd air b,g 7. H.rnr.a and .1, hay 1. Falls.. or 111 0. Ph,.k.0 def-t 0, Not also 7. On skkwalk ritraf. 17. Working In read A. On ld,rdk apt. 1r 1 IB. 7. Vrhkk Mt bkyrl. A. Other mane..., S 1. Yn, rompktely 2. No. m.ed In .,hlrk 1. Partially ♦. U.-,upkd .rhkk 0. Uokno.n lt. Be11, h.'"..• bog 9, Other r„tralnl 10. No reetrdnt. ail.hk 0. Unknn.n 9.Other 0. Unkno.n k Crow Iepi lot. - l. 20. Olhe, m.rru.rr 10. Crow I'S.l a I.e. 99, tinker .n 9. Unk.. no roan C1o. 2A•VA•08 IO/87 45M KMA VEHICLE NO. I VEHICLE COND. SURFACE ROAD ROAD COND. TRAFFIC CONTROL NIOTORCI'CLF INFORMATION ONLY COLLIDED WITH (Def. Equip.) CONDITION CHARACTER (check most.erlous) (Highway Onljl C), Ir I (uir 2 Check off i- bbw k... (First Action) '1 Vj unl. If am.er OP PS OP PS 1. Prde.vian 1. Brakes I. Drs 1. Inte-llon 1. Polhol . I. OM,-,, Is 1 t.1 ){ 2. MYIn tram, 2. Tire. 2. W.1 Z. Bridge o- 2. From he.". 2. lTaRpenun Nbrr belmrt ). M\' Parked ..1. Sleoi.2 A. Snow A. V.derp... 3. Snurdrlfl A. Stnpl{Rh/ -- --- N ore rye prate. 6.m A. RR train 1. Front light, J. lee 4. RR Cn...InR X J. Soft shldr. 4. Slop sign M S. Ped.e)cle S. Be., light, S. Mudd) 5. Drbrwa) S. C.-I. are. S. Caution light Injured head SA. W ild Anim.l A. E.h.u.l A. Slm)n A. Allry 6. Flooding M1. Yield sign Injured nr. k - C 7. Do-sk- .nimd 7, Fnginr 7.011 7. Ramp off 7. Le chunks X 7, L... -ki.R• InJurrd .h-I N. S.-mobil. N. Gl- N. 1'.." B. Ramp on N. Drhrl. R. SPrrid signs E Injured b.. k L Y. Other mo.ahle 9. Other 9. Other Y. Other 9. Other 9. Other I)pe L Ill. O.er urr.�rtd 141. Unknown fit. Unknown Ill. Unknown Ill. U.Ano.n 0. No control Injured arm ..r tell A 11. (),be,. Non. II. No defect. II. Nor applicable Il. Not appli-hl. It. Not .ppll,.hle Injured {ntrrn.11. N c..IRsion 12. ..a, Garb - Other in un r'NUPt.NTY Un SIn6 t: OTtI f.N THAN TYPE IGHT CONDITION ROAD DESIGN EATHER COND. .R. TRAFFIC COND. 0 0 It Tree U li. Pate, dgn I. Blacktop I. D..n 1. Upidown hill X 1. Clear I. O(Ocrr VEHICLE: - S IS. LedR,. I..ulder 2. Gn.el 2. [).)light 2. Top of hill 2. R.IninR 2. FI.gp-on It.. Other 1• Dirl, trail A. Dusk X 1. Hot. of hill A. Snowing A. (;air. p Fised nbjerl J. Cohere,, J. Dark A. L-I 4. 4. ('.....buck. A 17. Moped I. Other T Ill. Mntnn7ek S. D.rk-lighlyd it. Unknown S. H.M.R S. Fl..hing light. OW \LR'S .NA%IE AND ADDRESS A INI. l'nkno.n it. Cnkno.n Y. Other B. Unkro.n - - ROAD ALIGN A. Cloud. -1, 7. Sleeting 6. Strap six. 7. Narning.ign T. RT.I Dl.t. from - r JJ PAVEMENT - - 1 POSTED 1. Straight Y. Other Y. Other 1. pe I road c.I. to objeri n/4 N'IDT ISPFED 25 2. Slight eor.e N. Unknown Ill. N.. NN control -----�B..d 1 1e I TOTAL 1 1LIMIT 1 A. Sharp cure 11. Not applirab4 APPHOXIM nT-1. Q• NEPAIR n/a I \'Etl. NO. I WIDTH n a Ir_ / 1 ~- 11. t'nkn...n I OSTS I LIST WITNESSES OTHER THAN O(CCU'PANTS AOnitf'SS CITY OR TON♦ ♦TAIL' LASTNAME 1 FIRST NAME �-MIDDLE- 1 1 1 1 1 T �^ 1 - +------- 1 a ---- - -------- ---- --. '� S----- S i E S ---1 - i I V f.H. NO. VEH. POS. APPARENT NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES INJURED TAKEN TO WHOM TAKEN BY LEA\ t HLANK U 1 n a P 0 J C A. PRIMARY CAUSE LEAVE THIS BLOCK BLANK U IN THE OFFICER'S OPINION N- HATFACTORSCONTRIBUTED L Veh. 4�1 Failure to yield S TO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT ............... B. OTHER CAUSES . . ............. T)p• d .crldent E COURT ACTION YES NO _ __- LIST LAW VIOLATIONS AND UTT NOS. Veh. no. 1 m.ne..er L VEHICLE NO. 1 E x _ _ _Improper Left Turn \'eh. no. 2 m.neu.er (' \-EHICLE NO. 2 A 1'rnen1 of start, L-. __ _ X -- --'-- ---'-----..-____.---- --_-_---_.-.----__-. PEDESTRIAN Skid .rcWent nrdr OR OTHER DEPARTMENT OR TROOP DEPT. TYPE DEPT. CODE OFFICER NOTIFIED OF ACCIDENT Of FI("LR ARRIVED AT SCLN1. 0 PD South Burlington _. --2 76 TIME MONTH DAY YEAR 1825,- 90 TIME _ 1832 MI)NIH DSY \IAN 04 16 90 F F I SIGNATURE OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER . . _ _ n _1.04_16_ DATE OF REPORT RANK LO. Xo. ` 04/23/90 C 1. 643 NAMES OF ASSISTING I 1 OFFICIAL PHOTOS I F: OFFICERS I WERE TAKEN BY n/a p hoar. t.ken R I SIGNATURE OF THE 1 j^ 1PPROA'ING OFFICER - - - - -. _ - _ _ _ -. DATE APPROVED: 7__' ♦ ='- .-- - 1. N -3• POLICE NO. 90-04319 A.O.T. N0. f Pages 3 and 4 are for STATE OF VERMONT accident description AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES and accident sketch, - plus operator statements POLICE REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT 1 SCHOOL 1 ENTER OPERATOR'S RESIDENCE ADDRESS IF IT IS NAMES OF INVOLVED PERSONS i NOT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE ADDRESS BUS TYPE 11 OR III IF VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. GIVE NAME OF MATERIAL BELOW OPERATOR NO. 1: j Eld, Daphny M. OPERATOR NO.2: j Zeno, Robert A. PEDESTRIANISI for BICYLISTI 1 1 1 REFER TO EACH VEHICLE BY NUMBER: TYPE 1—CAPACITY OF 17 OR MORE TYPE H—CAPACITY OF IA OR LESS This two car accident occurred in the City of South Burlington at the intersection of Airport Parkway and Shamrock Road. On arrival to the scene both vehicles were in the position in which they had come to rest and both operators were present. There were also no injuries in this accident. The operator of vehicle #I (E1l)advised that she was southbound on Airport Parkway and was attempting to go straight or left turn onto Shamrock Road when vehicle #2(Zeno) D was right there in front of her and both vehicles came in contact. E S The operator of vehicle #2(Zeno)advised that he was eastbound on Airport Parkway C approaching the curve and was continuing on through Airport Parkway when vehicle #1 R (Eld)cut into his lane of travel and both vehicles came into contact. I B At the area where the accident occurred is a sharp curve to the left for eastbound E traffic and a sharp curve to the right for southbound traffic. It is intersected on the south by Shamrock Road. Vehicles southbound attempting to go straight onto T Shamrock Road must yield the right of way to vehicles that are eastbound. H E In conclusion based on the physical evidence observed along with the statements by both operators that the operator of vehicle #1(Eld)is at fault in this accident for A failure to yield the right of way and making and making an improper left turn in front C of vehicle #2(Zeno). C I Eld should be issued a VTC for Improper Left Turn. D E N T I N D E T A I L aap No Text 1 STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 5 Joyce Belter 6 7 8 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DAVID AND PATRICIA MYETTE 9 10 11 Q. State your name(s). 12 A. Our names are David and Patricia Myette and we are joint 13 owners of 46 Country Club Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. 14 Q. How long have you lived in Country Club Estates? 15 A. We have lived in Country Club Estates since Auqust, 1983. 16 Q. Describe the location of your house relative to the proposed 17 development. 18 A. Proposed Street A would connect with Country Club Drive 19 directly in front of our property. Lot 1 of the proposed 20 development would adjoin our property on its northern border. 21 Q. Describe your occupation(s). 22 A. David Myette: I am the Director of Financial Aid at 23 Champlain College. 24 Patricia Myette: I am a Vice President at the Merchant's 25 Bank in charge of Data Processing Operations. 26 Q. What are your concerns with regard to the impact of this 27 project on the quality of air? (Criteria 1 and 8) 28 A. We have concerns with the impact the significant amount of 29 blasting is going to have on noise pollution, the close proximity 30 of the blasting to our property, and the dangers to curious 31 children who may wander into the area to see what's going on. 32 Q. What observations have you made with regard to the air Prefiled Testimony of David and Patricia Myette June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 1 quality in the area around your house during construction 2 activities on the proposed site and other property owned by the 3 Belters? 4 A. The soil in Country Club Estates is extremely sandy. Haul 5 Road, which is owned by the Belters and used to access his fields 6 and the construction site, is located directly behind our house. 7 Vehicles traveling on this road cause a tremendous amount of duet 8 -- significant enough that we cannot open our windows during the 9 summer months when the road is heavily used. We are concerned 10 with the amount of dust that is going to be generated and the 11 impact this lengthy construction project will have on the air 12 quality. 13 Q. What observations have you made regarding traffic safety 14 within Country Club Estates? (Criterion 5) 15 A. Country Club Drive has a very dangerous S curve located 16 approximately one -quarter down the street. During the winter 17 months, it is not unusual to completely lose control of your car 18 while negotiating the curve and to crash into the curb. In 19 addition, the S curve is a totally blind curve. Consequently, 20 you cannot see a car coming in the opposite direction until you 21 are in the middle of the curve which is a potentially dangerous 22 situation. 23 There are no sidewalks in Country Club Estates which results 24 in children.having to ride their bikes and playing in the street. Prefiled Testimony of David and Patricia Myette June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 1 Q. What concerns do you have with regard to the traffic safety 2 in Country Club Estates if the proposed development is approved? 3 A. With the significant increase in traffic, the S curve is 4 going to become even more dangerous, and children's safety is 5 going to be jeopardized to an even greater extent. In addition, 6 Country Club Drive straightens out after the S curve and slopes 7 downhill. Our concern is that the cars entering the new 8 development are going to pick up excessive speed to the point of 9 being dangerous to children who are exiting their driveways on 10 their bikes or playing in the area. 1 STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 5 Joyce Belter 6 7 8 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RICHARD C. AHERN 9 10 11 Q. State your name and address. 12 A. My name is Richard C. Ahern, and I live with my family at 17 13 Country Club Drive. 14 Q. Describe the location of your property. 15 A. Our property is situated on the northeast side of Country 16 Club Drive adjacent to two 90, curves. Exhibit N-1 illustrates 17 the location of my home. 18 Q. Describe your occupation. 19 A. For the past eighteen years, I have been employed as a 20 science teacher at Essex Educational Center teaching courses in 21 Biology, Botany and Ecology. I have also worked as a Chittenden 22 County Extension horticulturist for the University of Vermont 23 Extension Service during the summer months from 1978 through 24 1984. My educational degrees include a Bachelor of Science in 25 Plant and Soil Science, an Associate degree in Urban Forestry and 26 a Master of Arts in Teaching. 27 Q. What are your concerns regarding the residential development 28 proposed by John and Joyce Belter? 29 In reference to the proposed development of a 36-lot 30 residential subdivision on a 15 acre portion of a 345 acre tract 31 of land in South Burlington owned by John and Joyce Belter, it is 32 my contention that the increased traffic flow generated by the Profiled Testimony of Richard C. Ahern June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 1 proposed development of 350 car travels per day, as per testimony 2 of the developers' traffic engineer Roger Dickinson, would create 3 an extremely dangerous situation that will adversely impact the 4 quality of life and the safety of the residents of Country Club 5 Estates. 6 Q. What observations have you made about existing traffic 7 within Country Club Estates to sunnnrt vn,,,- 8 I base this contention on the following facts and observations. 9 a. There are no sidewalks in the Country Club Estates 10 neighborhood. Children and adults use the streets for walking, 11 jogging and riding bicycles. The photographs in Exhibit N-2, 12 which were taken in May, 1990, show typical street usage by 13 pedestrians throughout the summer months. 14 b. There are two narrow (30' wide) curves on Country Club 15 Drive that border my property. These corners are on a grade and 16 are blind, i.e., you cannot see around them until you are making 17 the turn. Both of the curves are narrow to the extent that a 18 school bus cannot negotiate the corner at the same time as 19 another vehicle without the danger of collision, as the bus must 20 enter the opposite lane while turning the corner. The 21 photographs in Exhibit N-3, taken in May, 1990 show the movement 22 of a school bus through these curves and demonstrate that there 23 is no room for an oncoming vehicle to negotiate the curves at the 24 same time. This same situation occurs with service vehicles such Prefiled Testimony of Richard C. Ahern June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 1 as garbage and fuel trucks. 2 C. Snow and ice buildup during the winter months greatly 3 exacerbates the conditions mentioned above in item b. Many near 4 accidents have occurred as a result of these conditions and on at 5 least four occasions of which I am aware, cars have failed to 6 negotiate the curve and hit my fence after jumping the curb. U. During the summer months, children and adults walk from 8 their homes to the neighborhood pool located on Mountain View 9 Boulevard. Increased traffic will create an increased danger to 10 the safety of these pedestrians. 11 e. In reference to the Air National Guard Road in winter, 12 snow and ice buildup greatly narrows the road increasing the 13 danger for an accident. 14 f. The corner at the top of Country Club Drive is a blind 15 corner. Many cars turning left on to Country Club Drive from 16 National Guard Road take the corner on the inside lane causing 17 near collisions for autos at the stop sign leaving the 18 neighborhood. vt n m of J�k V Jy� rA oo\ L I okH� h1 �` e P� CP ti r.x "\5CL", a k Ak4- Saw + ice ,00 )J vP in. �Ji X�Oqml5 r,�Yk 5 l� EXHIBIT N-1 yr� I�Fe►�w,,nce -Fri Gv �v e � Aa,J e. ►� r14, so n bon h 2L�.a►ti Co 11 i Sian ' a,,,,�,,.,-�-�2.. S o hse,vvea -Fay+ Uo.+ a_ 5 hoo 1 IOU5 O.-Ad a Aelo�1 ,44e -fie �e +lie, . ;aY Ca.m no-}' Co► j e�- a.+ the. cou&4- ), cIL)b 6s+a+es 5 . &Mr AJ+6n,1/+, 1 STATE OF VERMONT 2 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 3 4 Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB 5 Joyce Belter 6 7 8 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP R. 9 AND LOUISE P. LAROCOUE 10 11 12 Q. State your name and address. 13 A. Our names are Phillip R. Larocque and Louise P. Larocque, 14 and we live at 13 Mountain View Boulevard in the Country Club 15 Estates development in South Burlington. 16 Q. Describe the location of your home. 17 A. Our home is across the street from the neighborhood pool, 18 and it is the third house on the right after one turns on to 19 Mountain View Boulevard from Air Guard/Poor Farm Road. 20 Q. How long have you lived in Country Club Estates? 21 A. We have been residents here for 18 years and our four 22 children grew up in this neighborhood. 23 Q. Describe your occupations. 24 A. Louise Larocque: I work as a secretary for the South 25 Burlington Community Library. My work includes supervising and 26 training students who work in the library. 27 Phillip Larocque: I am a process equipment engineer, and am 28 responsible for the selection and procurement of wafer 29 fabrication equipment utilized in the semi -conductor 30 manufacturing industry. 31 Q. What observations have you made regarding the traffic within 32 the neighborhood? (Criterion 5) 33 A. Louise Larocque: Until five years ago, I have been home Prefiled Testimony of Phillip R. and Louise P. Larocque June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 1 with our children and have been able to observe daily traffic on 2 Mountain View Boulevard. The pool area over the summer months 3 has been the most popular play area with children. Streets in 4 summers are overflowing with kids walking, running or biking to 5 the pool. It is not unusual for children to come running with 6 abandon off the hill where the pool is located and on to Mountain 7 17; Bouli- d T -*l -L. .-.lam _1_ _L_ _•Li__ view uvu.a.cvaiu. tl S11LL11ar s-LLuation exists here Kitty Street 8 intersects with Mountain View Boulevard. Children run, bike and 9 skateboard from Kitty Street on to Mountain View Boulevard 10 without stopping. I have been a witness to several minor mishaps 11 and numerous potential accidents or very close calls. On more 12 than one occasion, the screeching of car brakes has taken its 13 toll as we all feared a child on a bicycle would be struck by a 14 moving vehicle. 15 Q. What are your concerns regarding the approval of the 16 proposed development as designed? 17 A. The approval of the proposed development with the additional 18 increase in vehicles travelling through Country Club Estates will 19 adversely impact the precarious safety conditions that presently 20 exist. Pedestrian safety, particularly of children, will be 21 jeopardized. 22 Q. What are your concerns regarding the impact of the proposed 23 development on the quality of air in Country Club Estates? 24 (Criteria 1 and 8) Prefiled Testimony of Phillip R. and Louise P. Larocque June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 1 A. The pollution problem is a concern of ours, particularly in 2 the winter time. Wood burning stoves have created an amount of 3 pollution that takes the joy out of an evening walk. Any 4 substantial increase of homes in this area would aggravate the 5 airborne pollution conditions, and additional vehicles would 6 contribute to this also. Dust and noise pollution during the '7 / construction phase WVUlU also 1nt-erf Cre with mot.j-1 : J-. c l 4 F- L11G llQl-LLy Vl 111G 8 in our neighborhood. STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MARC A. ROY Q. State your name and address. A. My name is Marc A. Roy and I reside at 16 Country Club Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. Q. How long have you lived in Country Club Estates? A. We have lived within the neighborhood for a total of 17 years. Prior to living at 16 Country Club Drive, we lived at 19 Cinda Street. Q. Describe your occupation. A. I am an Advisory Systems Analyst for the IBM Corporation and have been employed there for 22 years. My background is software systems development where I have designed, and developed software and have managed software development projects in the IBM Burlington Laboratory. In more recent assignments, I have been the technology account representative to the IBM Boeblingen Laboratory in West Germany and am currently the account representative to the IBM Product Laboratory in Rochester, Minnesota. Q. Describe the location of your property. A. Our property is situated on the southwest side of Country Club Drive between the two 90° curves. Q. What are your observations and concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the Shamrock Road, Ethan Allen Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 9 Drive and Airport Parkway intersection? A. The intersection at Shamrock Road, Ethan Allen Drive and Airport Parkway has become increasingly more dangerous in recent years due primarily to the added traffic generated by the Industrial Park which continues to be developed and expanded on Ethan Allen Drive. There have been several accidents at that intersection and the increased traffic makes it increasingly more difficult to negotiate turns onto and from Airport Parkway. While minor improvements were made to the intersection about a year ago, the following problems remain: 1. Cars coming from the north (via Lime Kiln Bridge) and waiting to turn left must stop in the middle of the intersection set below a rise and cannot be observed from the rear except from a short distance. Cars coming from the rear, upon noticing a left turning vehicle, must make a quick adjustment to pass in the right hand lane which is very narrow and has a substantial curve to the right. In cases where more than one car is waiting to make the left hand turn, the right lane becomes even more difficult to negotiate. On several occasions, while waiting to turn left, cars behind me have narrowly missed my rear, and in some cases, have pulled onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. 2. In a similar situation, a car waiting to turn left or approaching the intersection to turn left must also contend with traffic from the opposite direction (cars on Airport Parkway heading north toward the Lime Kiln Bridge). In that situation Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 9 cars are coming down a steep grade and negotiate a left curve through the intersection. Their tendency is to cut sharply to the left and most often cut into the center lane for cars turning left from the opposite direction. Here again, sitting in the left turn lane, I have had several near misses with cars heading north through the intersection. 3. Cars exiting from Shamrock Road to turn left onto Airport Parkway or heading straight through the intersection must contend with an increasing amount of traffic from the industrial park to what has become a very dangerous condition. Large, heavily loaded trucks, semis and other industrial vehicles moving into the intersection to either turn left onto Shamrock Road or heading through the intersection, basically occupy the entire intersection and block traffic attempting to exit Shamrock Road as well as block traffic attempting to enter Shamrock Road. While plans exist to improve the intersection, the problems will remain until such time as the road is re-routed and straightened to connect to the Lime Kiln Bridge. The increased traffic from the Industrial Park alone will worsen the congestion in the intersection whether it is improved or not. In addition, the fact that a plan exists for improvements to the intersection guarantees neither implementation nor the quality of the implementation. As can be seen from the work on Dorset Street, budget cuts, priority changes, etc. often delay projects substantially leaving the citizens with unsafe conditions. Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 4 of 9 For these reasons, I believe that the added traffic from 36 additional homes will not only exacerbate an already unsafe and untenable situation, it will expose 36 more families to the same unnecessary risks. I therefore request that the Board deny the application for construction of a new development. Q. What are your observations and concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the safety of traffic traveling on Air National Guard Road? It is my belief that adding traffic from 36 additional homes will have a substantial negative effect on the safety of those using the National Guard Road. The changes as proposed to this road do not address the safety of those individuals using it. 1. The improvements address minor widening of the road and changing the negative grade of a curve. What it does not address are the two blind curves; one where Air National Guard Road joins Shamrock Road and the other at the top of the hill where it joins Poor Farm Road. (See photos in Exhibit N-5). 2. The improvements to Poor Farm Road which were completed last fall (1989) have left steep cuts in the sides of the road which are now eroding and offer no off -shoulder escape for pedestrians, joggers or bicyclists. (See photos in Exhibit N- 6). In addition, the improved surface has encouraged speeding and thus increased the potential for accidents to both motorists and non -motorists alike. Because of the location of Country Club Estates, children as Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 5 of 9 well as adults walk, jog and ride bicycles from the neighborhood to town via Poor Farm Road, Shamrock Road and Airport Parkway. Any improvements to the road system must take all these uses into account and must be comprehensive. To fix a curve and pave a section while not taking into consideration shoulders, bike lanes, blind corners, etc., only patches pieces of the total problem and in so doing, generates more unsafe conditions. Until such time as a comprehensive road plan can be implemented to include a thorough, safe, quality street system, I request that the Board consider the dangers of the proposed patchwork plan and deny a permit for the additional 36 unit development proposed by Mr. Belter. Q. What are your observations and concerns regarding the impact on the proposed development on the safety of the streets of Country Club Estates? I have lived in Country Club Estates for the past 17 years. In that time, I have observed changes in the surrounding area, but the character of this neighborhood has essentially remained unchanged. People have moved in and out, but most people who live here do so because they want a safe and healthy place to raise their families. This community is set up so that children ride bikes, skates, skateboards, etc. on the streets of the development, as no sidewalks exist. There is constant concern for the safety of these kids, as some sections of our streets have straightaways which encourage speeding and other sections Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 6 of 9 where there are tight blind corners where vehicles cannot see either other vehicles or pedestrians before negotiating the curves. It is my understanding that by current regulation, these streets are substandard when compared with requirements for developments today. The entrance to the proposed Belter development is planned to be located at the bottom of Country Club Drive. While there is another entrance to our neighborhood, the Country Club Drive entrance is the closest and most convenient. Therefore, one can assume that most of the traffic to the proposed development would enter onto and drive down Country Club Drive through the blind and opposing curves. One can approximate the level of additional traffic 36 additional homes will generate as a percentage of the current traffic assuming different splits in usages of the two entrances. The additional traffic percentages also increase for those addresses closer to the entrance to the proposed development. The table below demonstrates how much increased traffic can be expected on all of Country Club Drive as well as on those addresses below 16 Country Club Drive assuming different splits between the two entrances. Number of homes on Country Club Drive = 23 Number of homes below 16 Country Club Drive = 15 Number of homes in proposed development = 36 With varying assumptions, the potential new traffic as a Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 7 of 9 percentage of current traffic can be shown as follows: At entrance to Below 16 Country Club Drive Country Club Drive 100% usage of 36 + 23 = 256% 36 + 15 = 340% Country Club Dr. -------- -------- entrance 23 15 75% usage of 27 + 23 = 217% 27 + 15 = 280% Country Club Dr. -------- -------- entrance 23 15 50% usage of 18 + 23 = 178% 18 + 15 = 220% Country Club Dr. -------- ------- entrance 23 15 Using these assumptions, the projected traffic could increase from 178% to 256% of what exists today at the entrance and from 220% to 340% for the addresses below 16 Country Club Drive. While at my current address, I have witnessed several unreported accidents as cars have attempted to negotiate their way through the curves on Country Club Drive. a. I have had my mailbox severed in two occasions and struck on two other occasions. b. I have had cars on several occasions fail to negotiate the curves and cause damage to my lawn and shrubs. C. I have seen cars non -negotiate a curve and end up on my neighbor's lawn, once destroying a fence and on another occasion, severely damage the car to the point where it had to be towed. The addition of traffic from 36 additional homes will Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 8 of 9 aggravate an already dangerous situation and I strongly object to adding another development using existing streets. Specifically: 1. As a 17-year resident of this neighborhood, I have become very familiar with traffic and road conditions in Country Club Estates. It is my opinion that the streets as they are designed will suffer an undue burden from the additional traffic and will substantially increase the risk of accidents as well as diminish the safety of children in the neighborhood. 2. The two S curves are clearly substandard by current regulation and should never have been built. The City of South Burlington has apparently been willing to overlook these dangers. There is incentive for the City to take this position. The City presented a sewer bond issue to the citizens of South Burlington without explaining their assumption that the Belter's unapproved development would bear part of the cost. If the development is not approved, the City has indicated that it will be forced to return to the voters for additional funds. While the citizens of Country Club Estates have objected to this development, their reasons and issues have been ignored by the City. 3. Mr. Belter was asked on several occasions to consider two different alternate routes through his property to the development. His engineers have given testimony to the impossibility of another route, because of cost or because of the disturbing effect to his farm. I take serious exception to this view because when he considered it in his interest to develop an Prefiled Testimony of Marc A. Roy June 8, 1990 Page 9 of 9 industrial park, several acres of agricultural land were destroyed; when he considered it in his interest, he destroyed several acres of mature timber to create a gravel pit; when he considered it in his interest, he stripped topsoil and ran heavy equipment and trucks through his farm as he is doing today. The past several years have seen agricultural land destroyed for development, traffic increased to the danger point and our roads damaged by heavy equipment entering and exiting his mining operation. Mr. Belter wants to have us bear the burden of additional cost and increased danger for our children by using our neighborhood streets to access his proposed development. Now he no longer considers it in his interest to disturb his farm to put in an access to his proposed development because of the additional cost to him. We the citizens of Country Club Estates are being asked to bear that cost. It is my opinion that the streets of Country Club Estates will be negatively affected by the proposed development and that the safety of the residents, especially children, will be seriously compromised. Therefore, I request that the Board consider these potential impacts and deny a permit for the proposed development. ',,, .: �; ;, ". , �. m �l• �` _, l i'`�, � ��,.� `� �. ;.tom ' 1� �. w• , . x 3�.st.: `� � t ., Y j41 �Sj Y�` Ta ' Y � t 1 �. �f �, arm a ( �^ .. r�� a �`+`` J � } '� • . �4 7 1� �b ? �. f :f� � I y�'`�L� Fey v "1YY'""" V 5+ ,� ��sr F, 4 I � �Y �� , .y.: � {' r� ' 4 , �� -t� � a 0 os 6 -u 2rl-Nrl4 ClIsz023 W-ZINI,-4 2300cl 30 alfaz:) CjN6?l023 1-4miri —40 11193 1 H X73 STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RON JONES Q. State your name and address. A. My name is Ron Jones and I live at 24 Cinda Street in Country Club Estates in South Burlington. Q. Describe your occupation. A. I am a sales and marketing executive. Q. How long have you lived in Country Club Estates? A. My wife Joan and I have been residents of the City of South Burlington for 15 years. We have lived in this same piece of residential real estate since the day we arrived in Vermont. When we arrived here, there were still plenty of building lots available, most of the plantings that had been put into the ground by the mostly new residents of this area, were only a few feet in height. New lawns were being sown and a way of life was taking form. Q. What are your observations about Country Club Estates when you moved here? A. To start, Country Club Estates was misnamed. There were a few of us that were more than mid -level managers, engineers, IBM people, some G.E. folks and other salt -of -the -earth kinds of people. We all had kids, some quite a few, and we all had to develop a kind of community spirit and package the kind of committees that would administrate the recreational package that Prefiled Testimony of Ron Jones June 8, 1990 Page 2 of 4 was in the area as part of a developer's idea of how this place could become its own little safe world. We were "off the beaten path." No through traffic. Even the city tho whom we paid a lot of taxes seemed to forget we were here on many occasions. Despite the airport noise and the Air National Guard Drill Weekends, people bought homes here and they spent their money here for one particular reason .......... COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES WAS A SAFE PLACE TO RAISE KIDS! Now you see, we had no sidewalks ..... lousy lighting..... and the streets kind of looped around and didn't seem to make a lot of sense .... a cul-de-sac whose street was not wide enough for large trucks....... and a street named Cinda? OK.... we had a tiny pool and two tennis courts. We had a field big enough for the kids to play softball or soccer. For the family watching their dollars, they didn't have to travel to have their kids have a safe and fun summer. All the residents knew that the kids rode their three wheel and two wheel bikes to the pool. People walked their dogs in the evening without fear of fast moving traffic. Picnics were had and during the winter, the kids rode their sleds down the pool side hill and football and soccer games were played on the streets. All in all, we would have to say that we didn't have it too bad down here. A couple of hundred kids learned to swim in our pool and thousands of tennis games were played on or courts. We didn't have to burden the South Burlington recreational Prefiled Testimony of Ron Jones June 8, 1990 Page 3 of 4 facilities quite as much as other citizens and we remained quite happy to be left alone and to enjoy our way of life. Darn few people moved away, most of us stayed because it is a one of a kind neighborhood and we like it this way. Q. What concerns do you have regarding the development proposed by John and Joyce Belter? A. ONE STRIP OF LAND AT THE FOOT OF MOUNTAIN VIEW BOULEVARD IS PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL TRAFFIC ACCESS TO THE NEW HOMES, AND ALL CAR TRIPS A DAY GENERATED BY THE NEW DEVELOPMENT EACH DAY WILL TRAVEL ON THAT ROAD AND THROUGH THE STREETS OF COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES. Plus, all the construction traffic for the next bunch of years until all the houses are completed will travel through Country Club Estates. Now let me set this scenario in this place for you..... Hundreds of people that are strangers to this area would be traveling up and down this and other Country Club Estates streets. Picture the hill with the S-curve during the winter with people who don't know the street conditions attempting to navigate their way up and down.......... How about the summer time ...... all that traffic ........ where do your kids play and now you no longer can trust the safe conditions formed by an aware population for your child's safety going to and from the pool and playground. The amount of trucks traveling these roads in the summer building season will certainly court disaster for the kids around Prefiled Testimony of Ron Jones June 8, 1990 Page 4 of 4 this neighborhood. Evenings will certainly bode poorly for the folks who walk or run in the area, as people coming from the new place, that has modern lighting on their streets, would be driving into dim streets and a hazard would be immediately present. The impact of this traffic will reduce the quality of life - the way of life we have in Country Club Estates. The traffic should be routed elsewhere. Q. What observations have you made about use of the haul road which runs across the Belter's farm and borders part of Country Club Estates? A. For approximately 5 years, the road was used frequently by large 10 and 12 wheel trucks to haul dirt extracted from Mr. Belter's property. Q. What observations did you make with regard to the air quality within Country Club Estates during the use of the haul road? A. These trucks and the bucket loaders observed on Mr. Belter's property created a great deal of dust and noise. STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter LIST OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS FOR ADJOINING AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS Witnesses Sally Guerette, Ruth Paul, Anne Cramer Hong, Andrew Hong, David Myette, Pat Myette, Richard C. Ahern, Louise P. Larocque, Philip A. Larocque and Marc Roy (hereinafter "the Neighbors") will call the following individuals as witnesses in the above - captioned proceedings: Anne Cramer Hong (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) Richard C. Ahern (Criterion 5) Marc Roy (Criterion 5) Louise Larocque (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) Philip Larocque (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) David Myette (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) Patricia Myette (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) Sally Guerette (Criteria l(f), 5 and 8) Ruth Paul (Criteria 1(f), 5 and 8) Ron Jones (Criteria 1, 5 and 8) The Neighbors reserve the right to name additional witnesses as rebuttal witnesses following the review of the Applicants' prefiled testimony. Exhibit List A copy of the Neighbors' Exhibit List is attached hereto. Unless oversized, copies of each exhibit are attached to the Prefiled Testimony of each witness. The originals of the exhibits listed may be reviewed at the offices of Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg with the exception of those exhibits previously entered in the record at the District Commission. The Neighbors reserve the right to add additional rebuttal exhibits following a review of the Applicants' prefiled testimony. Dated at Burlington, Vermont this ':�8 day of June, 1990. MILLER, EGGLESTON & ROSENBERG, LTD. By. David M. Conar 150 South Champlain Stree P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 (802) 864-0880 Attorneys for Neighbors E Exhibit N-1 Exhibit N-2 Exhibit N-3 EXHIBIT LIST OF NEIGHBORS Diagram of Curves on Country Club Road - Richard C. Ahern. Photograph of Pedestrian Travel - Richard C. Ahern. Photographs of School Bus on Country Club Road - Richard C. Ahern. Exhibit N-4 View of Proposed Development from Hong House - April, 1990 - Anne Cramer Hong. Exhibit N-5 Photographs of Curve on Air National Guard Road - May, 1990 - Marc Roy. Exhibit N-6 Photographs of the Road Cut of Poor Farm Road - May, 1990 - Marc Roy. Exhibit N-7 Photographs of Country Club Estates Road Conditions - March,1988, January 16, 1990 (Marked Exhibit 30 at District Commission) - Anne Cramer Hong. Exhibit N-8 Photographs of Country Club Estates Road Conditions - January 15, 1990 (Marked Exhibit 31 at District Commission) - Anne Cramer Hong. Exhibit N-9 Affidavit re: South Burlington Police Department Motor Vehicle Reports submitted by Karen B. McCrea (February 7, 1990) (Marked Exhibit 20 at District Commission) . Exhibit N-10 Affidavit re: South Burlington Police Department Motor Vehicle Reports Submitted by Karen V. McCrea (June 6, 1990). 3 STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Application of John and Application #4C0643-6R-EB Joyce Belter CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, David W. M. Conard, sent copies of the Prefiled Testimony of Sally Guerette, Ruth Paul, Anne Cramer Hong, David and Patricia Myette, Richard C. Ahern, Philip and Louise Larocque, Marc Roy and Ron Jones, and a copy of the List of Witnesses and Exhibits for Adjoining and Neighboring Property Owners by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 8th day of June, 1990, to each of the following: John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 (For John and Joyce Belter) Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Co and Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 802 658.3004 June 7, 1990 Vermont Environmental Board c/o Stephanie Kaplan 58 East State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 RE: Belter Appeal - Application #4CO634-6R-EB Dear Stephanie: Enclosed is an original and ten (10) copies of Prefiled Testimony of Craig Leiner on behalf of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission in the above -referenced appeal. Sincerely, a�✓ ARTHUR R. HOGAN, JR. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ARH:bf Enclosures ... Serving the Municipalities of ... Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski ❑ Districts #1 & #8 RR #2, Box 2161 Pittsford, VT 05763 (802) 483-6022 ❑ Districts #2 & #3 RR #1, Box 33 N. Springfield, VT 05150 (802) 886-2215 Districts #4, #6 R #9 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 879-6563 STATE OF VERMONT Environmental Board District Environmental Commission M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Belter, by John Ponsetto, Esq. 1 FROM: Louis Borie� District #4 Coordinator DATE: January 18, 1990 ❑ District #5 324 North Main Street Barre, VT 05641 (802) 479-3621 ❑ District #7 180 Portland Street St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 (802) 748-8787 ❑ En%iroronental Board Office c/o State Office Building Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-3309 RE: #4C0643-6R, John and Joyce Belter, South Burlington The District Commission requests that the applicant submit the following items: 1. The reclamation plan referred to at the January 17 hearing. 2. Resumes for the blasting witness and any other expert witnesses who will be testifying for the applicant. This information should be copied to all statutory parties and other parties admitted on criteria to which the information pertains. cc: All Parties wp:4C0643.mem Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I, Arthur R. Hogan, Jr., sent a copy of the foregoing letter by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the 7th day of June, 1990, to the following: John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Estates South Burlington, VT 05403 Paul A. Farrar Chairman, City Council City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 Joe Weith. City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Ann & Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, Marc Roy by David Conrad, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 William Bright 45 Country Club Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont this 7th day of June, 1990. ARTHUR R. HOG , JR., EXEC. DIR CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VT 05453 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF CRAIG LEINER Q.1. Please state your name, address, and profession. A.1. My name is Craig T. Leiner, and I am Director of Transportation Planning for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) in Essex Junction, Vermont. Q.2. By whom are you employed and in what capacity? A.2. I manage the CCRPC transportation program, which includes long range highway and transit planning, technical assistance to communities, traffic monitoring and travel demand forecasting, and project management of consultant studies. This includes staffing the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which deals exclusively with the transportation planning and programming for nine Chittenden urbanized area communities, including the City of South Burlington. Q.3. Please describe your educational background. A.3. I have a Masters in Planning from the University of Virginia, followed by continuing education in transportation engineering at George Washington University, Northwestern University's Traffic Institute, as well as Federal Highway Administration courses. Q.4. Please describe your professional experience. AA I have over ten years professional planning experience with the last eight in the area of transportation. I have worked for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission since July, 1985. Before that, I was a transportation planner for the Montgomery County, Maryland Planning Board. I am a member of two professional organizations: the Transportation Research Board (which has published two of my papers), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). I am Secretary - Treasurer of the Vermont Chapter of the ITE. 0.5. On whose behalf are you testifying? A.5. I am testifying on behalf of the CCRPC. 0.6. What is the purpose of your testimony? A.6. The purpose of my testimony is to present to the Environmental Board a traffic engineering report entitled "Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road, City of South Burlington", dated December 15, 1989. This report was prepared by JHK & Associates of Alexandria, Virginia for the CCRPC and the MPO (CCRPC Exhibit 1). Q.7. Were you personally involved in the traffic study and preparation of this report? A.7. This study of the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive, Airport Parkway, and Shamrock Road was part of a systematic study conducted by JHK & Associates of transportation issues in the Chittenden County area. The study was done for and funded by MPO and was presented to the City of South Burlington as a recommendation for improving the intersection. As the Planning Commission's transportation planner, I was directly involved in designing and conducting the study and participating in the development of the recommendations for upgrading the intersection. 0.8. What was the purpose of the study? A.8. The purpose of the study is stated in the first paragraph of the report. It was conducted to address a series of transportation issues in Chittenden County with a "short term focus of resolving immediate concerns through relatively low-cost, readily implementable actions". Q.9. Please summarize the principal findings of the study with regard to existing and future conditions at the intersection. A.9. The findings on existing conditions are explained in detail on Pages 1 and 2 of the report. In simple terms, the problem is one of safety caused by a horizontal curve on a grade which intersects with two streets; poor pavement markings; poor illumination, and poor sign location. In terms of congestion, the intersection now operates at a level of service C for left turns onto Airport Parkway. The atypical geometry has resulted in traffic accidents at the intersection over the years. As for future conditions, we assumed an average annual increase of 3% in background traffic and development of an additional 210,000 square feet of light industrial warehousing in the Belters' industrial park, and traffic from the Belters' 36 lot residential subdivision, which is the subject of this Environmental Board appeal. With that additional traffic estimated to 1995, the intersection will experience a level of service E for left turns onto Airport Parkway during peak hours. A traffic signal is warranted at that time. Also, safety I problems will persist and may become worse unless the improvements recommended in the report are implemented. Q.10. Please describe the improvements recommended by the report. A.10. The lon -term solution to the problems at the intersection is relocation of Airport Parkway to the northwest to eliminate the curve at the intersection. The Planning Commission, City of South Burlington and the State Agency of Transportation have studied this intersection and recognize the need to relocate Airport Parkway, and consider it a high priority project. However, implementation is many years away. Significant improvements can be achieved now through immediate actions such as elimination of confusing pavement markings, better lighting, and by additional short-term actions and intermediate -term actions, all of which are discussed in detail on Page 3 and 4 of the report. In summary, these short to intermediate -term improvements include: 1. Direction of all traffic turning onto either Ethan Allen Road or Shamrock Road at a single location, namely the existing intersection of Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Road. 2. Relocation of an existing stop sign to Shamrock Road. 3. Installation of traffic signals in conformance with the manual on uniform traffic control devices. 4. Flattening of the curve, and provision of super elevation on the northbound lanes of Airport Parkway; and 5. Improved warning signs. The recommended actions are depicted on a scaled aerial plan sheet which accompanies this prefiled testimony as CCRPC Exhibit 2. Q.11. With the improvements in place and with traffic volumes predicted for 1995, will the level of service improve for left turns on to Airport Parkway. A.11. Yes. With the improvements in place even with additional traffic volumes, the intersection will experience a level of service B. Q.12. In your professional opinion, with the recommended short and intermediate -term improvements in place, will the increase in traffic resulting from the Belters' residential subdivision create unsafe conditions or unreasonable congestion at this intersection? A.12. No. Q.13. Does this conclude your testimony? A.13. Yes, it does. [blank.b05] . � i Jhk& associates cxz Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Assistance Project AIRPORT PARKWAY/LIME KILN ROAD AND ETHAN ALLEN ROAD/SHAMROCK ROAD City of South Burlington Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Prepared by JHK & Associates December 15, 1989 jhk& associaEcs Traffic Engineering -Transportation Planning Assistance Project AIRPORT PARKWAY/LIME KILN ROAD & SHAMROCK ROAD/ETHAN ALLEN DRIVE TRODUCTI The Traffic Engineering -Transportation Planning Assistance Project was conducted to address a series of transportation issues in the Chittenden County area in a systematic fashion. The project encompassed twelve locations in seven jurisdictions within the County. In general terms, the studies shared the common aspects of a short term focus on resolving immediate concerns through relatively low-cost, readily implementable actions. This memorandum summarizes the findings and recommendations for the examination of the intersection of Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive in the City of South Burlington. This document reflects comments received from the City and the client, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), at a preliminary briefing. This memorandum is accompanied by a scaled aerial photograph plan sheet depicting the recommendations. This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of a number of agencies. The support provided by the staff of the CCRPC was exemplary. Most notable was the provision of all required traffic volume data for the study. Thanks also go to Messrs. Sonny Audette and Joe Weith of the City of South Burlington, for providing their time and input, and the Vermont Agency of Transportation. In spite of their aid, JHK & Associates remains fully responsible for the information and opinions presented herein. EXISTING CONDITION The intersection is located near the northeast corner of the Burlington International Airport boundary. Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road provide for vehicular movement around the western portion of the Airport between U.S. Route 2 and Vermont Route 15. Shamrock Road passes through a residential area and connects with Poor Farm Road which serves residential and airport related activities. The most notable airport activity is the Air National Guard. Ethan Allen Road provides access to an industrialJwarehouse area which also has three residences. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 1. The key features of the existing intersection and its operation are described below. The curve on Airport Parkway provides a maximum safe operating speed of 25 mph for northbound traffic and 27 mph for southbound traffic. Traffic traveling on Airport Parkway northbound prior to the intersection area traverse roadway geometrics which permit comfortable operation at 35 mph and also travel down a 6 percent grade. This results in typical speeds into the curve exceeding 25 mph. This has resulted in a number of fixed object accidents on the outside of the curve just north of Shamrock Road. The problems with the curve along with the faded, conflicting pavement markings cause most northbound vehicles to drive "through" the southbound left turn lane (for vehicle turning into Shamrock Road). The left turn lane is located in the middle of the curve and may be perceived as the through movement for unfamiliar drivers. These two factors have resulted in a number of accidents. The two accidents reported since the left turn lane was constructed have involved southbound left turn vehicles colliding with northbound through vehicles. As noted above, the previous pavement markings are visible creating confusing 0 120 �o�a .Oo r f .O '40 r , 'PITS ~ r000, 160 1331 es (60�4% hp`� ,. LO o 1 o h �o p N o rn % � Ibb 11y r LO 0 6p � v l ,. G LEGEND � bl 60 2b1'7r co `b �6 6Q 85(25) - AM Peak Hour Volumes (Vehicles) L - Daily Volumes (Vehicles) 0p .. boa CD CD LO G� a)N bra a a°c c cm L LJ FIGURE 1. 1989 TRAFFIC VOLUMES jhk & associates striping. • The tangential alignment of Shamrock Road and Lime Kiln Road creates potentially confusing geometrics and reduces the amount of positive guidance around the curve for vehicles traveling south on Lime Kiln Road. The left turning movement from Lime Kiln Road occurs at a low angle potentially causing drivers to turn without yielding. The straight alignment is advantageous for truck turns. • The proximity of the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive and Shamrock Road to Airport Parkway creates an unusual island with two way traffic on all sides. • The STOP sign controlling right turning vehicles from Airport Parkway is an unusual application and is unexpected as the driver does not see the sign until completing the turn. • Two luminaires of relatively low light intensity are located at the intersection resulting in poor intersection illumination. • Existing traffic counts show that during the peak hours, Shamrock Road carries 75 percent more traffic than Ethan Allen Road. • Observations of existing traffic conditions showed short to moderate delays for side street traffic. Capacity analyses show level of service C operation (moderate traffic delays) for the left turns onto Airport Parkway. Currently, no traffic signal warrants are met, and based on observations a signal is not currently justified. 1V The traffic volume levels and patterns will be significantly affected by development in the area and increases in through traffic on Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road. Traffic forecasts were developed for 1995 assuming the development of an additional 210,000 square feet of light industrial/warehousing uses within Ethan Allen Industrial Park. Residential development served via Shamrock Road was assumed to increase by 36 dwelling units. The volumes shown in Figure 2 reflect these projections along with an average annual increase of three percent for background traffic on Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road The implications of these changes in traffic volumes are described below. Traffic forecasts indicate that Shamrock Road and Ethan Allen Road will carry approximately equal volumes in 1995. Unsignalized capacity analyses show that by 1995 levels of service for left turns onto Airport Parkway will deteriorate to level of service E (very long traffic delays) in the peak hours. The evening peak hour volumes for 1995 just satisfy the Manual on Uniform 'i�-affirm Control Devices (MUTCD)' peak hour traffic signal warrant. This indicates a possible need for a signal in the future but does not justify the installation of a signal at this time. A signal should not be installed until huh signal warrants described in the MUTCD are met ar-Ld observations confirm the naQd for a signal. The peak hour delay warrant is particularly useful for evaluating need in a single ' Federal Highway Administration, Manual on -Uniform Traffic Control Device,; for Streets and High y-, 1988 Edition. 2 18 1SO 0 6 y oad 32�1 ,`\�, Q� 6`2'pl o� 21 LEGEND FIGURE 2. 1995 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .hk & associates hour. The criteria, five vehicle hours of total delay for one hour, is equivalent to an average queue length of five vehicles throughout an entire hour. The existing safety problems will persist without improvement and may become more noticeable with increasing traffic volumes. ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS The City has long term plans for the resolution of problems which involve the relocation of Airport Parkway to the northwest. This will eliminate the curve at the intersection but is at least ten years in the future. Given these long term plans, the City desires a relatively minimal cost improvement. Thus, substantial reconfigurations were examined but none could be identified which did not present major difficulties or construction. To provide safer operation two changes are needed: • the unusual configuration of the intersection needs to be modified and • the operating conditions for vehicles traveling through the curve must be improved. A standard configuration is a Tee intersection with Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road. Under this scheme all traffic turning onto Ethan Allen Road or Shamrock Road would turn at a single location -the existing intersection of Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Road. This eliminates the low angle left turns from Lime Kiln Road. The safety benefits outweigh any inconvenience to motorists. Adequate geometrics to accommodate trucks can be provided at the consolidated intersection. To provide for the new turning movement patterns at the intersection of Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road, a new STOP sign should be placed for the Shamrock Road approach. The existing STOP sign for traffic turning from Airport Parkway must be removed. To improve operations on the curve any improvement must involve the complete eradication or obliteration of the existing lane markings. Eradication can be accomplished through an abrasive process such as sandblasting. Considering that some pavement construction is necessary, obliteration through repaving is more likely. For those areas w would not require an overlay, hich a slurry seal would effectively cover the existing markings. Potential physical improvements to the curve include a flattening of the curve, improved ury warning signs, and the provision of some superelevation. A significantly flatter ce is difficult to achieve given the limited right-of-way and the deep gully immediately northwest of the intersection. Some improvements can be made to the approaching curves and in the consistency of the curvature through the intersection. As noted above, the existing "reverse" superelevation for northbound traffic has resulted in a number of run -off -the -road accidents. The roadway geometrics of Airport Parkway south of the intersection provide for comfortable operation at 35 miles per hour, the posted speed limit. Thus, even though the speed limit changes to 25 miles per hour just prior intersection, the likely operating speeds exceed the safe speed r the curve. Additional warning signs will not significantly affect this characteristic. Therefore, the provision of superelevation is required to better accommodate the travel speeds. Raising the elevation of the outside edge of the curve can be accomplished through the placement of several lifts of asphalt. This will also require some construction on the Ethan Allen Road and Shamrock Road approaches to raise their grades to match the higher curve edge. An important element of the new superelevation is the cross -slope rollover at the outside edge: the algebraic difference in cross -slope rates of two adjacent pavements. To prevent uncomfortable and potentially dangerous lateral shifts of vehicles, the maximum difference in cross slopes for this roadway is six percent. In addition, the "crown" line should be rounded rather than an angle point. Improved warning signs should also be incorporated into the improvement. 3 'hk ei associates RECOMMENDATION The recommended actions related to the intersection of Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and Ethan Allen Road/Shamrock Road are described below and depicted on a scaled aerial plan sheet which accompanies this document. Immediate Actions • If physical intersection improvements are to be delayed beyond the next construction season, the existing pavement markings should be eradicated or obliterated and new markings installed. In addition, the illumination of intersection should be improved. This can be accomplished by upgrading the two existing street lights to High Pressure Sodium (HPS) luminaires. • Proceed with "minimal plan',,in-house designs of intersection improvements as recommended. Short Term Action • Construct intersection improvements described above and depicted on the plan sheet. These improvements include physical construction, signing, marking, and lighting improvements which will reduce existing safety problems and provide sufficient capacity to accommodate projected traffic growth through 1995. • The design of improvements should specifically consider the accommodation of trucks turning to and from Ethan Allen Road. • To correspond with the new location of the consolidated intersection, the existing flashing beacon should be replace with a new one at the new location. Particular attention should be given to the visibility of the flashing indications for southbound traffic on Lime Kiln Road due to the curve. Yellow indications should be shown to Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road traffic and red indications for side street traffic. • All signing, marking, and signalization should be installed in accordance with the MUTCD. The turn warning, large arrow, and chevron signs shown on the plan sheet are important elements of the improvement. • A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection only when needed. Significant vehicle delays and problems correctable with a traffic signal should be observed at various times during the day and the MUTCD signal warrants should be met. • Lighting improvements at the intersection should use cutoff luminaires to minimize the impacts of spill -over light on the adjacent residences and the airport approach. • An engineering evaluation of the proposed long term solution should be conducted to ensure its feasibility and establish an approximate cost so that it can be included in the City's long range plans. Intermediate/Loner rerm Actions, • Construct the relocated Airport Parkway,realign rive to the relocated roadway, and construct a cul-de-sac ondLime nKiln t Road just han Allen Dnorth of the five existing residences. .19 Y CHARLES T. SHEA STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON ST EWA RTH.McCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR. CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E. KNAPP JOHN R. PONSETTO DENNIS R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL SUSAN W. 5WEETSER MARGARET L. MONTGOMERY• 'NOT ADMITTED IN VERMONT State of Vermont Environmental Board State Office Building 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CORPORATE PLAZA 76 ST. PAUL STREET P05T OFFICE BOX 1049 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 March 23, 1990 AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 658-0220 FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAVEL COUNSEL Re: Notice of Appeal - #4C0643-6R John and Joyce Belter, South Burlington Vermont Dear Members of the Board: Enclosed is an original and ten (10) copies of Notice of Appeal, with certificate of service, in the above -referenced matter. I have also enclosed the filing fee of $50.00. Very truly yours, VEL and SHEA ohn R. Ponsetto JRP : wbb Enclosures cc: Parties of Record (w/enclosure) STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: Land Use Permit Application #4C0643-6R John and Joyce Belter c/o John R. Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel and Shea P. O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 NOTICE OF APPEAL John and Joyce Belter (the "Appellants"), by and through their attorneys, Gravel and Shea, and pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §6089 and Environmental Board Rule 40, file this appeal of the Memoran- dum of Decision of District Environmental Commission #IV (the "Commission"), dated March 5, 1990, and request a de novo hearing before the Environmental Board in accordance with 10 V.S.A. AMM OZ The Appellants propose to construct a 36 lot, residential subdivision on a 15 acre portion of the Appellants' 345 acre property in South Burlington. The proposed residential sub- division is an element of the Appellants' master plan for their property which also includes a dairy farm and industrial park. The industrial park is the subject of Land Use Permit #4C0643, and subsequent amendments. The Appellants' original application for a Land Use Permit to construct the residential subdivision was filed on October 3, 1988. The application was denied on February 3, 1989. A Motion for Reconsideration and amended application was filed on July 28, 1989. Hearings on the amended application were held on January 17, 1990 and February 7, 1990. The Commission denied the amended application on March 5, 1990. A copy of the Commission's Memora- ndum of Decision is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. The Appellants appeal the Commission's findings and con- clusions made under criterion 1 (air pollution), criterion 1(f) (shorelines), criterion 4 (erosion control), criterion 5 (traffic safety and congestion), criterion 8 (aesthetics), and criterion 9 (k) (impact on public investment). Specifically, the Appellants appeal findings and conclusions numbered 6 and 7 regarding the impact of blasting on air quality (noise) and aesthetics; find- ings and conclusions numbered 10 through 16 regarding the impact of the Appellants' proposed subdivision on shorelines and erosion control; and findings and conclusions numbered 21 through 24 and numbered 26 and 27 regarding the impact of traffic on South Bur- lington streets. The Commission erred because its findings and conclusions are not supported for each of the above -noted criteria by the record compiled in the hearings which to the contrary clearly showed that the proposed subdivision would not cause an undue adverse impact to the public health, safety, and the environment, as defined by the relevant criteria of Act 250. - 2 - The Appellants claim that the following issues are relevant to the proceedings before the Environmental Board: 1. Impact of Blasting Under Criterion 1 (Air Pollution) and Criterion 8 (Aesthetics)-. The Appellants will present evidence, including testimony of experts, that blasting will not create unacceptable levels of noise which may create a nuisance, a threat to the public health, or which would be considered "shocking and offensive" (finding number 7), to residents in the area of the proposed subdivision. 2. Winooski River Impacts Under Criterion 1(f) and Criterion 4. The Appellants will present evidence, including testimony of experts, that the proposed subdivision is not located on the shoreline of the Winooski River, and, therefore, criterion 1(f) is not applicable. Further, the Appellants will clearly demonst- rate that their shoreline reclamation and landscape plans will provide a high level of protection against erosion of the shore- line and banks of the Winooski River. - 3 - 3. Traffic Congestion, Safety, and Impact on Public In- vestments Under Criterion 5 and Criterion 9(k). The Appellants will present evidence, including testimony of experts, that the only reasonable access to the site of the prop- osed subdivision is over South Burlington streets located within an existing residential subdivision, Country Club Estates, and that these streets are adequate in both structure and design to safely handle the additional traffic which will be generated by the project. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont on March �! , 1990. cc: Parties of Record (appeal.252] - 4 - APPELLANTS !' n John Belter Jbd E�D J Belter CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, John R. Ponsetto, Attorney for John and Joyce Belter, Appellants, sent a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL regarding 4C0643-6R by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this 23rd day of March, 1990 to the following: John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Margaret Picard, City Clerk City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chuck Hafter, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P. O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street - 2 Center Waterbury, VT 05676 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul 33 Mountainview Blvd South Burlington, VT 05403 Ann and Andrew Hong c/o David Conrad, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 Dave and Pat Myette 46 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Richard Ahern 17 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Philip Laroque 13 Mountainview Blvd South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners c/o Nancy Sheahan, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington VT 05401 Lance Llewellyn Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn One Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 Marc Roy 16 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 FOR YOUR INFORMATION: District IV Environmental Commission W. Gilbert Livingston M. Lynn Whalen 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, this 23rd day of March, 1990. i a �.Pb�nsett o /.attorney for Appellants [cert.b03] STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 RE: John and Joyce Bolter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, vT Memorandum of Decision Motion to Reconsider #4C0643-6R 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Land Use Permit Application #4C0643-6 was filed October 31 1988. On February 3, 1989, the Commission issued written findings and an order denying the application. On July 28, 1989, the Applicants filed a motion to reconsider pursuant to Board Rule 31(B). On September 8, 1990, the Commission issued a Memorandum of Decision concluding that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 31(B). However, upon further review at the applicants' request, the Commission elected to convene a hearing on the reconsideration motion. Hearings were again held on January 17 and February 7, 1990, and the matter was recessed on the latter date. The reconsideration proceedings were confined to the following issues: 1) Air pollution caused by blasting of bedrock. 2) The absence of a subdivision permit. 3) The impact of the project on the shoreline of the Winooski River, 4) Traffic congestion and safety at the Shamrock Road - Ethan Allen Road - Airport Parkway intersection. 5) Traffic congestion and safety on interior roads within the Country Club Estates Subdivision. 11. ZIEDZIO QZ FACT A. ,tenon I z and Criterion 8 - Aesthetics 1. The proposed subdivision site is currently the location of an unreclaimed quarry. The quarry is horseshoe shaped, with a base elevation of 202' and with rock faces rising to a top elevation of approximately 2361. 2• The applicant proposes to blast a large area within the central portion of the site. The applicant had not quantified the amount of rock to be removed. However, rock to M be removed by blasting from the area of Lots 23 and 16 on the South, along proposed "street A," to the area of Lots 31 and 8 on the North, ranges in depth from 12' to 301. Installation of utilities would require the removal an additional 6' of rock. 3. While no detailea site reconnaissance has been performed, the applicant believes that the closest charge would be detonated approximately 350' from the nearest house. However, blasting may be required to extend utility lines from the existing Country Club Estates into the new subdivision. Such blasting would occur within perhaps 40' of an existing residence. 4. Blasting would be performed over an eight to ten week period, six days a week, with one to three blasts each day. Each blast results in an instantaneous sound in the 86 to 88 dB range at a distance of l001. 5. Drilling would be conducted on the site continuously during the 8 to 12 week period (except during blasting). The drilling generates sound in the 106 dB range at six feet from the drill. 6. The applicant's witness concerning drilling, Lee Tillotson, while apparently quite accomplished in his trade, made clear in his testimony that he does not consider himself an expert concerning noise impacts. Therefore, no evidence was presented concerning the health, nuisance and other impacts to be expected from the proposed drilling and blasting operation. 7. We, therefore, lack sufficient evidence to make an affirmative finding that the project would not cause undue air pollution. Further, faced for the first time with a detailed account of the blasting regimen, we find that the project's noise impacts on the area would be shocking and offensive given the context in which this work would occur. As a result, we find the project would have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. 8. The Agency of Natural Resources has issued a Subdivision permit for the project and that permit has been filed with the Commission. 9. The Subdivision permit is sufficient, under Board Rule 19, to Satisfy the Applicant's burden with respect to criterion 1(B), concerning sanitary waste disposal. 'UE1A=4T Hi=-U" 10. As discussed in our February 3, 1989, decision, the Applicant provided no evidence to support a finding that the Project "must of necessity be located on a shoreline to fulfill the purposes of the . . . ,subdivision." 11. The revised site plan reserves in the developer's ownership a strip of land between the shoreline lots and the Winooski River. Lots 11 through 19 remain within loot of the River and substantial portions of six of those lots (and others) lie within the River's floodway. Majorportions of the subdivision will be plainly visible to users of the Winooski. 12. The minor lot line revisions do not alter our Previous finding that the subdivision is located on the Winooski shoreline as the latter term is defined by 10 V.S.A. Sec. 6001(17). The Applicants again presented no evidence upon which we could base a finding that the project must "of necessity" be located on the Winooski. 13. The Commission previously found that it had insufficient information to conclude that the project would "stabilize the bank from erosion" or that the project would not "cause unreasonable soil erosion." We specifically noted in Findings 11 and 14 that a reclamation plan to stabilize and restore the shoreline would be necessary in view of the excavated condition in which it was found during the Commission's previous site visit. 14. While surface water on subdivision streets would be collected by catchbasins and diverted away from the shoreline, any drainage from impervious surfaces on the shoreline lots would travel by sheet flow toward the river. Without stabilization of the bank, unreasonable erosion will result and the bank will not remain stable. IS. The revised project included a landscaping plan for the shoreline lots which simply cannot be implemented without substantial grading and filling along the shoreline. Yet no reclamation plan for this work was submitted to the Commission, nor has any such plan been reviewed by interested state or federal agencies for compliance with applicable floodway and water quality regulations. 16. We are unable to find that the applicants met their burden of proof with regard to Criteria 1(F) and 4. D. Criterion 5 - Traffic Safety and Congestion and Criterion 9 K -_Impact on Public Investments 17. The Applicants, South Burlington and Burlington have entered into an agreement for substantial improvements to National Guard Avenue/Poor Farm Road. These improvements include ingtallatoad prafile, installation of crushed and improving a curve nearion theoNationalional Guardcentrance road, 18. The improvements to National Guard Avenue/poor Farm Road are sufficient to substantially eliminate the negative findings previously issued concerning that road segment. 19. Significant improvements are also Shamrock Road -Ethan Allen Road -Airport Parkway intersection. for the These include changes to traffic circulation y intersection. lighting and signing, installation of a traffic and repaving the intersection. 20. While these improvements do not totally resolve difficulties posed by tractor -trailer trucks, the changes are sufficient to substantially eliminate the negative findings Previously issued concerning this three-way intersection. 21. The only "change" offered concerning the Country Club Estates internal roadways is the representation that there would be road bed improvements infrost heaves and potholes) when new sewer lines mare tinstalled with reference to this project. 22. Additional traffic remains hazardous to and bicycle traffic because no sidewalks etheian existing subdivision. exist within 23. A majority (probably a substantial majority) of the traffic entering and exiting the new subdivision will travel through an existing steep -sloped hsw curve which has radii in the 40' range. This curve cannot be negotiated by school buses if any other vehicle is dangerous in the winter because emaintenanGnt. The err it quite Presented at the location and because of the ravpebinmthe roadway. 24. The applicant identified other subdivisions within South Burlington with road curve radii smaller than required by City regulations. However, none of these radii were as narrow as presented by Country Club Estates, none consisted Of two narrow radii with no intervening straight roadway, none appeared to be adjacent to a slope as steep as in this case and the other examples a presented extremities of other subdivisions rather than thethe entrance to the subdivision. 25. We are Batiefied that use of the "haul road' or Providing access through Mr. Belter's farm do not appear to present viable alternative means at ingress or egress. However, the original subdivision for in'dluded a second access road betweennLots 191andr20. A right-of-way to the project lands was reserved to the applicant for this apparent purpose. 26. The Applicants provided no satisfactory explanation why access to the subdivision could not be provided through this existing right-of-way. While some mention was made about an encroaching structure, there was no evidence presented by the applicant upon which we could find that alternative access is not available. 27. Therefore, we continue to find that introduction of substantial additional traffic to existing subdivision streets would create undue congestion and unsafe conditions on those streets. While these conditions appear primarily attributable to poor planning and execution by the Bolters' predecessor in title, we cannot ignore the substantial hazard the proposed access plan would pose to existing residents of Country Club Estates. We conclude that the project as proposed will cause or result in a detriment to public health, safety and welfare under Criteria 1 (Air pollution), 1(F) (Winooski shoreline), 4 (Soil Erosion), 5 and 9(K) (Traffic safety and congestion within Country Club Estates), and 8 (negative aesthetic impact of blasting). we, therefore, deny the Applicants' motion for reconsideration of our February 3, 19891 decision. Dated at Burlington, Vermont this` day of March, 1990. W. Gilbert Chairperson District #4 Livingston Commission Commissioners participating in decisions M. Lynn Whalen I hereby certify that I, Louis Borie, District Coordinator for the #4 District of the Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Decision Motion to Reconsider regarding #4CO643-6R by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this 5th day of March, 1990 to the following: John & Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 John Ponsetto Gravel and Shea Corporate Plaza 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Margaret Picard, City Clerk City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Chuck Hafter, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main St. - 2 Center Waterbury, VT- 05676 ge 2 'PaCertificate of Service #4C0643-6R 1 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul 33 Mountainview Blvd. South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Ann & Andrew Hong 1c/o David Conard Bag. P.O. Box 1489 i Burlington, VT 05402 Dave and Pat Myette 46 country Club Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Richard Ahern 17 Country Club Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Philip Laroque 13 Mountainview Blvd. South Surlington, Vermont 05403 j Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners C/o William Ellis ;MCNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street I Burlington, Vermont 05401 Lance Llewellyn Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn 1 Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 Marc Roy 16 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Page 3 certificate of Service #4C0643-6R SQR YQUR inn UbTION District #4 -'nvironmental Commission W. Gilbert Livingston M. Lynn Whalen 111 West street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 5th day of March, 1990. BY f Loui Borie zeA District Coordinator 14CO6436R.doc/eb CHARLES T. SHEA STEPHEN R. CRAMPTON STEWART H. McCONAUGHY ROBERT B. HEMLEY WILLIAM G. POST, JR CRAIG WEATHERLY JAMES E.KNAPP JOHN R. PON5ETTO DENNI5 R. PEARSON NORMAN WILLIAMS PETER S. ERLY ROBERT F. O'NEILL SUSAN W. SWEETSER MARGARETL. MONTGOMERY GRAVEL AND SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW CORPORATE PLAZA 76 ST. PAUL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1049 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 May 25, 1990 Ms. Stephanie Kaplan Vermont Environmental Board 58 E. State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Re: Belters' Appeal Application #4C0634-17 Dear Stephanie: AREA CODE 802 TELEPHONE 658-0220 FAX 658-1456 CLARKE A. GRAVEL COUNSEL The parties of interest have agreed to extend the date for filing prefiled testimony 0 from June 1, 1990 to June 8, 1990. Very truly yours, GRAVEL AND SHEA I!r I � /"/,()hn R. Ponsetto JRP:wbb cc: Parties of Record Certificate of Service I hereby certify that 1, John R. Ponsetto, sent a copy of the foregoing letter by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 25th day of May, 1990, to the following: John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Estates South Burlington, VT 05403 Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joe Weith, City Planner and City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Ann & Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, Marc Roy by David Conard, Esq. PO Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Sinclair, Esq. Representative, State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 For Information Only Louis Borie, Coordinator District #IV Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dated at Burlington, this 25th day of May, 1990. J n R. Ponsetto Gravel and Shea PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402 MILLER, EGGLESTON & ROSENBERG, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 150 SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREET P.O. BOX 1489 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1489 MARTIN K. MILLER JON R. EGGLESTON MICHAEL B.ROSENBERG ANNE CRAMER HONG DAVID W. M. CONARD JOHN B. KASSEL MARK A. SAUNDERS VICTORIA J. BROWN KATHLEEN M. BOE Counsel. PATRICIA L. RICKARD FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Pearl Houghton State of Vermont Environmental Board 58 East State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 May 2, 1991 TELEPHONE (802) 864-0880 TELECOPIER (802) 864-0328 RE: John and Joyce Belter - Case No. 4C0643-6R-EB Dear Pearl: In connection with the referenced matter, I enclose the original and 11 copies of Neighbors' Response to Proposed Land Use Permit and Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and Certificate of Service for same. Please file -stamp the extra copy and return it to me in the enclosed envelope. truly uly yours, Danard For the Firm W%aw Enclosures cc: Service List STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: John and Joyce Belter ) Case No. 4C0643-6R-EB NEIGHBORS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED LAND USE PERMIT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER Sally Guerette and Ruth Paul, Anne and Andrew Hong, Dave and Pat Myette, Richard Ahern, Louise and Philip Laroque, and Marc Roy (the "Neighbors"), by and through their attorneys, Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg, Ltd., submit this Response to the Proposed Land Use Permit and Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order issued by an administrative hearing panel of the Board on April 23, 1991. For the reasons set forth below, the Applicants' request for a Permit should be denied. Alternatively, certain Findings, and conditions contained in the Proposed Permit should be amended and/or clarified. I. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The administrative hearing panel's conclusion that blasting associated with the Project will not have an undue adverse aesthetic impact is not adequately supported by Findings, and is therefore clearly erroneous. At Page 14 of its Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order, the hearing panel correctly articulates the Quechee analysis for determining whether an adverse aesthetic effect is "undue." However, the hearing panel then misapplies that analysis in concluding that the adverse aesthetic effect of blasting from this project is not undue. As the hearing panel correctly asserts, it must conclude that an adverse effect is undue if it answers in the affirmative any one or more of the following questions: (1) Does the project violate a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area? (2) Does the project offend the sensibilities of the average person? (3) Has the Applicant failed to take generally available mitigating steps which a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings? The hearing panel correctly concluded that the blasting from the Project does not violate a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area. The hearing panel also found that, by drilling and blasting on the back side of the mass rock, and by limiting drilling and blasting to the winter months, the Applicant had not failed to take generally available mitigating steps. Thus, the hearing panel has support in its Findings for its negative responses to questions 1 and 3 of the Quechee analysis. However, the hearing panel's conclusion of a negative response to question 2 of the Quechee analysis is unsupported and clearly erroneous. The hearing panel concludes that, if conducted in the summertime, the blasting would be "at least offensive, if not shocking." Thus, the hearing panel concluded that the project would offend the sensibilities of the average person (i.e., question number 2 was answered in the affirmative). However, the 2 hearing panel then concluded that the blasting "will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics if conducted during the winter months because generally available mitigating steps will have been taken." In rendering this conclusion, the hearing panel is misapplying the Quechee analysis. The response to question number 2 cannot be based solely on an analysis of question number 3, and must be based on independent Findings of Fact. The hearing panel did not conclude, nor on the basis of the evidence presented can it conclude, that, even if conducted in the winter, the blasting will not offend the sensibilities of the average person. For the foregoing reasons, the hearing panel's conclusion that the Project will not have undue adverse aesthetic effect cannot stand, and the Applicant's request for a permit must be denied due to the Applicant's failure to sustain its burden under criterion 8. II. FINDINGS OF FACT Proposed Finding of Fact No. 44, based upon the testimony of Kenneth Kaliski, should be corrected to accurately reflect that testimony. Finding of Fact No. 44 should read: The probability of a vehicle- Jscioal iu conflict on the "S" curve will increase from 38 percent to 63 percent in a week and from 10 percent to 18 percent on any one occasion. III. PROPOSED LAND USE PERMIT In the event that the Board determines that a Permit should be issued, the Neighbors respectfully request that the Board clarify and/or amend the following permit conditions prior to issuance of a Permit: Condition No. 7; Condition No. 24; Condition No. 26; Condition No. 32. The Neighbors further request that a Condition 3 No. 35 be added to the Permit. (A) Condition No. 7, Dust Control. Proposed Permit Condition No. 7 mandates that the Permitees take certain dust control measures. However, by its terms, Proposed Condition No. 7 applies only to "roadways or disturbed areas within the Project .." The unrefuted evidence establishes that the use of the farm roads on the Applicant's property, which lead to the Project site, have in the past been sources of significant dust. The Proposed Permit requires that vehicles involved in the construction of the Project utilize these farm roads for access to the Project site. However, Proposed Permit Condition No. 7 does not specifically address the dust which will be generated by vehicles using the farm roads. The Neighbors respectfully request that Permit Condition No. 7 be amended to read as follows: The Permitees shall apply and maintain calcium chloride on all roadways or disturbed areas within . the Pro! ect, or wh<ch_ ;are used: for ass :.:tn_,.:.... r Proposed Permit Condition No. 24 prohibits "all vehicles associated with construction of the proposed subdivision . . . from travelling on the streets of Country Club Estates." This Proposed Permit Condition is based upon Proposed Finding of Fact No. 38 which states, in pertinent part: "[T]he Board will prohibit the use of any roads within Country Club Estates 4 for any vehicles associated with the construction of the proposed subdivision." (emphasis added). Proposed Permit Condition No. 24, when read in conjunction with Proposed Finding No. 38, encompasses within its prohibition concrete and lumber trucks, and carpenters' personal vehicles. However, when read in isolation, Proposed Permit Condition No. 24 is ambiguous. Accordingly, the Neighbors respectfully request that Permit Condition No. 24 be amended to read as follows: All vehicles associated with construction of the ur000sed subdivision:;:. r ............houses...:..:..ar..._::: oth:er from travelling on the streets of Country Club Estates. (C) Condition No. 26, Sidewalk Construction. Proposed Permit Condition No. 26 mandates that "prior to commencement of construction of any houses in the proposed subdivision, a sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of Country Club Drive .." The Proposed Permit Condition, as phrased, contains no limitation on the type, or location of the sidewalk, other than it is to be located on the east side of Country Club Drive. Nor does this Proposed Permit Condition provide for review of the sidewalk design by the District Commission (see, e.g., Condition No. 25 re: plans for widening the "S" curve). For purposes of clarification, the Neighbors respectfully request that Permit Condition No. 26 be amended to read as follows: k Prior to commencement of construction of any houses in the proposed subdivision, a coneret: sidewalk: cr�nfor;m ng; *. .1 standards,; shall be constructed on the east "side of, and rad�ozn�ng: Country Club Drive at least from the ecreation area through to the proposed subdivision. A..p:an for eanstruznc (D) Condition No. 32, Construction Completion Deadline. Proposed Permit Condition No. 32 does not include a proposed date by which construction on this project must be completed. This Board has previously explained that the construction completion deadline in Act 250 Permits are very important, because they insure that projects will "be built during the time in which the circumstances which led to approval still apply." See, Re: Homestead Design, Inc., No. 4C0468-1-EB, (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, dated September 6, 1990). Accordingly, the Neighbors respectfully request that Permit Condition No. 32 mandate that all construction on the Project must be completed by not later than three (3) years from the date of permit issuance. (E) Additional Condition, Notification of Parties A number of the conditions of the Proposed Permit make explicit or implicit reference to the ongoing jurisdiction of the District 4 Environmental Commission. However, the Proposed Permit is silent as to ongoing party status before the District Commission. To clarify this issue, the Neighbors respectfully request that the following condition be incorporated in the Permit: Dated at Burlington, Vermont this 2nd day of May, 1991. MILL EGGLESTON & ROSENBERG, LTD. By: -0 r"j Dav' . M. na 150 outh Champlain Street P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 (802) 864-0880 Attorneys for Neighbors 7 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Re: John and Joyce Belter ) No. 4C0643-6R CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Neighbor's Response to Proposed Land Use Permit and Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order was served by placing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2nd day of May, 1991, addressed to the following: Chairman, Board of Selectmen City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 108 Essex Jct., VT 05452 Louis Borie, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Jct., VT 05452 John and Joyce Belter c/o John Ponsetto, Esq. Gravel & Shea 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 1049 Burlington, VT 05402 E3 Joe Weith, City Planner & City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Kurt Janson, Esq. Rep., State Agencies Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury,.VT 05676 Burlington Board of Airport Commissioners c/o William Ellis, Esq. McNeil & Murray 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05401 William Bright 45 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403